A Case Against Islam: London terror, why spouses cheat on each other, and topless women in France

It was kind of weird to have been standing in the exact same spots as the terrorist attack victims had been when an Islamic lunatic hell-bent on Crusader revenge from the Middle Ages, ran his car into them in London, England near the Parliament building just a few feet from where Prime Minister Theresa Mays was speaking. After all, there were so many places in the world, and so many streets where something like that could have happened, yet it occurred on the exact walking path that my wife and I had just taken and the images where still fresh in our minds from our trip.  I found myself wishing that this had happened when I was there so I could have done something about it.  So close, yet so far away.  I did warn of this very thing as I was reporting what I saw in London, and Paris from that same trip and with all the Muslim people at all levels of activity within those two very liberal cities—the writing was on the wall.  You just can’t mix the religion of a Medieval origin with a forward-thinking civilization scratching at the ceiling of space and expect them to assimilate well together.  And that’s what’s happening.  There is a war between the east and the west and one side is going to win, and one side will lose as earth becomes one thing or another and those are the raw facts.  For many thousands of years, we’ve run from each other after one battle to another and now the world is just too small, and until we move into space, the fight between the two fundamentally different philosophies will battle it out in our city streets for supremacy.  We will never get along.

I of course am a white representative of western culture and my background is from the roots of that civilization—so obviously, I think its superior to all forms of eastern thinking. With that said, Christianity is an “eastern” concept.  It is not an idea born of western civilization as so wonderfully articulated by the 1150 AD art of Wolfram von Eschenbach and a few other writers who expressed the romance of the troubadours for about 100 years before the Catholic Church built their cathedrals all over England and ruled everything through the Church for the next thousand years.  We wouldn’t see another period like Eschenbach’s nobility, chivalry and romance in story form until the American western rose up for another 100-year period from about 1850 AD to 1950 AD for exactly the same reasons, to express the desires of the truly free, and western heart specific to the culture of Cro-Magnon man that evolved after the Ice Age in north western Europe—specifically.  The ideas forged in that region of the world were unique and very different from the rest of the world which has largely been shaped for all of human history by oriental thought.  So let that be a qualifier of my thinking and I have studied both in their various aspects and I see their values respectively—but clearly.

Also keep in mind that I respect people who need religion to hold together their otherwise unstable lives. It is too much to ask most people to live a good life without the fear of everlasting damnation motivating their private actions—so religions—especially for unstable people, is vastly important to maintaining a civil society which was the argument of the Church of England that was all too happy to abandon the romance of Arthurian legends in favor of the sacrament of Christ provided by the clergy.  In the modern era, progressives did the same only their church was that of government as the bureaucrat replaced the Church clergy for the same distribution of sacrament.

However, I am not going to abandon what I think are superior values—as expressed by the individualism of western culture for the “sacrament” of eastern religions—for which Islam and Christianity are but a few. And what is going on in London, Paris, and all over Europe is a clash of western ideas which are more underground these days, and superimposing them with a collision of the obvious surface eastern way of thinking collectively.   For instance, in France it is quite common to see a woman on the beach topless.  What she is doing in that situation is stating that she is an independent woman functioning from her passionate self-recognition.  But the religious background of the modern progressive will say that her nude state is a reflection of the collective essence for which we all are and her sexuality does not belong to one man, or lover—but to the world—that is the sacrificial aspect of it that came to the region from its long history with eastern infused religions—which essentially came from the Roman Empire trying to hold everything together in the last few hundred years of its existence.  The surface argument that many have about the topless women at French beaches is first of the morality of the nudity—which is fear of the Church—(Christianity and Islam).  But then there is that ancient troubadour history of western culture that inspires the woman to stand against those institutions proudly declaring to the world that she is a product of her own inclinations.  That’s why today we have all these kids looking like tattooed pin cushions declaring their individuality from the traditions of our past even through they are copying each other for the look—because they don’t know how to break down all these influences in their lives—because they are all stacked in dysfunctional ways.  That makes Islam’s simplicity appealing—which is a means of recruiting and why this problem is currently exploding.

In the confusion of our modern times western civilization has felt it had to apologize for the crimes of the Church during times of imperialist rule, through the Romans, then through the English and French Empires where Catholic missionaries did to the world what Islamic radicals are doing now—converting the world to their version of an eastern religion inherited from Zoroastrianism—and the cultures of the Indus Valley well before the times of the Greek. Christianity and Islam in fact are children of Zoroastrian religion, so they are not new to the human race but only the most recent embodiment of religion for the times of those large empires—which are outdated and useless to mankind in 2020 AD.  It was nice that Muslims preserved the work of Aristotle from the destruction of the Library in Alexandria by Roman radicals—but as far as original contributions, there is nothing innovative about Islamic culture that makes it more special to anybody else.  The same angel Gabriel as he did in the Bible was behind the shaping of Islam, so there isn’t anything really to fight over between Muslims and Christians that demand death.  Their rivalry is no different from that of a sport franchise between two teams within a 100 miles of each other.  They have a lot more in common than not.  If the religion produces zealots’ intent on murder, then the whole enterprise should be abandoned as a state religion.  No country should put their name on such a thing because it’s an outdated concept that has brought more harm to the human race than not.

My personal values which I share with many people in western civilization is that the original concepts of Wolfram von Eschenbach, of personal bliss and defying the authority of institutional barriers is a human concept that deserves its time in the sun. The eastern religions promise more of the same kind of trouble that has soaked mankind in blood from its inception.  Even though they preach peace often in Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity and all the variants in between—the result is often war because each attaches itself to state sponsorship and politics—which then become something not so sanctimonious.  In the case of London, the terrorist who attacked so many people in the heart of that nice historic city wanted to use fear to convert people to his religion—and to impose the black flag of ISIS over the state symbols of the Christianized Europe that unleashed the Crusades on the Middle East centuries ago.  It’s time to stop, and to insist on that stoppage loudly.  No member of Islam has a right to murder other people in the name of God.  And for the liberals who have been running England and France, you cannot mix the religions of the east with the innate passions of the individualized west—because even in the most ardent liberal—the topless woman on a French beach—there is a little bit of the Arthurian romances in them—and they’ll never assimilate with the religions of the east.  Ever.  It’s not in their DNA.

There will be no conquest of western civilization as ISIS fantasizes about—especially through fear because they don’t understand what makes us tick as a species of “westerners.” The moment we were free of the Church of England in America we developed into the frontiersman and cowboys of cinema that is the innate condition of our people—our heritage.  And regarding that particular mentality, it is better to destroy 1 million collectivists than to break the heart of one individual who is trying to live authentically according to their bliss.  A marriage between two people in love by their choice is better than an arranged marriage to bring two tribes together under the premise of oriental philosophy—which has been the common practice of the Church for many years both in Islam and Christianity.  When it comes to values, individuals take the world forward.  Collectivists take it back—every time—it’s the classic Vico cycle—theocracy, aristocracy, democracy, anarchy—then back again to the beginning as Orientals have been doing for thousands of years.

When we talk about the “west” we are not talking about London as it is today. Radical terrorists aren’t attacking the concept of the west as they think they are when they kill innocent people outside of Parliament.  Because that old idea of the “west” is much deeper in our culture than any surface reaction to collectivist religions. And the centerpiece of that value system is that the individual is more valuable than a collective ideology.  More minds do not make something better—it makes it worse because it forces an inauthentic experience.  So when we look at trying to assimilate Islam with the “west” it will never work.  It can’t work.  A choice between the two has to be made and that choice was made on the battlefields—and Islam lost over and over again.  And it always will because collectivists do not beat individuals  They can only win in mass force—they cannot win in ideology and that is why Islam no longer works and should be tossed aside in favor of something else.  If that religion can’t be more constructive for the meager minds that adhere to it for their own personal faults—then the religion needs to be dropped from state sponsorship and pushed from the human experience—so we can deal with the real problems of the human race—and not this contrived religion from the Middle Ages.

Islam is at war with the west and they aren’t looking to make peace. They are on a mission to convert as many people to Islam through any means and they won’t stop until they are all killed or accomplish their task.  Catholic missionaries did this before, and it caused a lot of trouble around the world.  Now Islam is doing it and they will accomplish the same results.  Because people don’t want to be killed, they’ll tell the Islamic terrorists whatever they want to hear, but what’s in their hearts will be something else.  And just like people cheat on their spouses and do anything and everything out of rebellion from whatever religion they come from—life in the west has at its core a need for rebellion.  And that isn’t a new thing, it comes from our Cro-Magnon experience to always push whatever limits we are presented with—and that is what advances society.  Not that cheating on a spouse is a good thing, it’s not, but when the marriage becomes to the human mind an instrument of the state—the romance leaves the marriage, and rebellion in some way is the mode of western thinking.  The oriental religion of Islam won’t work for the west and it’s too late to go back.  So we either go to all-out war with Islam to preserve the west—or we go extinct.  There is no middle way as liberals like to think.  The two cultures just don’t assimilate because their evolutional trajectories are going in radically different directions.

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

The Two Ingredients All Successful Societies Must Have: Guns and Books

As I spoke yesterday about the faults of James Comey’s speech on personal security within the United States now I feel I must identify the real answer to what is required for a free society.  I’ve been working out this little problem for a while now and it really took my recent trip to Europe for me to confirm with more than theory the proper contents of what it takes to have a self-governed society functioning healthily in a constitutional republic.  As I’ve said before on other topics, I wish sometimes that life could be so simple for me to have one solitary occupation which I could throw myself into that I could say—I am this—or that.  Such as someone who works as an engineer might say upon introductions—“I’m so and so and I’m an engineer,” my life is a lot more complicated.  And if given the opportunity to be a historian I would do it, because I have an unnaturally complicated relationship with history.  I pursue it for fun and often find myself thinking about it all hours of the day.  Given that, I know much more about history than the average person, so when I say that the two big drivers of misery in Europe throughout the Dark and Medieval ages was the absence of personal protection—weapons—and the ability to read—I would be saying specifically how we can solve these problems going forward and take mankind off the track of the Vico cycle which has plagued us all for tens of thousands of years.  With those two elements absent from those historic societies—for which much of the known world of today is based—battles between church and state dominated the lives of everyone leaving individuality to sacrifice itself to national security many times over.

One thing that astonished me about the many English people who I met during my travels was how literate they were and proud of it.  They like to read in England and they should, the concept was born there.  It’s only been fairly recently that the printing of individual books was even possible for common people.  It was from 1400 AD to really the reign of King Henry VIII that Bibles were printed for individual consumption bringing the word of God to every household and leaving the Church to feel very insecure about their ability to usher mankind through the gates of Heaven for the good of the State.  I felt quite privileged to walk among the ruins of various monasteries in England, such as the great St. Augustine’s Abby because in 1536 AD they were destroyed out of a need for money by the regime.  That left the monks who had previously provided all the intellectual work of translating the scripture to the people who attended their churches to be the symbols of thinking in the medieval world.  After destroying the various monasteries, a power vacuum occurred and the Reformation effort spread as people started to question the relationship between an often corrupt Roman Catholic Church clergy, the various kings, and God.  By the time the first Welsh Bible was published in print during 1567 a lot of discussion regarding the Mathew’s Bible printed in 1537 had taken place.  King Henry VIII was very anxious about letting the lower orders of society read the Bible for themselves because it had severe political and social consequences.

It was only a few years later that Robert Cushman commissioned the Mayflower to flee to America to escape the church’s ever increasing losing grip on the “commoners” such as what happened in Canterbury quite explicitly as Henry’s children struggled with the social changes that reading Bibles had introduced to their society.  This explosion of thought advanced to the days of the pirates over the next hundred years as the exploits of the great Henry Morgan came back to England from the Caribbean region as countries used privateers to rob other countries of the loot they were stealing from the Meso American region.  Democracy was invented on pirate ships as they were functioning governments far removed from the countries of their origin and mankind was turned loose for the first known time in the history of the world—and writers like John Locke were there to record the observations for people like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin to expand upon later.  Secret societies like the Illuminati and the Scottish Rites developed a line of philosophy divorced from the English crown as the publication of books began to create a new kind of human being among the would-be intellectuals who could afford books that in previous centuries were either monks or members of the king’s court.

During the 1750s those inspired by the new books of Europe to flee to America to live as frontiersman erupted into westward expansion.  During the years of the French and Indian War then eventually the Revolutionary War—then the War of 1812, then the Civil War the full fruition of knowledge shared through books were matched with the possession of personal firearms which allowed for the kind of self-reliance that Ralph Waldo Emersion and his friend Henry David Thoreau contemplated as Transcendentalists.  It is important to remember that as of all the events that lead to the Civil War in America books had only been present for reading among human populations for about 250 years.  Personal books were not available outside of state-run institutions until this present time and it was books that led to the explosion in even contemplating individual liberty.

It was all the way up to the beginning of the 20th Century that personal firearms were the keys to American life.  After all, frontiersman and cowboys were able to hunt and forge a life for themselves anywhere in the world so long as they had a gun and a Bible to read by the firelight to their families to pass the time—and human consciousness expanded rapidly.   The American Indian didn’t have a chance against these European escapees armed with personal firearms and the knowledge they had acquired from books printed in New England and shipped west to markets emerging along the many rivers of the new nation.  Indians were a collective based society and they were much like the oriental forces that had been crushed under the expanding French and English empires that were dominating the world driven not by the great military leaders of Napoleon and the likes Wellington—but of those societies having access to the ability to read for the first time.  They were smarter than their opponents and the North American Indian may have been living in accord with nature, but mankind was conquering nature through contemplation derived by reading—and the Indians lost because they couldn’t think as individuals.  Reading is a very individual oriented type of activity.

That gave birth to the American Western—of the cowboy gunslinger, which represented to the world something new—an individual human being protected by their gun and functioning as a self-reliant entity that didn’t need a church for their spiritual awakening—because they could read—and they didn’t need a government to protect them because they had a gun.  It was those two things that created the American cowboy and which eventually led the rest of the world to contemplating personal liberty.  As of the present, the world has not yet accepted the superior philosophic position of the American gunslinger because there is a lot more to it than just having the ability to take the life of another human being, or being able to read a book on their own without the interpretation of a church clergy to tell them what it said.   This is why socialist statists deeply concerned about this wave of personal freedom happening in American like Barack Obama were so weary about the electorate holding on to their “God and their Guns.  They know that it is those two elements that prevented a society from falling in behind the old European model where political elites controlled the commoners through ignorance and superior might.  Modern progressives desire deeply to take society back to the time right before Henry VIII where people could be managed between the church and the state which is why they support so vehemently the introduction of Islamic radicalism into Europe and America because they desire to use that religion to reduce intellectual capacity and drive society back to a theocracy instead of an intellectual republic without central controls.  That is also why liberals are all about gun control regardless of what the stats say on the matter.

It is therefore the ability to read and the ability to own a personal firearm and even to carry it around with you that decentralizes all governments and puts the power truly into the people—and it’s really a new idea which has only flowered in America.  As I said, the English people are very literate and that was refreshing.  But they don’t have guns, and so as a result they still live much the way they did during the Middle-Ages. Currently it’s not the Catholic Church or even the monarchy which drives their society, but their history in those activities still bind their society to that foundation just as Japan still fashions itself to their samurai period.  That leaves them all with one ingredient toward personal freedom, but not the other.

Only in America and only with both the gun and the books of our culture has freedom advanced.  America actually is on over saturation because not only do we have books, but we have 1000s of channels of cable television, 100 years of motion pictures to watch, endless books and countless things to entertain ourselves with—so literacy isn’t as high of a priority as it should be in our society—but there is no way to go back.  Mankind will never surrender their freedoms back to the security of state-run centralized society such as those envisioned by Henry VIII’s friend Thomas More in his book Utopia.  Those days are gone forever because just the act of reading a book like Utopia, or The Communist Manifesto, lead eventually toward a human mind craving freedom.  It’s the Catch 22 for progressives who want to revert back to a theocracy they control whether it is Islam or environmentalism that is worshipped.  Human beings once they get a taste for it won’t go back and if you look at history, you can see clearly a trajectory of thought that leaves us either destroying ourselves or settling space—but we won’t go back.  And societies around the world will not advance on just books and knowledge alone.  They have to allow for personal firearms in order to truly unleash the potential of the human beings in their societies.  You cannot have the good intellectual stuff that comes from a free society without doing the things it takes to have a free society and owning personal firearms is just as important as literacy.  And those are the facts.  You need two things to have a society of free people thriving in a country—any country—they have to be literate with plenty of books and a desire to read them, and they must have guns—lots and lots of them.

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 Real Problem with Illegal Immigration: Changing what people are running from in the first place

It was an interesting interview between Fox News host Tucker Carlson and Univision News anchor Jorge Ramos because it exhibited quite wonderfully the problem over illegal immigration. When Carlson asked—“do I not have a right to not like that the country does not look like the one I grew up in” he asked a very powerful question.  Of course Ramos exhibited the modern George Soros open border viewpoint that the United States is changing and that these are facts of life that we should all just accept.  But the real essence to the question is not whether or not America should look like a particular color of people—but that the idea of America be preserved no matter who the majority ethnic group might be—because the function of any people in moving to the United States over the last 400 years—likely much longer—was to get away from something to live better in North America.  However, open border advocates assume that when people come to America through illegal and legal immigration that those new people have a right to bring the culture they are running from with them—and that just isn’t the case.

If an immigrant is coming from Venezuela, Nepal, Vietnam, India, Columbia, Mexico—or anywhere that has had their economy destroyed by communism and socialism—they do not have a right to bring that garbage into America to change the nature of our country. The situation is not one of skin color, or even sex—it’s all about the values that make up a society.  America works as a capitalist nation and those coming to the United States for opportunity must respect that opportunity and they can’t bring the garbage they are running from with them.  That is the essence of the immigration argument.  People coming from someplace else have an obligation to assimilate to where they are going.  They don’t have a right to change the nature of the American idea.

I know far more immigrants than I do people from Appalachia America—or in other words I know many more people who are not of white skin color than I do those of my own skin color, and I like those people because often they have good families and strong personal values. But I’m clear with them that I will respect them so long as what they want in life is to work hard and live the American dream.  However, if they start voting for socialists in America and seek to turn our nation into some third world armpit of communism—then I have a problem with them.  It has nothing to do with the color of their skin or their country of origin.

Additionally, I was just able to travel through Europe and I have seen firsthand the trouble I have been reading about and watching on the news for years. Europe is under siege from the former communist block of east European countries and the communist insurgency injected into the Middle East during the 1970s—which is hiding behind the religion of Muslim faith to penetrate the “west” for revenge over Sykes Picot and the centuries long battle of the first Crusades.  Muslims are pouring into Paris and London at an alarming rate not to assimilate—but to change those great European cities from the inside out—and they have been attempting to do the same in America.

Unfortunately for open border advocates like Ramos there isn’t much Mexican history to go on to justify their society as a long-established entity. When there are claims that Texas was taken from Mexico or that there are open disputes along the border into Arizona and elsewhere the truth is that the Spanish conquered the Aztecs in 1519 and sacked the Mayan civilization around the same time—as well as the Incan Empire in South America.  The Spanish looted all the treasure of those cultures and hauled them back to Europe leaving the French and English to fight over what was left—leaving Mexico, Central America and South American depleted and destroyed.  The Spanish mixed with the beaten Aztec and Mayan people creating the people we see today and socialism replaced their former great economy under the Aztec Empire into one of a welfare state centered on Marxist ideas.  So what does Mexico, Central America or any country in South America have to bring to the United States but ideas that would collapse our economy because the people born of those regions were created under the flag of conquest?  We aren’t living in a world where everybody gets a trophy.  In North America, the Indians were beaten in the war over land.  So the rights go to the victor.  In Mexico, the people were beaten.  They don’t get rights to live equally in a world against a culture built on superior ideas.  And that is the problem for people like Ramos.  Admitting that the United States is a superior culture is something that nobody is willing to accept—yet there is a reason that people are willing to put themselves into danger to come to America in the first place—and those reasons need to be respected—and protected.  In order for those people to have opportunity in America the preservation of what makes America special must be preserved.

Mexico never had their act together—they were built from a culture of conquest and pillaging—and they never got their feet set as a country of ideas from the time the Aztecs were beaten to the present—over 500 years later. That’s not something to celebrate.  If anything, Mexico should be taking notes from America—not pouring into North America to bring socialism to our economy to turn it into the backwoods armpit that Mexico is presently.  Mexico could be great, but under the current conditions, it is terrible and I feel sorry for the people imprisoned there.  If they want to become United States citizens—I’m happy to welcoming them—but they aren’t allowed to destroy our culture in the process.

The North American Indian was not native to America—that falsehood was perpetuated by lazy science not willing to accept new discoveries made over the last 150 years that declare pre-Columbian archaeology had a much more advanced culture than what we typically associate with the nomads discovered by Columbus. And the same in Mexico, the Aztecs and whatever culture built the pyramids at Teotihuacan were far more advanced than the Spanish conquistadors who settled in the area and looted that culture into the despots we have now in that region.  If open border advocates wish to acknowledge those historical aspects, then they might get some historical agreement from people like me.  But they are defending conquered countries and insisting that the European translation of history serve as the backdrop of migration justification.  For instance, the slave trade in America was a European inheritance that was eventually eliminated as a result of our American Revolution—but Europe committed far worse atrocities when they looted Central and South America of its former wealth—yet that is never discussed.  But the evidence is still present in the people of today and they flee to America looking for hope and opportunity—but bring with them all the troubles they are trying to flee from.  That is not a sane option.

Understanding all that, Europe is falling apart, Russia doesn’t even have an economy that exceeds the one American company like Apple, China is a communist nation, and Japan is struggling with debt and limited resources—who in the world can save the rest of it from their long histories of bad decisions currently holding down many people from living good lives. Is the answer to let all the world into America as immigrants so to topple the last free and just place on earth—or should the rest of the world take notes from the United States and start forming their cultures around what works in our nation?  If open border supporters like Jorge Ramos really want to save their people in Mexico, Central America and into South America than how about proposing that those counties become more like America and embrace a capitalist form of economy abandoning what they have been doing which is causing so much misery.  We can’t let the world bring communism and socialism into America and expect it to remain a place of hopes and dreams—because those immigrants will just turn our cities into the slums they are running from by nature—because they haven’t changed their patterns of behavior.  Rather, those immigrants should in most cases stay put and adopt American ideas in the Middle East, in Mexico, in all of South America—India—Indonesia—Vietnam—everywhere so that opportunity could be found in their own backyard and not halfway around the world under illegal conditions.  The real issue is that these places that immigrants are fleeing from should change their ways so people aren’t so eager to leave.  That should be the concern of Jorge Ramos—because only when you fix that problem will everything else snap into place.

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

Robert Cushman in the Westgate Tower: Where America was born–and the reason for separation of church and state

img_4159For my wife and I it was a bit of an overwhelming moment, only because we both love history and have a strong reverence for the Holiday of Thanksgiving in the United States. I had known that Robert Cushman who originally commissioned the Mayflower for the famous voyage to North America which of course unleashed the famous Thanksgiving Holiday that we celebrate each year unlocking the Christmas Season, but I didn’t think I’d ever get close to sitting in the cell where he was held imprisoned by the Church for spreading protestant pamphlets.  Yet, while touring the city streets of the ancient city of Canterbury, England at the Westgate Towers I found myself in a room exhibiting the shackles that were used for holding prisoners there and sure enough on the wall was the information talking about Cushman’s ordeal that led to the start of the Mayflower voyage in that very room.

img_4175A lot of people these days don’t really understand the necessity, and context of the argument between American separation of church and state because they have been free all their lives and have a shallow knowledge of history. But for Cushman who’s only ambition in life was to be a grocer on the streets of his childhood home in Kent he was a very passionate religious person who found himself in the crosshairs of the Church and their desire to be the primary vehicle through sacrament to Heaven.  Cushman naturally resented that control and wanted a more passionate relationship with God directly.  So the Church had him thrown in jail and as he sat in the cell at Westgate his young mind set him on a life course that would usher in the first pilgrims into the New World and start the concept of America.img_4161

In a lot of ways, the birth of the United States happened right in that spot in Westgate so it was a little overwhelming. The role that Canterbury played was phenomenal—it was a town that featured at least two major earthwork mounds that are credited to the pre-Roman period, but I personally think are even thousands of years older—likely the same type of people who inhabited the Stonehenge area over 100 miles to the west.  Both St Augustine’s Abby and a gigantic mound the size of the Miamisburg Mound in Ohio sit among the ruins of the great Roman city that set Canterbury on its start.  But then the Romans pulled out a few 400 years later and in came the Anglo Saxons from Germany and elsewhere.  But William the Conqueror from the lineage of the Viking Rollo invaded from France and dominated the countryside. When he came to Canterbury the people surrendered without a fight and thus the great Cathedrals began, first at St Augustine’s Abby, then the great Canterbury Cathedral and the region quickly became known as the Church of all England.  Fast forward another 500 years or so and Robert Cushman was wanting to apprentice as a grocer but as a young passionate man critical of the Church’s role in the issuing of the sacrament found himself locked away in that old Roman tower.img_4169

As many historians understand, the Church of England was always in a perilous relationship with the kings of England and some, especially Henry II and Henry VIII had especially contentious relationships with the power the Church held and pushed up against it. This often put the people of England in the crosshairs of politics whether they wanted to be or not just by their association with needing religion in their lives.   The church and the state were always at war with each other leaving people like Martin Luther and eventually Robert Cushman to make extreme personal sacrifices to be free of the mess.  As he sat cold in the Westgate Tower Robert Cushman made a decision that if and when he was released that he’d escape to someplace friendlier to his religious views.  When he was released, he fled to Holland to live for 9 years but had to leave again because a treaty with Spain was due to expire in 1619 which meant the Spanish Inquisition would soon legislate that little country—so Cushman had to flee again back to his homeland to find some other means of escaping the tyranny of the church and its battles with the state.  So he commissioned the Mayflower in Canterbury to take his small group of protestant followers to a New World where they’d be free to follow their passions which took them to the famous Plymouth Rock in Massachusetts.img_4215

When Satanists and radical Islamic lunatics want to claim that separation of church and state allows them to do whatever they want to whomever they like—they have an inaccurate view of the context of the statement. The separation of church and state was to prevent the situation that Robert Cushman and his pilgrim followers experienced on the ancient streets of Canterbury, England—where they couldn’t be thrown in the Westgate Tower just for having a different view of how the sacraments should be administered to the public.  The Church in its insecure position with the kings of England felt that Rome should continue to stand at the gateway to Heaven, and not those heredity selected masses of human flesh called kings—and if they lost that authority for just a decade of their existence, then the kings would push against the church for power over the people—so the poor people of England were caught in that vice between the state and the church.  People in America didn’t want to find themselves in that situation and they certainly didn’t want to be thrown in jail for having a different belief, as Cushman was.img_4160

For my wife and I it’s one thing to know these stories, it was quite another to stand in those spots and walk down the same corridors as Cushman did and to see what he did under similar conditions. If I had been Cushman, I would have been beyond pissed off and I don’t blame him a bit for organizing his pilgrimage to America to escape such nonsense.  It’s also important for those of us in America to honor the spirit of that first journey.   In many ways, this is the big debate surrounding the immigration debate to this day.  Refugees around the world are fleeing broken regions for the hope that America can shield them with freedom of persecution and economic mobility.  However, there are some who flee to America to destroy it from within from that same jealous Europe and all the fallen empires of the past for that first sinful act of defiance which Cushman fled from to begin with.  They do so not with military might, but with that paradox of squeezing society between the church and the state once again—such as what the radical Islamic terrorists have been advocating in their terrorist’s attempts.  The imposing religious beliefs of these modern terrorists are just a modern version of the medieval inquisitions being imposed on the here and now.  Yet the argument between church and state is the same as it was in Cushman’s time, only now we’ve run out of places to run.  So now we have to stay and fight because America is the last place on earth that is free of that type of tyranny.  And that is why we really celebrate Thanksgiving, and why for my family, it’s a very special Holiday.img_4174

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 Wonderful Work of English Heritage at Stonehenge: Looking 8000 years into the past at a truly global culture

I am a hundred percent sure that when Saint Brendan’s mythic stories were told about sailing across the Atlantic into Canada around 512 AD—1000 years before Christopher Columbus—that the trade routes into the New World were already many thousands of years old. Saint Brendan was only one of the more recent visitors and I was able to confirm this by visiting the fabled wonder of the world—Stonehenge.  I’ve read and watched many documentaries about Stonehenge and the extremely mysterious earthworks all over the Salisbury Plain all the way up to Avebury including the famous Uffington White Horse and I’ve had my suspicions.  I knew there were mounds similar to what are in my home town of Ohio which are generally attributed to the Adena and Hopewell Indians—but upon arriving at the vast and newly refurbished Stonehenge Heritage site, it was clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the same culture of people who built the earthworks at Stonehenge were the same who built them in Ohio and the surrounding area within the United States meaning that there was trade and communication between Europe and America many thousands of years before modern times.  The evidence was extremely overwhelming.  As I stood at Stonehenge and looked 360 degrees in every direction I could see mound earthworks which all looked like those found in Fort Ancient, in Ohio.  And 20 miles north in Avebury was the Silbury Hill which was an even larger version of the Miamisburg Mound that I’ve spoken so much about.  At Stonehenge the great novel, Finnegan’s Wake came to life before my eyes as science merged with myth to confirm a reality that was all too distressing for the human race.IMG_3926.JPG

Before continuing, let me report something very positive. As much as my visit to The Louvre in Paris was extremely disappointing, the visit to the new Heritage Vistor’s Center at Stonehenge was completely positive in every way.  I continue to be extremely impressed with the Heritage people within the United Kingdom.  My membership with them is something that I will always treasure.  Everywhere I have gone from the Saint Augustine’s Abby, to Dover Castle, Old Sarum and several other sites, they always have a good staff on hand to promote the Heritage work and the featured site.  Most notably was the Old Sarum location just about 6 or 7 miles South of Stonehenge—which I will talk about in another article extensively because it was actually my target for exploration—not Stonehenge, and was absolutely spectacular.  That site was relatively remote yet the Heritage staff had a very nice acquaintance area with drinks, books, and even restrooms far better than The Louvre.  It was something to step across a long bridge over a deep ravine to come out on the other side and have a cozy little shed with the Heritage staff inside to get you off the windswept plains surrounding the magnificent monument.  But Stonehenge is kind of the capital monument for the Heritage team and the one that has received all the press over the years—so everyone knows it—and what those fine people did there was simply amazing.img_4010

The big improvement is that the road that used to run immediately through Stonehenge had been removed and replaced with an almost amusement park like setting with the visitor’s center over a mile away from the ancient ruins. In year’s past the viewing area for the megaliths were out near the concentric circle which has always surrounded the temple area.  However, not anymore.  Under the English Heritage leadership the viewing area now takes you right up next to the site without destroying the ground under foot.  And by moving the visitor’s center way down the road they have separated the incoming tourist traffic with the sacredness of analysis at the actual site.  I thought it was just brilliant because really for the first time you could stand in the middle of what used to be a modern public road and look out all around at the region and that’s where all the mounds surrounding Stonehenge were extremely obvious—more so than in any documentary that I’ve ever seen on the subject.  There were hundreds of them, all like those at Fort Ancient, Ohio in size and technique.  These two cultures knew of each other and practiced similar mythic rituals—and that was no prehistoric accident.img_3929

I photographed extensively, but all the earthworks around Stonehenge are just too massive to capture properly, only the human eye can put a scale to it properly. Much to my surprise archaeologists are now beginning to relax their apprehension to some of the extreme dates around Stonehenge—going back over 8000 years to some of the features—which is a whole new chapter on understanding human development particularly regarding the Stonehenge Cursus which is a very long runway type of earth feature that is over two miles long and 420 feet wide clearly meant to be seen from the sky at very high altitude.  On the ground it is nearly invisible, but it is so large and vast, that only from very high up can it really be seen.  It is every bit as mysterious as a Nazca line in Peru.  It would have been quite majestic to the ancient world and was a sign that a very ancient people knew how to make very straight lines over many miles from the vantage point of the ground which is not easy to do.  The way that the Heritage group was able to remove the road through the Stonehenge site allowed really for the first time a proper analysis of the entire area under modern scrutiny.  It’s one thing to look at some big rocks on the side of the road back when nearby Amesbury was being built 50 years ago and put all the emphasis on the stones.  But it is the surrounding mounds and earthworks that really tell the story—or begin to—which required someone to take the leadership to protect—which is what the English Heritage, the group, has been able to do over the last 10 years.

On the business side, Stonehenge was making a killing on a Sunday afternoon at the end of February. They had a fabulously large café with many people working the cash registers.  The gift shop was enormous and filled with people.  They had a great museum, not large, but effective.  And they had great bathrooms for an entertainment destination in a remote part of England, out on the edge of the western plains an hour outside of London.  It was cold outside and very wet, and breezy and the various commercial enterprises allowed for people to get out of the cold, which is actually a problem all through the year.  The style of the visitors center itself reminded me of the Space Port in New Mexico—meant to look integrated with the surrounding hillsides and unobtrusive.  From the parking lot my son-in-law thought the whole complex was a shack because it looked like a partially constructed giant barn of some kind with a very flat and waving roof.  But that was on purpose to fuse modern and ancient styles together into a unique work of art which was highly functional—and smart.  The complete opposite of The Louvre which is a place that had a lot more to work with, but lazily passed on the opportunity.  The English Heritage folks had made the most out of almost nothing and what they brought to the exhibit of Stonehenge was something that would have been at home at Disney World’s Epcot Center.  Making money helps preserve and uncover history and it is just so wonderful that at least in England they have the English Heritage people who are merging capitalism with historic preservation and unleashing the discoveries of the past at a record pace.  Put money into science and guess what, you get productivity.

But the most important aspect of Stonehenge which is now undeniable is the story around it—the vast complex of ancient earthworks that obviously migrated into North American and likely many other sites around the world. With all the criticism of western conquests and imperialism which we hear so much about in politics, if not for those attributes of an advanced civilization imposing itself on inferior ones—we wouldn’t have things like Stonehenge, and the British Museum.   If not for William the Conqueror making a mountaintop fortress out of Old Sarum to the south of Stonehenge, likely someone would have farmed up the ground and destroyed many of the earthworks which are still raw on the surface of the land.  But under the civilized guidance of England’s national superiority which expanded into a massive empire of its own eventually, such treasures would not be protected from the Vico cycle of terror that often comes when civilization moves from democracy, anarchy then back to theology.  It was England’s global superiority that has preserved Stonehenge for us all to see today.  Likely there were similar sites in China, Russia, all over the Middle East, and in North and South America—but the chaos of politics and land grabs have prevented adequate archaeology—which continues at Stonehenge.  That makes the English Heritage work to my mind one of the most important on planet earth because there at the site of Stonehenge is a glimpse into mankind’s real past which holds truths we are only beginning to admit to ourselves.  Because the big mystery is not why such an ancient people went to the trouble to move such large rocks from over 200 miles away to arrange them in the fashion they did at Stonehenge—it’s how they came to know how and why to do such things.  Additionally, who did they talk to and what was the real limit of their global influence?  That to me is the big question and the bookmark in history to the mystery of how civilization continues to follow the Vico cycle ever and ever again into the abyss of recreation.  And it is possible that the people of Stonehenge knew a lot of things that we have yet to learn, because they had already seen it many thousands of years before and like many people in search of the everlasting played their part in articulating the mysteries of the universe to put the brakes on human regional self-destruction through art revealed through great effort.

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