Archive for January, 2018

Overcompensated Occupiers

Posted: January 25, 2018 in Uncategorized

By R.C. Seely

THE SECOND YEAR IN HIS term Trump has caused a government showdown, an event that I honestly have a difficult time finding the problem with. The showdown barely even inconveniences anyone. And if the federal employees expect sympathy from me, well they are out of luck. Find a private company to work for or a “essential” government job.

The CNN coverage of the showdown was about what you would expect: Making sure to focus on the anti-Trump rallies and giving special attention to Democrat Chuck Schumer.

Schumer appeared to be having trouble keeping his propaganda on track though, referring to the showdown as the “Trump Shutdown” yet in statement claiming Trump was simply acquiescing to the “far right” base.

As for the protesters, I wonder how many were actually there for the cause and how were there for the pay check? The progressives will adamantly deny that paid protesters exist–at least in their camp–but they do. Check out the listings on Craigslist sometime and you might find a few in your area.

Such as this Craigslist ad that reads:

“Crowds on Demand, a Los Angeles-based Public Relations firm specializing in innovative events, is looking for enthusiastic actors and photographers in the Charlotte, NC area to participate in our events. Our events include everything from rallies to protests to corporate PR stunts to celebrity scenes. The biggest qualification is enthusiasm, a ‘can-do’ spirit. Pay will vary by event but typically is $25+ per hour plus reimbursements for gas/parking/Uber/public transit.”

Sounds like an ad for paid protesters to me. So much for the “evidence-free” claims. Apparently there were claims that proven to be hoaxes, but that doesn’t dismiss the existence of paid protesters, only that’s not always the case.

The Washington Post, doesn’t see a problem with paid protesting.

“On May 1 (“May Day”), when people take to the streets to protest for workers’ rights, we can expect corporate and anti-immigrant interests to try to discredit the protests by claiming that some of the protesters are being paid by labor unions. But don’t buy it. Although critics would have us believe that payment and principles are incompatible, they aren’t — and the belief that they are is toxic.

However, the allegations that even one participant is paid immediately calls into question the legitimacy of a cause. Behind these accusation is the idea that social movements should be entirely spontaneous, volunteer-driven, and untarnished by the exchange of money. Anything else would betray a lack of moral purity and reveal ulterior motives. And although successful protest movements rarely if ever succeed without an investment of resources, we create simplified mythologies that perpetuate these ideas of monetarily immaculate conception.

In reality, organizations often do sponsor or support rallies and send paid staff to help organize them, although unpaid protesters typically outnumber organizers. Nonetheless, history suggests that strong movements do well with both paid and unpaid agents agitating for change. Take, for instance, Rosa Parks. Often referred to as the “mother of the civil rights movement,” she refused to give up her seat on an Alabama bus to a white passenger after a long day of work. Parks, however, did not stumble upon her role in history simply because her feet were tired. By the time of her Dec. 1, 1955, arrest, Parks and her husband were seasoned activists with more than 20 years of experience in the civil rights movement, including Parks serving as secretary of the Montgomery, Ala., chapter of the NAACP. Parks worked as a seamstress for local white liberal activists Clifford and Virginia Durr, who helped fund her trip and training at the famed Highlander Folk School, where she received training in tactics of resistance, just four months before her arrest.

Predictably, just like today, many tried to discredit the Montgomery Bus Boycott by arguing that Rosa Parks was no tired seamstress but actually a plant, working with the NAACP and the Communist Party. And yet, Parks’s story is still often cast as an apolitical and unpaid act of defiance, a myth that stubbornly persists in our popular imagination. But what if we thought of Parks as a “paid protester”? Would her protest be worth less?”

Yes, actually it does diminish the impact and questioning their dedication to the cause knowing they are getting compensation is prudent. And this is wrong when either side does it. The Tea Party was accused of paying protesters as well and if it’s true they were equally wrong. This is a principle problem not an identity one.

While I disagree with federal intervention in, well pretty much everything, I’m willing to consider it when it comes to outlawing paid protesting. It gives a false impression of legitimate public outrage and that’s the point. It makes it appear that there are hundreds of thousands of citizens, enraged by their representatives actions or inactions marching for a cause. It could all be a lie. Even worse, a purposely manufactured lie, purchased like any other service to intentionally mislead.

That’s not to say there wasn’t genuine protesters with authentic anger too. I’m sure there were plenty but with the vacuum created by the “protesters for hire” it’s difficult to be sure.

Understand I agree with the Democrats on this issue (that felt dirty) on the current immigration environment. An open border is better and isn’t the same thing as a porous border. Just like a closed border isn’t necessarily secure one. For one thing, a closed border is a danger for those who are critical of the government. See why it scares me now?

But this writing is about their tactics.

The government showdown and possible compensated activists. The showdown is a political staring contest to see who blinks first and is fairly pointless and petty. It’s a retaliatory move that is more of temporary inconvenience more than anything. The paid protesters are completely unethical and misleading. Both have moral implications that should be addressed that are not.

R.C. Seely is the founder of and ALTV. He has written books about pop culture the most recent Victims of White Male: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society is available at Amazon.


Time To Go

Posted: January 20, 2018 in Uncategorized

By R.C. Seely

THE TRADITION FOR PRESIDENTS was that after their administration ended, they rode off into the sunset never to be heard from again. Eventually they would write their memoirs and might campaign for a senator or congressman or senator–both obligatory acts–are exceptions to the rule. Sadly, this tradition seems to be fading away.

The Clintons started this trend, after Bill finished his last term, he was still actively seen and heard from. Now the Obamas are embracing this trend, given that Barack fairly recently vacated the post but still the family is more visible then most after this amount of time.

The Obama love affair has still continued on social media to an unprecedented level. Polls have asked if he is the best President ever or should he be added to Mount Rushmore. He would fit in on the side with Theodore Roosevelt.

Other supporters have been posting t-shirts reading “we miss him already.” The corpse isn’t ever cold, so relax. Even now they can’t help but elevate him to the status of a rockstar. Oh, isn’t he so cool. Excuse me a moment, I’m going to be sick.

At least with Bill Clinton I could understand, he’s a likeable guy… a slime ball, but a likeable slime ball. With the Obamas I don’t see it, or for Hillary Clinton either. Or Jimmy Carter, he’s decided to resurface and give opinions long after anyone would care. Although Trump should be somewhat elated with Jimmy’s reemergence since he defended him to an extent, agreeing that he has been getting picked on by the media and political elite. Oh, poor baby.

No matter what, the nation is better off when these people leave. Generally, all they end up doing is criticizing the incoming administration before they’ve had a chance to cause any turmoil. Not to say that isn’t the inevitable conclusion. With the continued Obama love affair, it’s downright nauseous. He’s gone, let him go, and never come back.

R.C. Seely is the founder of and ALTV. He has written books on pop culture the most recent Victims of White Male: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society is available at Amazon.

Who’s George Soros

Posted: January 13, 2018 in Uncategorized

By R.C. Seely

THERE ARE PEOPLE OF GREAT means and resources who pull the strings behind every political party, for the Democrats George Soros is one of them. Democrats don’t generally deny his association with their party–just what despicable acts he commits. Before getting to that, who is he?

Soros grew up in Hungary during World War II and the German and Soviet occupations of his nation. He studied the works of Karl Popper which introduced him to economics in a more philosophical form. But it was the occupations of his nation that is “deeply rooted” in his philosophy. Particularly the effect it had on his father. Soros father was captured by the Russian army and escaped but “came home a changed man.” Soros describes a man who had “lost his ambition and wanted nothing more from life than to enjoy it… He had no desire to amass wealth or become socially prominent. On the contrary, he worked only as much as was necessary to make ends meet.”

He grew up to become a hedge fund manager, essentially a position that he could use to manipulate the value of currency in different nations and he did countless times. Why? Because he enjoys it, he gets thrilled from causing havoc. He takes great pride in the fact that he “broke the bank of England.” Or that he threw Russia into chaos. The country of Caledonia knows what he is, and they want him to pay for what he did to them.

Oh, you just got all that from Glenn Beck! Yes, Beck thinks Soros is the devil incarnate but he has probably also read all of Soros books too. I’ve only read one–The Soros Lectures, which is the source of all the quoted material in this writing–and I agree with Beck that Soros is the real-life Mr. Burns from the Simpsons.

In The Soros Lectures, Soros reflects on the “general flight from currencies into gold and other commodities” is “harmful because it keep those assets out of productive use.” That’s funny, since that’s what Soros does when there is talk of economic turmoil. He buys up gold to keep it out of the hands of the nation’s citizens, so they suffer while he profits from it.

Soros also takes advantage of economic unrest he didn’t start but has noticed. With regards to market bubbles, for example, it’s perfect fine to “rush in to buy, adding fuel to the fire.” That why he can also claim the “need [for] regulators to counteract the market” to minimize the bubble, since “we cannot rely on market participants, however well informed and rational they are” to resolve it. What about the ones that aren’t ethical? How do they play into the equation? Apparently, they’re not a problem.

He does have a suggestion for how to avoid bubbles, only lend to certain markets. “…Central banks used to instruct commercial banks to limit their lending to a particular sector of the economy, such as real estate or consumer loans … Market fundamentalists consider that to be crass interference … but they are wrong.” Actually, they are right. We already have an allergy to risk and avoidance to entrepreneurship in this country, let’s not make it worse. He goes on the say that the evidence of this need is because “Chinese authorities do it today, and they have much better control over their banking system” the US should revert to this policy. Yeah, let’s be like the People’s Republic of China. That’s a great goal! Of course, for all this to work it “meant increasing the national debt” and putting it all in the hands of the state.

Soros is nothing if not an amazing propagandist, one of his best was the pick of Karl Popper as his mentor of sorts. Popper’s most noted works is the concept of Open Societies, which Soros has made his mission to implement but he does so by force, the complete antithesis of a true Open Society.

An Open Society is supposed to be a voluntary collection of people with different views and ideas living together in harmony. No fighting, no contention, no way. It couldn’t happen–as appealing as the idea sounds. I would love to believe it were possible but different ideas breed contention because people get protective of their views, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it just happens. And many who subscribe to the Open Society theory are not supporters of property rights, that is a problem. Property rights are what makes prosperity a reality.

His studies into Open Societies is the most egregious acts of all, it’s because of this that he started the turmoil to begin with. “… In Hungary … still under Communist rule, in China…, and in Poland and the Soviet Union… And as the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia disintegrated, I set up a network of (Open Society) foundations that covered almost the entire former Communist world… I acquired some practical experience in building open societies.” Yet, he condemns Former President George W. Bush for trying to force his will in the Middle East? A little logically inconsistent there.

So, who is George Soros? He’s a monopolist billionaire, without any scruples and ethics, and enjoys playing God. And is he a threat? Well, he has substantial money, and has connections–he’s very close to both the Clintons, Obamas and others in the extreme side of the Democrat Party, and as I said no ethics; so yeah, he’s kind of a problem for free market capitalism.

R.C. Seely is the founder of and ALTV. He has also written books on pop culture the most recent Victims of White Male: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society is available at Amazon.

Some People Shouldn’t Vote

Posted: January 7, 2018 in Uncategorized

By R.C. Seely

BOTH PARTIES CAMPAIGN HARD for the American people to get out and vote. Campaigns such as “Rock the Vote” and scare tactics are common. “You have to vote for the Republican, so the Democrat doesn’t get in” on one side, and “you have to vote the Democrat, so the Republican doesn’t get in.” Oblivious to the fact that many don’t like either party. That’s why they have the Presidential Debate Commission to make sure it stays a choice of two parties.

Thanks to CNN, media outlets have new propaganda to further this agenda. The outlet made the false claim that the 2016 election had the lowest voter participation rate, at only 58%. They got the number right but not the facts. Not only wasn’t the voter participation not at a record low, it was higher than normal.

Apparently, the scare tactics of a Trump presidency was somewhat effective, so why didn’t it work like they hoped? How did Trump end getting inaugurated? Because of the troublesome electoral college that so many progressives love to hate, but really even they should be glad we have it.

With the Democrats essentially bribing low-income voters, not only would we end up with a single party system but in a broke one at the rate of their spending. That’s not to say the Republicans are a whole lot better but every dollar not spent counts, especially when it’s not theirs to spend. Besides the lack of restraint on spending, a single party system would bring on a lack of freedoms–all of them. Say goodbye to freedom of speech, freedom to protest and assemble, the second amendment, fair trials by jury, all that. With the duopoly at least, the Democrats have to pretend that they care about your opinion, imagine how smug they would be otherwise.

One of the leaders of the movement to abolish the electoral college is the “economist” Robert Reich. His video on abolishing the electoral college is being circulated like it’s a communicable disease by Democrats who care about his economic credentials. Personally, I don’t care about Reich’s views period, he’s a collectivist and that’s all I need to know.

Meanwhile libertarian party candidate Gary Johnson has been making his own movement that could make a real difference. The “Our America Initiative” and the “Free the Debates” campaigns, sponsored by Johnson, have been grassroots movements to bring the other parties on to the debate stage. This is a practical method to bring a more fair accurate presidential election, not eliminating the only impediment to mob rule. But let’s face it, the Republicans and Democrats have not been about the people, for a long time and abolishing the electoral college would only exacerbate things.

As unpopular as it to say this, some people just shouldn’t vote. If you’re uneducated about the issues and only vote because society says you should, then stay home. If you are disenchanted with the system and this is your way to protest, then stay home. Whatever your objection is, if voting makes you feel uncomfortable, then go with that feeling and don’t let anyone pressure you into going to the voting booth.

Democrats are so eager for your votes that they foolishly believe if they make election day a national holiday–with a day off of work–they can lower that percentage of non-voters. That’s just plain stupid, not only will it not encourage more voters but with an additional day off regular voters might be more inclined to skip it. Why go vote on my newly appointed day off? There is nothing to suggest that a day off or abolishing the electoral college would have the predicted effect the American people are being sold. This is all about the Democrats not getting their way and pouting. Could this simply be another chapter in the perpetual Democrat Temper Tantrum?–Looks that way.

R.C. Seely is the founder of and ALTV. He had also written books on pop culture the most recent Victims of White Male: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society is available at Amazon.