Name the Enemy

It is too early to call the burning down of the famous Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris a terrorist attack by radical Muslims, but it was certainly too early to say that terrorism wasn’t involved. But that’s exactly the storyline even while the 900-year-old church burned to the ground, that terrorism had been ruled out, even as radicals had been desecrating old cathedrals all over Paris for months. These days radical Islamic immigrants have moved into the neighborhoods around Notre Dame so it would be disingenuous to the cathedral not to explore the possibilities. So I’ll go out on a limb and say that I think that it was Islamic radicals who burnt down Notre Dame in an attempt to erase away over 900 years of Catholic history, and they did it during Holy Week, just before the events of Easter. I’ve been there, I’ve walked those very streets and I feel safe to say that the Muslims there—a small percentage—but enough to set a massive fire want revenge for the first Crusades into the Holy Land and they are attempting to wipe Catholicism from the face of Europe, starting with the old cathedrals.

Terrorism Suspected in Notre-Dame Cathedral Fire

I’ve talked before about what a dump Paris is. The city is no longer a beacon of goodness that it may have been at the start of the 20th century. The city has been open to very progressive ideas for over a hundred years and its place as a stabilizing factor of culture has been overrun. It is now just another city in history on its way to ruin, the way Troy was, or any other antiquity from the memories of the past that finds itself watching its own demise. The religions of the world, especially Christendom and Islam are at war, even though they come from the same parents and the ending has nothing good in store for either of them. But the people involved are just too stupid to know better.

Notre Dame was and I suppose still is one of my favorite monuments of Europe. I firmly believe that if not for the domination of the Catholic Church continuing the ambitions of the Roman Empire, that western civilization may not have held together long enough to make a lasting impact in the world. Even though in the short-term, the effects of religion were stifling, the resistance to freedom were just enough to launch the Renaissance, the days of piracy, explorations and conquest of the New World, and eventually westward expansion, all attributes that have led to the start of America and the greatest economy in the history of the world, and most upward leaning culture. Notre Dame played its role in the whole escapade and it was one of my real treasures in life to have visited it and stalked among its history as it was.

But the enemies of western civilization have been hard at work undoing our history for what they think are valid reasons. And they have war and complete destruction in mind. I heard it in the cafe’s of Paris among Islamic patrons sipping lattés and waiting for the very few restrooms that were available that revenge and destruction of the west was all they could think about, and it had been that way since they were little kids. Their parents raised them on revenge. Their mosques preached revenge. And so in Paris as immigrants in the embrace of a city that welcomed them with open arms, arms opened with guilt more than love, they sought to enact that sentiment and prove their alliance to a god who could care less what they do or how they did it. Murder thousands of people or lay homeless in the street chanting segments of the Quran. The gods of history don’t really care.

When I have visited the many cathedrals of Europe, Notre Dame being one of the finest examples I think of literacy. Of course the Bibles studied there were not common when the cathedrals were built, but it was quite something for common people to come to such places and feel the majestic appeal of reading from scripture and thinking above the line for a change. To come to such a beautiful place and think about bigger things was a tremendous undertaking for the human race. It didn’t matter if it was a cathedral, a mosque, or an ancient temple from Egypt or Mesopotamia, the idea was always the same, to create heaven on earth so that the participants would endeavor to better things in life. There is nothing wrong with any of that. So it is quite an evil thing to do which is to seek the eradication of a previous religion and their means to a higher form of living.

Granted, Catholicism had gone around the world and destroyed many religions itself and built cathedrals on top of ancient reminders of lives lived and now gone in the form of advanced culture. But the efforts at Notre Dame were ambitious and as pure as anywhere on earth, and Paris rose from its efforts to become one of the world’s greatest cities. That lofty platform however does have limits. Paris gave up its values and has thus fallen. And they did it by regretting their success and believing that they owed the world something, so they let in the enemies of its culture and made them to feel welcome, which of course was the Trojan horse that has led to the present circumstances in Paris. It won’t take long and Parisians know it, the western culture they know and love will be lost to time.

Part of that lost attribute to success is their willingness to appease the enemies of their culture by so quickly dissociating the desecration of their greatest landmark, Notre Dame to the acts of terrorism when in reality the intent had been shown and the neighborhood around it has been talking about it for weeks. You know the culture is conquered when they won’t name an enemy. For a cathedral that had been lit for centuries with candles and torches, a small electrical fire or a cigarette wasn’t going to cause that kind of damage. There would need to be an accelerant to get into that dry old wood quickly, and with great expansion. We weren’t born yesterday. The fear of being called Islamophobic is much greater. Paris would rather watch its symbols of greatness burn to the ground than be called names.

We are seeing an attack not just on symbols of western civilization, but on Christianity as we know it. The war is Biblical in scale and was predicted in the Book of Revelations, sure. But even as we watch the actions occur we are still empowered to stop it. We don’t have to live up to a prophesy if we don’t want to. Future cathedrals like Notre Dame don’t have to be burned down to make way for the Vico Cycle. We can say no, and Paris should. The radicals in those neighborhoods around Notre Dame, they shouldn’t have their way with western civilization without an adequate defense. But first everyone has to admit to themselves what’s going on, and not just seek to blame such a tragedy on an accident, so not to inflame the enemy. Name the beast and go to war with it. Then eradicate it into oblivion. That is the only proper path forward.

Rich Hoffman

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

The Elephant in the Room, a History Lesson for those who need it on why President Trump is Desperately Needed

We need to talk about the nature of cooperation for a minute, especially in regards to political debate. The assumption has been that gental professionals could argue out issues without things coming to gunfire and violence within the framework of the republic, and to a large degree that has worked well through the first 200 years of America as a nation. But modern Democrats and some Republicans of a more progressive nature aren’t interested in preserving the American republic into the future, but they entertain leaving their own mark into the foundational emergence of a new Constitution. Let’s just talk about the elephant in the room. In modern politics, they are actively seeking to make government, for which they are a part of that managing body bigger and more powerful, so their hostilities toward the American Constitution is quite obvious. And that has never been more obvious than in this year’s crop of Democrat hopefuls for the American presidency. They, and the party that supports them are openly hostile to the kind of American government that we’ve had. They are only interested in changing it, not living with it and those of us who have been in this country all our lives and love it the way it is. They want to take from us to fill themselves. They aren’t interested in getting along or being respectful. They are by every definition domestic enemies of our Constitution and need to be treated that way, not rationed with.

The position that many Republicans have taken over the years has been embarrassing, and I have seen this up close on more than one occasion. Conservatives wanting to make that mind-numbing tight rope walk between their churches and the foundations of conservative values have made themselves into lots of Dr. Jekylls and Mr. Hydes. Christianity, especially how it emerged into the Roman Catholoic Church is very much an oriental concept that has from the beginning sought to bring an end to western civilization, the kind of advances which gave birth to Greek and Roman society. And the tide of aggression that has moved from east to west has been full throttle since Alexander the Great stopped his eastward conquest with some Buddhist monks in the vicinity of India. Since then western civilization has been attacked by the orient not with weapons but through their ideas as the church took over kingdoms and Europe fought over those ideas for the next 2000 years, even up until this very day where it is being counted on by Islam to become the next dominate religion so that all then nations of the world can unite under a theocracy and a system of communism very similar to what is currently in China. Republicans were taught to turn the other cheek in a fight and they have been getting their asses kicked regularly ever since.

Protestants fled the church in England to seek religious freedom in America. The Indian nations encountered were very much of the oriental religions but they were unorganized and on a declining path socially so the effects were not the same as they had been in Europe where confusing mixed messages about religion and politics were prevalent. The kind of Christians who emerged in pursuit of freedom were a far cry from the docile church goer in Europe who had conservative personal values but was taught by the church that there are many more things in life bigger than the self and that sacrificing that to the needs of the many was a very Jesus kind of thing to do. The more civilized America became in the years after the American Revolution, the more those confusing European ideas of conservative values emerged, which is what Protestants were running from in the first place, so those old oriental ideas about church and state have returned to our present world and the battle is quite vicious.

Don’t kid yourself, the battle is obvious. I have known for a long time that for conservative values to survive in the United States that we needed a spokesman in the White House like a Donald Trump, a person who would hit back when struck in the face, and not turn the other cheek. It is a dumb idea to not hit back when someone hits you. Who cares if its not a “Christian” thing to do? Christ in his early years obviously encountered the eastern religion of Buddhism and he brought that into his teachings which of course jostled the control the Roman Empire wanted for the west bank of the Mediterranean. The Jews had things under control there so the churches were very much part of the control mechanism of keeping the Empire united, even though the Romans themselves had many ancient gods they worshipped. The ideas of conquest are to allow those acquired territories to worship whoever they had before so long as the control of the churches paid homage to the greater power of government. That is after all the theme of the great book, The Canterbury Tales written in 1483 by Geoffrey Chaucer, in the years after Saint Thomas Becket was slaughtered by the King’s men in the Canterbury Cathedral. The idea of rebellion proposed against the tyranny of the state was to visit the spot of Becket’s murder, but to not drift outside of the control mechanism of the relationship of the church and the state, but to function within it. I consider The Canterbury Tales to be one of the most important works of European literature and it shows quite effectively this dysfunctional relationship that western culture has with itself, for which the concept of America was the solution. I had with me a copy of the American Constitution and to read the words of that little book while standing on the spot where Thomas Becket was slaughtered was for me quite an experience because I understood all the relationships that occurred in that spot and what led up to them and what the eventual answer was. Western expansion in America was the ultimate fight between east and west and as we all know, the “west” won. And I am very glad they did. I spent several days in the streets of Canterbury after my visit to Becket’s murder marked in the floor of the Canterbury Cathedral and read through my copy of The Canterbury Tales to let it all wash over me in a very intellectual way. I wish I could take every member of congress on that little intellectual journey so they could see how the pieces fit together, but most of them have no idea. They lack the intellectual fortitude, so they are victims to what they have been taught.

There is no making peace with the enemy and the modern Democrats are the enemy, they are the latest representatives of eastern culture that want more than anything else to wipe away the very concept of an American republic built on individual freedom as opposed to sacrifice to the gods of state control. For liberals that control of religion could be anything from Islam to global warming—an entirely made up new age religion to unify the minds of the youth movement to the causes of sacrificial liberalism—obedience to the state. Thomas Becket as a representative of church control was killed by his friend Henry II as the battle between church and state raged on in Europe, between individual value and those of the institutionalized opinion of a king or emperor. The orient had not had this philosophical battle, for them everything was yielding toward the end of personal existence so it was proper to let the self go into a rapture of selfless existence, therefor the citizen of the orient, which persists to this very day is happy to yield their thinking to a ruler because they’ll be dead soon anyway, so why not. But in the west it was a different story. What was the meaning of life but to have an individual life developed by a personal journey and to unleash the gifts upon the world that resulted from that journey? That is the battle being fought today in modern politics, especially in America. Around the rest of the world, most of them have already fallen to the diatribes of eastern philosophy through their various religions. If people have lost their way with Christianity, they can find themselves in Islam. But for the leaders of those societies, they want people to pick one of the two, just so long as they learn to take orders and instruction from a higher power. On earth that is the regional governor, or politician.

Democrats in that regard want to destroy what is left of Western Civilization that has been doing extraordinarily well in America. But make no mistake, they don’t want to live with the effects of that effort, they want to destroy it. They don’t want to have tea with people who think differently than they do. They don’t want to live in harmony. They want to destroy the American Constitution and bring oriental concepts into western culture by any means so to fulfill a long sought after goal that really extends back to the roots of human history. East and west cannot live together in harmony, the ideas are just too radically different, in the west it is individual merit that is valued, in the east, its sacrifice to the state with the state being the ladder to god. If you want to get to Heaven then you better obey the state. And that is where our modern conservatives fail, they are supposed to fight that assumption, not turn their cheek to surrender. They have been tricked by their own ignorance and lack of historical perspective. Most of them have probably never read The Canterbury Tales, which isn’t an easy read. But it’s a kid’s book compared to James Joyce in his great book Finnegans Wake, which is concerned with the same kind of problem—the role of the individual in an increasingly collective based culture that repeatedly spins on itself with the Vico cycle. The values of our day are not to get along, but to fight—not just the concept in America of Republicans and Democrats, but the values of eastern ideas and western. Both can’t coexist, because the east doesn’t have any intention of doing so. They have intended conquest since the Roman Empire decided to be united by Christianity because it was their last hope of unifying their people. But to do so they had to surrender to the whims of the eastern religions that had always threatened their control west of the lands along the old Silk Road into the orient. This fight isn’t new, its as old as time. But modern Republicans who don’t understand why President Trump is important to the preservation of Western Civilization either need a history lesson or they need to just shut up and get behind us who do. But no longer are they going to be allowed to pull that Trojan Horse into our American culture only to have radicalized Muslims, communists and Eastern religion soothsayers sneak out into the night while we sleep and end our society one rule at a time. That just won’t be permissible.

Rich Hoffman

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

Critics of the Ark Encounter and the Trump Presidency: A collision of east and western thought

While doing a little research on the Ark Encounter for an article reporting my recent visit there I ran across a number of really disturbing trends which correlate perfectly to the Trump presidency.   It’s no secret that evangelicals supported Donald Trump massively in the last election and that they would continue to be a solidifying electorate base—so obviously the criticism leveled at the type of evangelicals who were behind the Ark Encounter project were the same who wanted to end the Trump presidency with bizarre conspiracy theories and constant small-minded thinking—especially in the example below from the lunatic making fun of not only the Ark Encounter, but the type of people who live in Kentucky.  What we are seeing is a classic battle between traditionalists and the progressives from the coastal territories and the urban viewpoints that their culture is superior from a European mindset, contains all the arrogance which articulates our current crises in America—and they are of course dead wrong.

I am not a “young earth” believer and I see many flaws in the foundation beliefs of the Ark Encounter presentation.   I watched with great effort the great debate at the Ark Encounter between Bill Nye, the Science Guy and the amusement park’s founder, Ken Ham.  My view is that both were functioning from a mythic perspective represented by their two foundational philosophies.  I admired Ken Ham’s passion and his beliefs even though I think there is more evidence that is needed to tell the story.  After all, my father-in-law is a geology professor and I have many friends around the world who are archaeologists, historians, and paleontologists and many of the sciences they are working on is showing that earthly civilizations are much older than 6000 years, that human societies are millions of years old and that a Vico cycle has dominated human thought for many cycles over that time for which the Noah story is all but the most recent one.  But I also reserve the right that everyone might be wrong and that evidence may come forward that shines light in a totally new direction—so from my perspective the stories of these cultures—including our present one provide some of the best insight that we have to work with and serves as a proper starting point for any discussion.  But with Bill Nye—he’s clearly functioning from the European Marxism which has crippled western civilization from the start and the foundation of his entire premise is rooted in global warming being the dominate threat of all mankind.  So as radical as he wants to make Ken Ham out to be for the Ark Encounter’s “young earth” debates both sides are essentially arguing over basic religious views.  The modern progressive is proposing a new religion in earth worship to correct obvious flaws in their traditional thinking and to do that they have to eliminate people like Ken Ham from the discussion to make their own pieces of thought fit and that is why they are so hostile.

I think the Ark Encounter is actually a wonderful place to provoke actual philosophic debate that is badly needed.   I compared it to not only the movie Jurassic Park, but also the Universal Studios attraction which is based on hard science but has many fictional elements added to psychologically tell a story our human minds need to deal with, real philosophical challenges provided by DNA manipulation and other modern concerns,  There is incredible value in that particular modern mythology that cannot be taken factually, but as part of an immersive story.  The Ark Encounter’s value is not in its factual elements—whether Noah built the Ark in 2200 BC and that once all the waters of the world receded from the Biblical flood the vessel ended up on top of Mt Ararat in Turkey.   It’s in the study of good and evil and how decisions on the furtherance of mankind should be articulated in relation to the primal actions of biological urges.   Should human beings allow themselves to be basic primal organisms eating, drinking, and procreating as a blob of cellular activity or should human thinking exceed biological necessity?  As primal as many might blame Ken Ham’s evangelical perspective it is actually the basic foundation which asks the question of mankind—shouldn’t we be more than just a biological mechanism of earth’s many life forms?  If mankind is actually unique in that spectrum and has a special place in a universe created by God on the sixth day of a grand construction project—than shouldn’t we act on an elevated platform?   Such discussion are meant for the temples of the world but at the Ark Encounter Ken Ham has actually revisited the great debates known to Greek society back into the modern world and the effect is quite dramatic—and valuable.  Scholarship shouldn’t be afraid of the truth—because in debating these things, we learn a lot about ourselves and our positions.  The real value isn’t always in the facts which are hard to know when evidence is slow to emerge from science—but the stories that are told contain elements of a hidden truth that our psychology requires to behold advanced concepts beyond the primal necessity of our biological requirements.

As sophisticated as Bill Nye’s reliance on actual science might appear his basic premise is that we live, we die, we leave behind other collective organisms to continue our species—but that humans are not particularly special compared to dogs, cats or ocean animals—and that the greatest threat facing our modern times is man-made global warming.  It is from the Bill Nye type of thinkers that the NASA program was all but shut down in the past and that they don’t want humans thinking too much about themselves intellectually but instead need to find their happy place on planet earth and learn to live there in harmony with nature.   The evolution of this progressive thinking actually comes from medieval Europe where the Christian church proposed by the remnants of the Roman Empire had been adopted by that society which actually came from oriental sentiment considered in India at the time and collided with the individual thinking of the Troubadours and Arthurian romances already in bloom.  The two vantage points never fit together correctly and Europe has been fragmented in its thinking for well over a thousand years now and that essential problem is at the heart of everything concerning conflict between the eastern and western worlds.  The people of the Middle East will admit that they are collectivists so it’s easy for them to submit themselves to angry gods who rule from the heavens.  Eastern societies are also collectivists and will sacrifice their individuality in a moment to the higher powers of celestial involvement.  However Europe was already asking hard questions about the role of the individual soul well before Roman brought that eastern religion of Christianity to its empire and people didn’t agree, and they still don’t leaving us with a very fragmented religious element that still desires to put the individual at the front of thought while the collective nature of all religion seeks to remain the superior force.

The critics of The Ark Encounter fail because they essentially insist that the new religion of earth worship be the dominate bond that unites America with the rest of the world in “progressive” thought.  Their religion is actually one that the Nazi movement was based heavily on—a kind of Celtic reinvention from a time before the Roman Empire used Christianity to unit its empire with common thought.  But, the Celtics were not the Troubadours so there are factions of people who uniquely professed to the world that individuality was important and that our souls were special in the role of the universe—that God would have Noah be the keeper of the world’s animals and that he alone with his three sons and their wives would save all mankind on earth for another round on the Vico cycle.  To me it’s a story that says a lot more than history can put its finger on at the moment.  To others it is the path to eternal life to harbor their individual souls spiritually.  To others it’s a threat to that classic European problem—an eastern religion mixed with western thought to provide so much conflict and pain, that ancient religions long destroyed by the Roman Empire are still desired behind the mask of “earth worship.”

What’s important is the discussions that pour forth and who would have ever known that little Williamstown, Kentucky would be such a center for philosophic discussion.  It’s not New York or Chicago or even London that is the center of modern debate such as Athens served in the past—but a little exit along I-75 where Ken Ham built a massive recreation of Noah’s Ark and invited debate on a campus designed to spark discussion.   That is the aspect to all this that is beautiful and those who don’t want the debate—but just want to lazily accept the conclusions of religions that came before us as fact of course don’t want those debates to occur—just as they don’t want Donald Trump to Make America Great Again.  They just want to live, die, and be forgotten so that the Earth can live its life as a celestial sphere only to eventually die itself as the sun runs out of fuel and the universe will never know that we ever had a human race that thought, built and contemplated new ways of thinking aside from the inherit violence of a universe expanding, contracting, and dying itself for reasons that defy reasoning.  At least at the Ark Encounter there is a defined purpose for living that is presented and that maybe the greatest threat of all.

Rich Hoffman

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

cropped-img_0202.jpg

Corporation of Disney Versus Sole Proprietorship of George Lucas: Why the new Star Wars is so terrible

With all the accolades given to the new Star Wars film The Force Awakens I take a bit of pride in being one of the very few to point out the obvious problems with it, and the gross neglect it represents on not only American culture, but international civilization.  Star Wars has a responsibility provided to it by its half century long quest to play that part with the human race, so when it takes that role for granted, it is the job of people like me to point it out.  Anybody can do such a thing after others have already jumped on the bandwagon.  Presently, The Force Awakens is the fastest movie to hit $1 billion in global sales and it’s still moving along at a respectable rate.  By every box-office measure, The Force Awakens is a glorious success.  Yet I’m saying that it’s not successful, which to some may appear baffling.  Here’s why, Star Wars surrendered what it was to become something that it isn’t and that deduction can be reduced to a very simple social understanding of how things work outside of a mother’s womb.  To get the gist of what’s wrong with The Force Awakens watch the very interesting reviews shown below. Watch them all, they tell the whole story.  I’ll go a step further in my explanation, but it’s a good place to begin.

One of the most difficult things a job creator can do is make decisions to eliminate the jobs of the people who count on you.  It is excessively hard—I think it’s one of the hardest things a human mind does in a capitalist society—because a means to a living is the sustenance used to survive from day-to-day.  George Lucas wanted to retire at 70 years old but he had all these employees that he felt responsible for, so he went looking for a way to keep them all busy so that he could retire in good conscience feeling he did what was right by them.  He sold his company to Disney hoping that it was the closest company to his own methods that would respect his former property and do well for an entirely new generation.   I was a supporter of it, until I saw the results. It would have done more people more good to just leave Star Wars alone and laid-off all the Lucasfilm employees.  Laying off 2000 Lucasfilm employees would have been painful, but the results have been worse.  Because in destroying Star Wars, it has taken away the good meaning it has possessed to literally hundreds of millions of people who now consider it something of a religion.

When the sale of Lucasfilm to Disney took place, many proclaimed that it was a sale to the dark side, but they said so without really understanding why.  Corporations have a tendency to be viewed as evil, while individuals are given great latitude for forgiveness.  This is the heart of the problem.  As a fan of unlimited capitalism, I should be very supportive of corporations—which I am in that they provide jobs and great products to a free marketplace.  But, they are often very socialist in their nature and their employees bring that mentality with them to the voting booth. For instance, a worker at P&G or GE works in an environment that does not promote personal growth and individuality—they work in very team oriented environments where the greater good of the company is often the focus.  This is a standard in most corporations—so when Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton expresses the values of socialism most voters are already receptive to it because they live that life within the corporate world.  Corporations are collective based organizations that are often top-heavy and loaded with too much management at the back of the train defined by the Metaphysics of Quality.  Not enough people at the front providing leadership, and too many in the back which slows down the train from true productivity.  To hide this problem, corporations hire lobbyists to work K-Street in Washington on their behalf to prevent competition, so that the corporation can stay alive longer at the expense of more capitalist invention.

I’m not a fan of corporations, but I am a fan of the people who lead them, individuals like George Lucas, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and the original Walt Disney—among many others.  To me, once those strong leaders leave their corporations, everyone who follows are second handers.  This is why I am a fan of people like Carl Icahn who is the original corporate raider—who defined the term, “hostile takeover” by purchasing the stock of failing corporations and inserting new management with real leadership to make a sizable profit.  The introduction of competition to the corporate world makes everyone better and more honest and is needed in a capitalist society.  Without that behavior, you only get degrees of socialism which is terrible because it forces people to behave as collective entities proving detrimental to individual integrity.

Star Wars was always about the power of the individual, Luke Skywalker being the only hope for the Force to overthrow the emperor, Han Solo to always be functioning just outside the organized systems of the rebellion long enough to save everyone, and Obi-Wan residing in a desert all alone as the last of his kind to preserve goodness for a new generation.  Even the robot Artoo Detoo functions as a rogue individualist often breaking protocol to do what he thinks is right as C3PO representing the corporate world of doing as programmed berates him for comic relief.  In The Empire Strikes Back when Luke senses that Han and Leia are being tortured on Cloud City Yoda tells the young Jedi that he must stay and not be lured into a trap if he honors what they fight for.  The designation is clear, the relief of collective pain is not more important than the value of an individual who alone has the power to save the galaxy.  That is powerful stuff and why I along with millions of others have been a fan of Star Wars for over three decades.

The Force Awakens is a corporate movie made by the second handers of George Lucas and Walt Disney.  They are corporate minds who think in terms of sacrifice and the greater good before individual integrity, just as any corporation resents the individualist–those who do what they want in the corner cubical, and does not socialize during lunch with others and doesn’t follow orders from their superiors.  Rey the strong female who is obviously Jaina Solo from the Expanded Universe miraculously knows how to do everything which is a problem that many people have with the film upon viewing.  Many are willing to suspend their disbelief because the female hero is such a strong and compelling character that viewers are willing to overlook the problem initially.  The dilemma is that the characters in The Force Awakens are just along for the ride.  The Force is the hero of this movie and all the characters are subservient to it.  Rey is the victim of the sword that finds her, not because she finds it—her role is a passive participation in the adventure which is a direct violation of the “Hero’s Journey” that all Star Wars movies embody to some degree.  The Force uses her to get through impossible situations like flying the Falcon and fighting Kylo Ren at the end of the film.  She doesn’t survive them because she is an active participant.   She’s just “going with the flow,” and yielding to a mysterious Force that is guiding her actions.  Those are aspects of Star Wars that have always been weak, easily overshadowed by the efforts of Han Solo.

In the original films The Force was something to be listened to, but according to Obi-Wan, it also obeyed your commands—as an individual.  In The Force Awakens The Force is doing all the heavy lifting which is a corporate view of what Obi-Wan said in the film A New Hope, “there is no such thing as luck.”  This indicates that all the heroics of Han Solo in the past movies were not because of his skill as an individual pilot, or a decision that was made at a key time, but was due to The Force working through him.  This cheapens Star Wars considerably into a religion instead of a myth building tool to encourage people to follow their personal bliss.  It is the difference between a company run by a strong individual, and a corporation ran by a board of directors and a CEO as their representative.  One is an individual enterprise; the other is a collective based entity.

In time, once the fun of a new Star Wars movie fades, the impact that the films had will fade considerably as they will lose their meaning due to this corporate interpretation of The Force as opposed to the one that George Lucas nurtured.  The corporation puts up memos on a bulletin board and expects everyone to be appeased and to serve the needs of the collective entity—no matter who it is.  A company ran by a strong individual personally speaks to everyone and gives them guidance in developing their own individuality for the good of the company. It is a slight distinction that makes all the difference in the world regarding the end result.  Clearly George Lucas understands that distinction, and Disney as an organization collectively based, does not.  That is why The Force Awakens is a failure even though on paper immediately it appears successful.  Its mythology has been tampered with and is now changed forever—for the worse.  The message is one now of collectivism as opposed to individuality and that makes it very dangerous—and vile.

Now you should understand dear reader why you felt that The Force Awakens was a bad movie, but didn’t quite know how or why. It looked like Star Wars, sounded like Star Wars, had the same characters as the original Star Wars—but it wasn’t Star Wars.  It turned the overall message away from the rebellion of freedom fighters fighting for an individualized galactic republic and put the emphasis on collectivism and the reach and authority of corporations and the eventual tenacity to grind away everything that stands in their way.  And there isn’t much anybody can do about it but wait for some unseen Force to tell us what to do.  To those broken by corporate socialism into waiting for permission to use the rest room or get their vacations approved by a superior, they love Rey in the film because it’s all they can hope for in their lives after being beaten by collectivism for many years into no other option but to hope that they’ll win the lottery or gain an inheritance to earn their freedom from the grind.  But for hard-core Star Wars fans, Han Solo was the self-determined individual who functioned heroically not due to special powers or hooky religions—but by his own actions.  And in The Force Awakens, they killed off that character—for the “greater good.”  The message couldn’t have been clearer from the corporation known as Disney.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

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

 

THE QURAN IS OUTDATED: Gabriel’s Middle-Eastern adventures of sex and nonsense

Recently, I provided evidence that religion is one of the stumbling blocks which prevent a proper investigation into earth’s past.  Due to religious strife and careful adherents to ancient documents and paper-thin prophets—it is clear that religion does more harm than good and is one of the aspects of human society which must be adjusted.  However, this does not mean that I am an atheist, or a godless heathen.  I simply don’t sacrifice myself to the notion of a god the way humans have done since the dawn of time and desire to see a new pattern emerge regarding spiritual worship—because to my eyes, virtually everyone everywhere in the world has gotten it wrong.

Most people use religion as a bridge to step over bad behavior into what they think is everlasting life.  It allows them to make mistakes in their daily living by attending a church on Sunday and being forgiven by some deity.  I would encourage you dear reader that if you are too weak-minded to live your life well, to not drink too much, have sex with too many partners, molest the youth, or treat others poorly without the fear of God to keep you in check, than this article is not for you.  Keep attending your religion—keep reading its text, and preparing for the life ever after.  Because I would rather you waste your life with such a sacrifice if it keeps you from being just another tyrant over the lives of others.  But for those with a little discipline and self driven curiosity it is time to scrap the old for the new in regards to religion and come up with some new mythologies which are more meaningful.

Even atheism has become a religion of sorts—its function is to declare that life is to be lived now and it has a kind of hedonism aspect to its followers which is not what I’m talking about.  The trouble with the human being is the collective notion of sacrifice which needs to be eradicated without the value of religion being stripped away—the establishment of positive parameters to live life by.  If that could be done, than religion would earn its worth, and lose the destructive nature indicative to its existence in whatever form it arrives—whether it is Islamic, Christian, Buddhist or Jewish—it is time to stop worshiping the life and times of old mythologies and folklore with a blind adherence to historical fact.  Most of those stories from all the major religions were passed down second-handed from one group of power controllers to another and cannot be trusted.  The contents of the writing have been fed to a collective public more to control behavior than to usher them off into the next life—and given what science is attempting to show the human race—they are no longer relevant.

All religions are based on faith, which forces a participant to accept things without evidence.  Once the mind is opened to this folly it tends to do the same for virtually everything it encounters.  As an example, the Saul Alinsky method which Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama so effectively uses allows them to gain a kind of religious following by appealing to the part of a human brain which has been opened to accept religious mythology as fact.  This allows them to stand in front of people like a high priest and utter complete lies without anybody questioning them—hiding their bad behavior in the light of day.   It was Hillary Clinton who wrote a thesis on Alinsky while at Wellesley College for which she received an “A.”  Saul Alinsky offered her a job for her two interviews which Hillary declined.  Barack Obama is of the same mind as both Alinsky and Clinton and within the social circles of community organizers and attorneys, they learned how to use Alinsky methods to appeal to the religious nature of people and force them to do things they otherwise wouldn’t.  Hillary in her critique cited benefactors of Alinsky’s approach to Martin Luther King Jr. and Walt Whitman in the way that Mormons cite Joseph Smith, or Christians do Jesus Christ, or Islam reveres Muhammad.  This places the characters of the narrative above reproach and prevents analysis of their actions.  Once this is done further inquiry into their motives cease and faith takes over as the guiding light.

More is hidden from the human being under this process than anybody acknowledges and is the largest contributors to the spread of evil throughout the world.  The religion itself might actually be beneficial on one level, but since the mind as been opened to accepting things on faith then a chain reaction of bad events often follows.  Politicians aligning themselves with a religious order use this open door to get people to accept higher taxes, political corruption, and even the premise of war applying basically the same Saul Alinsky methods. The religious high priest does the same to manipulate the public into committing collective evil without consideration.  Because the masses view their participation as a collective enterprise, they use faith to accept their role and cast off logic to the “hand of god.”  In this way they do not take responsibility in life for their actions, but instead defer responsibility to a “higher order.”

Once a mind shuns responsibility for their thoughtless actions on their religion, they will do it for their career, their family, their daily commute and soon everything that happens to them is “meant to be,” as if some god were steering their life-like a car down a lost highway.  This takes away the responsibility for living and allows people to believe that they are part of something bigger—which then sets the stage for political corruption when the same methods are applied to pass school levies, take away the Second Amendment, or pass Obamacare.

I have thoughts on what should replace the old religions—which are clearly ineffective in the modern world.  The life and times of the characters in the Bible, or in the Quran are outdated and no longer relevant.  If there is one trait that could be blamed on the Middle East not accepting capitalism and still looking like it did in the times of their religious leaders of thousands of years ago—it is that their religions hold back their social development.

In my family there is a joke about the archangel Gabriel where I say that he met Mary outside of their village and had an affair with her for which she became pregnant.  Back then, a woman who became pregnant without having a husband was often killed, so Mary came up with the story of immaculate conception to explain how she came to be in that condition.  The reason it’s a joke is because that same Gabriel came to Muhammad in a cave and recited the Quran which then became the sacred text of the fast growing religion in the world.  Gabriel was a busy guy…………….he was a lot of places at the start of these two religions—where to this day are in constant conflict in Jerusalem and everywhere else they meet.

I have read the Biblical Archaeology Review magazine for over thirty years and watched carefully the events of study in the Middle East, particularly Israel, Jordon, Egypt and Iraq, and my conclusion was that Gabriel was either a Jim Jones, or Charlie Manson type—charismatic leaders who were deranged intellectually and ran around planting all kinds of seeds—having sex with women putting them in danger culturally and speaking nonsense to lonely hermits in a cave—and anybody else who would listen.  Or that Gabriel was some kind of ultraterrestrial prankster designed to occupy the mind of man foolishly on low-level intellectual pursuits while they pulled the strings of society in the desired direction.  But what Gabriel was not–was sacred.

I’ve had a few run-ins with these Gabriel types over the years and always send them packing.  It helps to be intellectually fit so to see through their ruse—but for irresponsible people looking for a miracle at every turn of their lives living hapless existences like a pinball caught between the bumpers of life—Gabriel types find their minds ripe for plunder.  And they become the next tyrants thinking they are bringing to the world a boon.

It is time to evolve and religion as we know it today is holding down the human race.  It might hold some individuals together—giving them purpose and meaning.  But ultimately that meaning is toward the ends of collectivism and works against individual responsibility.  The number one reason that people are having a hard time with capitalism as an economic engine for their nations and instead gravitate toward socialism is because of their addiction to religion and hatred of self-responsible activity.  Religion feeds this lack of self-initiative and instead provides a crutch into the next life—allowing this life to be lived poorly and recklessly.  After all isn’t it the Christian premise to declare that “we are all sinners?”  So what’s the point?  Let’s just do what they tell us and hope we can live better in Heaven for eternity.  In the meantime we do what our preachers tell us to do, and if our politicians say the same kind of things-we follow them as well.  And vast amounts of evil spread across the world as a result—all in the name of some god at the center of religion inspired most of the time by the archangel Gabriel.

It would not surprise me to learn that while Gautama Buddha was sitting under the tree of enlightenment and was approached by the demon Mara where temptations were presented—that Mara’s real name was Gabriel and that he was a feisty traveler with malicious intentions similar to Saul Alisnsky—who was just a “community organizer” who carried on his tongue the end of civilization and single-minded purpose to have sex with lonely women and use religion to pull them into his tent.  Thus began all of the world’s primary religions.

It’s time to rethink things—without such people a part of the process.

Rich Hoffman

  www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

 

Oh Let’s Be Sensitive: The power of manipulated guilt

My wife and I were discussing over dinner the fact that in the times of Lincoln, Washington DC actually had liveries in town to tie up their slaves like horses. I thought about how far we’ve all come since then, and I thought about how instrumental Lincoln was in changing those opinions people had, on the “culture” of slavery. Lincoln was an uneducated white man, and he used the Constitutional rights of the great United States to put in front of people the fact that American society wanted slavery because they wanted to protect their pocket books. Lincoln wrote and spoke about that issue to a huge degree, and it made him very unpopular for a while, because it was affecting people’s comfort level. But history shows the result. Lincoln was openly hostile about slavery in his letters and over time he came to realize how terrible slavery was as an institution, and eventually, under his watch, slavery was abolished, and the United States has lead the way to religious and racial tolerance all over the world since then

But that’s not what you hear among our radical press that has an agenda for a political power grab. Civil rights, even though we all agree is the right thing to think about is big business, and power grabs for the party that rides the wave of emotion behind it.

Religion, like race relations is one of the longest forms of political power grabs known to mankind. Doc Thompson did a great bit of radio poking fun at Katie Couric’s suggestion of creating a television show based on the Muslim faith.

What a lot of people have a hard time understanding is how devious some political, and religious groups are in achieving their personal goals. We’ve studied how communism and other socialist principles have grown under our collective watchful, yet naive eyes. The same thing occurs under the umbrella of religious fervor.

A great example of this is the current Islamic possession of the Temple Mount while Jews resort to their practices at the Wailing Wall and the continuous tension that exists between those two religions at the Temple.

To a guy like me, I look at those religious icons and I see the artifacts of King Solomon’s Temple. It is a baffling concept that one particular religious entity or another would even consider “fighting” over rights to such things. But that is the state of our minds.

And that is why we can’t even joke about certain religious issues, such as the mosque in New York, because the debate is not one of life after death. It’s about control and power while here on earth. Our current debate on whether or not we should have a mosque in New York is really just a diversion to weaken an enemy, and to many in the world that crave power, the United States is an enemy to their goals.

It is difficult for many people to get their minds around devious concepts, even though many people unconsciously participate in devious behavior. So it is hard for people to see that there are still, in the 21st century, groups of people that want power, and they hide their desire for that power behind religion in order to unite the minds of their armies to help them achieve those goals. So I’m going to put this situation in a way that people can understand, because virtually everyone can relate.

Family is one of the most basic building blocks we all share with one another. Family problems are a great way to personalize some of these larger religious, and sensitivity issues, because we all have those problems. So let’s look at a hypothetical situation that occurs in many families and explore the hidden motives behind those actions so as to comprehend how religious leaders and civil rights advocates manipulate our emotions for the same basic end result.

Marriage is supposed to be a wonderful institution where typically a woman marries a man who is the son of someone. Usually, the mother of that man will look at the new woman as her “replacement” and because she has never in her mind made the correct breaking away from her son, still craves the love of her son over his wife. Now that new wife may actually like the brother of that husband, but that brother is already married to another woman. This “like” may not be sexually based, but just might be some deep seated psychological reaction because the brother is very similar to her husband, but benefits from having the traits the wife likes, but not the disadvantage that living with the husband has, so myths are allowed to form in the mind of the wife about the brother because she doesn’t live with him, and she sees the brother in a holier-than image.

Now this wife may actually be quite pretty, so the father who is married to the mother may be jealous of this son, the husband to the new wife. This might occur because the son is not his biological son, and is a bad memory of the man that came before him. Of course around the dinner table he is friendly, but his insecurities are great being the “second” man. Seeing his wife’s son marry a beautiful woman and having a fresh start in life with a fresh and unmolested “new” woman is enough to drive him to private madness, so he eats more, drinks more, and in general craves the attention of women half his age. The mother knowing that the husband feels this way deep down inside resents even more the new wife because she is a convenient target. This being her second marriage, she isn’t ready to admit to herself that her second husband is a creep. Because such a revelation may actually reveal to her extended family that she makes bad decisions, and the real problem may actually originate deep inside her and her desire to affiliate with bad people. So the mother befriends the brother’s wife to conspire against the new wife. Not openly mind you, but subtly.

Now our new husband and wife live well for a couple of years. The husband gets a few promotions and is making decent money which causes jealousy with his brother who hasn’t had such good luck. So he starts befriending the husband of his mother, who is just a step-father to him. And this step father uses this young man’s jealously to incite anger, and get the brother to do his bidding, so that his own wife doesn’t discover that he is trying to bring secret harm to her favorite son. A couple of kids are born to the son and his wife, and the wife has maintained her figure while the brother’s wife gets fat with boredom. The new wife dislikes the brother’s wife because she sees that the woman’s weight is embarrassing to the brother and she can see that the brother she likes so much isn’t enjoying sex because he has a fat wife, so she feels sorry for him and develops more anger at the brother’s wife.

The whole family has a get together to celebrate the 5th birthday of the oldest child of this marriage. The brother and his wife don’t really want to come, because they’ve been trying to have kids for a while, but can’t. The real reason they don’t have children yet is they don’t have sex enough because the brother isn’t interested in his own fat wife. The brother’s wife knows this, and resents her husband and her brother-in-law’s children more each time she sees them.

To make matters worse for the sister-in-law, and the mother, is the son’s wife has managed to find a way to stay home with her children so she has time to make a cake for her child’s birthday. The cake is a really fancy and personal cake that you couldn’t get in a bakery, because it’s actually made with love. Now you’d think the mother would be proud of her son for finding a wife that could and would make a cake for their child on their 5th birthday, but that’s not the case. Unfulfilled dreams and the mother’s own past mistakes of having her first marriage fail permeates her thoughts when she sees the cake, so in private she decides to instigate the brother’s fat wife into talking about what a prissy little bitch her son’s wife has become. Feeling empowered, the fat brother’s wife makes fun of the color of the cake right in front of the son’s wife, which breaks the heart of the wife who truly wants the appreciation of her mother-in-law. But what she sees in that moment of grief is great joy on the mothers face at the pain the son’s wife experienced at the antagonism of the brothers wife.

And the two women have a vicious argument right in the kitchen.

Meanwhile the son comes to break it up, and he insults his brother’s wife by calling her a spiteful, fat bitch! That gives his brother the opportunity to seize his anger that had been built up by his step-father, and now brother and brother fight it out right there in the kitchen.

The children are horrified to see all this going on. And the child that is turning 5 never forgets the images of everyone fighting, and makes the personal proclamation to never marry.

20 years later the elderly mother is asking her favorite son why he doesn’t come around more often, and that she misses him. The son doesn’t want to hurt his mother’s feelings and explain how destructive her beliefs have been to the family. His brother had long since divorced his fat wife. His mother lost her second husband to a chubby woman that was 21 who worked at the Waffle House. And he just didn’t have the heart to explain to his mother that her only grand children did not want to have children of their own, because they believe all families are dysfunctional.

The kids move out and the son and the wife live on alone, because the family had never really bonded. They tried over the years to go through the motions, but in the end, nobody really liked each other, so everyone found themselves alone and unhappy in the later years, meeting only in weddings and funerals.

Now what’s the point of that story? Well, the mother created the original sin by wanting power over her son. She didn’t want to face her own mistakes, and she desired to shape the lives of those around her to hide her own deficiencies from herself. The result of her divine leadership is she basically ruined the lives of everyone attached to her.

The same thing happens politically for much the same reasons. Our inability to see through the intentions of our enemies or to even name an enemy to our nation often allows corruption to migrate and fester over a long period of time into something that could ruin our lives. And it happens because we won’t even allow ourselves to be critical of something.

The resistance to slavery was because so many people made money off slavery. Lincoln did the good work of making people look at themselves, and that’s where slavery ended, in people’s hearts. It wasn’t just legislated. It changed inside people and it happened in America by a Republican.

Religion is supposed to be a personal thing, so you always have to be cautious when a religious group desires to “impose” itself on society. Because when they do, they are looking for power not spiritual understanding. And when they get caught doing so, they deserve to be ridiculed for the potential corruption they could bring to our society.

Call it what it is, so you can avoid a lifetime of pain.

Rich Hoffman
http://twitter.com/#!/overmanwarrior
www.overmanwarrior.com