By R.C. Seely

AS PERPLEXED AS I GET from Democrats who vehemently hate Trump or the Hollywood Republicans that continually dismiss his faltering there is a group that confuses me more than both combined. The Hollywood Republicans who hate Trump. Most of them seem confused on the Republican part.

The two most noteworthy are Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Both are confused about guns in the party platform. Stallone calling for an all-out ban that makes Michael Moore sound reasonable. He adopted this attitude shortly after the death of Phil Hartman. Arnold’s not much better but has a far less benevolent justification saying he’s a “peace loving kind of guy.” If that’s true, then start by leaving us gun owners alone.

This is not the only issue the “Terminator” is confused on, he’s also a hard-core environmentalist. And he’s eager to take on the oil companies with full force. He charges that the oil companies are intentionally and without regards “killing people all over the world” by providing manipulated data on environmental change, and he’s determined to take them to court currently meeting with private law firms.

From The Hill:

“Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) is planning to sue oil companies, alleging they are ‘knowingly killing people all over the world.’

‘This is no different from the smoking issue. The tobacco industry knew for years and years and years and decades that smoking would kill people, would harm people and create cancer, and were hiding that fact from the people and denied it. Then eventually they were taken to court and had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars because of that,’ Schwarzenegger, a global environmental activist, said.

‘The oil companies knew from 1959 on, they did their own study that there would be global warming happening because of fossil fuels, and on top of it that it would be risky for people’s lives, that it would kill.’

Schwarzenegger accused oil companies of being irresponsible and vowed to go after them.

‘It’s absolutely irresponsible to know that your product is killing people and not have a warning label on it, like tobacco,’ he said.

‘Every gas station on it, every car should have a warning label on it, every product that has fossil fuels should have a warning label on it.’

He said he hopes to spread awareness about the harmful effects of fossil fuels.

‘I don’t think there’s any difference: If you walk into a room and you know you’re going to kill someone, it’s first-degree murder,’ he said during the interview.

‘I think it’s the same thing with the oil companies.’ “

I don’t put stake on the opinions of celebrities when it comes to the issues anyways but this idea of “labeling all fossil fuel” consuming products and taking out companies is particularly absurd. That will cost them massive amounts of money in a pointless Kabuki theater for egotistical means.

Schwarzenegger may believe what he claims or he’s simply trying to get attention, I don’t really care his goals, I do care that if he succeeds this will cost the consumer at the gas pumps. I care that he’s not using his influence to privatize the energy market, giving the consumer better access to alternative fuels. Getting rid of the federal subsidies on energy would force them to listen to the consumer and start manufacturing products that are more environmental friendly. Because that’s what the consumer demands.

When Trump cut the funding for social services–Meals on Wheels and after school programs–Schwarzenegger stepped up and started his own charity program to aid them, I applaud him for that. But why not do that for other issues he feels passionately about?

Instead he would rather side with the environmental activists and Trump haters. Parroting the “Russians make him say certain things” and condemning his failure to call out racists after the Charlottesville shooting.

Trump and Schwarzenegger have been having a very public feud for quite a while now on Twitter. It’s covered both men’s shortcomings, and both have had bruised egos. It makes sense that Schwarzenegger is holding a grudge but get over it and start researching.

He derides Trump if he wants to bring back more coal mines that it would be detrimental to the since it’s “dirty energy.” Actually, it’s not, and majority of our energy is coal. Our energy sector is based on a system that utilizes fossil fuels, changing that takes time and money, a cost that taxpayers shouldn’t have to burden. Environmental activists are the ones concerned, they should be the ones to take the burden. The “warning signs” of environmental calamity have been going off for hundreds of years, there’s no excuse for letting it reach critical.

The Republican Party is supposed to be about limiting government, not limiting personal choices. While the party has a history of faltering on that, the stances these two Hollywood “Republicans” have taken are even worse. They don’t understand the consequences of what they propose. What they want will hurt people and leave them less safe. It hurts those that haven’t done anything wrong, takes away their choices and makes them further subservient to federal government.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has written books on pop culture and has a new upcoming release–Confused Yet?: Understanding the Utterly Incomprehensible.

By R.C. Seely

ONE TERM THAT IS A favorite one amongst collectivists is “human rights.” It’s a term further advanced by the United Nations “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” initiated by Eleanor Roosevelt, a former U.N. member. Problem is “human rights” don’t exist and those rights in question are either “natural rights” or free market products and services that they are trying to claim for their agenda of control.

That aside, there is the question of efficiency as well. The legislative actions of those in power have given valid cause of concern.

One such question is the concerns with health care. Should health care be conducted as a free market concern or government one.

I have had limited need for health care services at this stage in my life but have seen the differences when being there for family members. This is the observations I’ve made with health care: primary care is altogether superior to hospital care. It’s easy to see why too. You are treated as an individual, not a number. You have to set an appointment, you’re generally in faster and given more personal care.

Keep in mind this is not an indictment of the service providers but the nature of the business. The service providers I think do care and it’s not they who are not at fault. The business side of hospitals is inefficient and similar to the assembly line. Your done and on to the next one. It’s also not to say that hospitals are bad or unnecessary, emergency care is a needed social service–it could be provided in a better manner though.

Why is this relevant? Because big government pushes out the primary care competition. If they had their way all medical care would be done at the hospital. That would be a bad thing! Prices for services would go up exponentially and quality of care would be atrocious. Think the soup kitchen lines during the great depression.

The U.N. has even made it a goal to indoctrinate the children to misunderstand human rights by including educational materials, so they “understand” human rights and their importance. The most important thing we can do with human rights is avoid them.

We have something better, we have “natural rights.” The right to speak our minds, believe what we want, defend our selves in the manner we decide and private property rights and all not by an authority figure. Even the United States Constitution doesn’t grant its citizens it’s right but simply defines those rights.

Other concerns are dealt with by consumer discretion. Through boycotts, word of mouth and online ratings; the world is far more efficient and safe than any federal consumer protection agency or health and human services could employ.

Before we give the United Nations full governing power in our daily lives–the environment, gun rights, free speech, health care, foreign policy, etc.–the cost of adopting “human rights” over “natural rights” should be examined.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has written books on pop culture with an upcoming new release–Confused Yet?: Understanding the Utterly Incomprehensible.

By R.C. Seely

FROM THE MOMENT Trump was declared president, the Democrats have been apoplectic and undeterred in their claims if fraud or impropriety. This imbalance is nothing new and the worse started with with George W. Bush. Commentator Charles Krauthammer referred to it as “Bush Derangement Syndrome.” Then it was “Obama Derangement Syndrome.” Now, as the logic would follow, we gave “Trump Derangement Syndrome” which seems the most extreme.

It has gotten so bad that even those in Hollywood have come out to defend Trump. Tom Hanks said that he “hopes Trump does so well he would vote to reelect him.” Both Mathew McConaughey and Jeff Bridges pleaded that Trump should be “given a chance.” Morgan Freeman takes it to the next level stating the president,”has to be a good president. He can’t not be.”

The leading criticism of Trump is the declaration of collusion with Russia and Vladimir Putin, to win the election. Most media sources covering the claims already agree with anti-Trump crowd. But not all are so bias.

From the Washington Examiner:

“The House Intelligence Committee has released findings from its upcoming report on the Trump-Russia affair–and its main conclusion is that it has discovered no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election.

‘We have found no evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians,’ the committee said in a one-page summary of its findings released…

In addition, the committee took issue with the Intelligence Community assessment of Russian motivations in the 2016 election. The committee agrees with the assessment that the Russians did, in fact, try to interfere… (but) the committee disagrees with the Intelligence Community judgment that Russian leader Vladimir Putin specifically tried to help Donald Trump win the election.
The committee’s findings say investigators came to ‘concurrence with the Intelligence Community Assessment’s judgments, except with respect to Putin’s supposed preference for candidate Trump.’

The collusion question has been the most basic, and the most contentious, of the entire Trump-Russia investigation. After this or that revelation — the emergence of the Trump dossier, the June 9 meeting, the plea bargain of George Papadopoulos, the activities of Carter Page, the analysis of Facebook ads — partisans on both sides claimed that collusion had been either proved or not.

Republicans released the findings in bullet-point form. They were condensed from a larger report that will not be made public for several weeks.

But the question of collusion remained a key issue for the committee, as well as for the other two big Trump-Russia investigations, by the Senate Intelligence Committee and special counsel Robert Mueller. And Republicans and Democrats have differed sharply on whether collusion did or did not take place.”

“We found no evidence of collusion. We found perhaps bad judgment,…” commented Republican Representative Mike Conaway, who ran the committee’s probe.

“But only Tom Clancy or Vince Flynn … that could take this series of inadvertent contacts with each other … and weave that into a some sort of fictional page-turner spy thriller,” Conaway added.

“There is already, in my view, ample evidence in the public domain on the issue of collusion if you’re willing to see it,” Democrat Representative Adam Schiff reported.

It appears the Washington Examiner was spot on when the Democrats “will come up with their own version of events” and the results of the investigation “are sure to be disputed.”

This is the conclusion that rationale people came to from the beginning. There was nothing to suggest voter fraud and Russia didn’t help Trump, Putin had nothing to gain by it. Trump is an unpredictable lose cannon, not a schemer. While I don’t doubt that he would have no qualms about committing such volations of ethics there’s never been anything to suggest he did.

Neither Trump or Clinton are ethical and both have blood on their hands from personal and professional dealings. But Putin acts in his own best interest, which does not seem to be having Trump as president.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has written books on pop culture and has a new one–Confused Yet?: Understanding the Utterly Incomprehensible–soon to be released.

By R.C. Seely

WE HAVE TO DO IT, IT’S “for the kids.” We have to continue the War on Drugs, “for the kids.” We have to pass gun control, “for the kids.” We have to enforce EPA regulations, “for the kids.” We have to go to war, “for the kids.” We have stop internet porn, “for the kids.” We have to empower NAMBLA, “for the kids.”… Okay that last one could be a little far-fetched, but I think you see my point. We have to pass all these laws and give up all our rights, “for the kids.” This could be some of the most disturbing and gross manipulative emotional and psychological tactics utilized by activists. And clearly, it’s used by moralists on both sides, Republican and Democrats alike.

The worst I’ve seen is the rampant manipulation of the children prior to the Parkland shooting, especially of David Hogg. I don’t know if the shooting is his only intention or not, and it doesn’t really matter. Either way, Hogg is being used by the gun control activists. He’s still a minor and easily swayed by emotional arguments rather than logical–as we all are when we are younger.

This is not to say he doesn’t have arguments that should be ignored, he has an opinion and he’s entitled to it and to speak freely. It doesn’t mean action should be done because of it. He’s scared and believes stricter gun control is the right course, I doubt he’s read up on the information that discredits that. Before a few months ago, he probably didn’t read anything other than his textbooks. And his biggest concerns were his acne and the girl (or maybe boy) in the row in front of him.

Another activist, Emma Gonzalez, is a different matter, even before the shooting she was an activist for gay rights and started the Never Again movement in response to the shooting. Just what the world needs, another emotional activist, getting her ego fed. I’ll bet these two loved their kudos from Oprah. Yea! You’re a winner!

The mantra during this has been there’s an “epidemic of gun violence” in the US. An epidemic! The numbers reported killed by guns–even if you include the leading cause, which are suicides, according to the CDC study–are in the low thousands. The population of the US is 300 million–what epidemic? How can you possibly be so heartless as to belittle these children? They suffered such a tragedy and are scared? It’s not only gun control activists that are scared after a shooting, it’s gun owners and gun rights activists that are and rightly so.

For that short period after a tragedy, activists will use anything and anyone for their agenda. Children become emotional pawns in the game because they act before they think. It makes them perfect spokesmen for political action. Calls for gun control, for example, are at an all time high after a shooting but return to normal a couple of months later, that leaves a short window for gun grabbers. Having the children out campaigning for it makes it all the more difficult to say no.

The children activists are basically the political version of the temper tantrums at the grocery store for not getting their favorite cereal. It’s okay to tell them no.

While the focus of this writing has been on gun control, this despicable tactic has been effectively used to advance many other goals, many noted at the beginning paragraph. It’s effective in getting prohibitions passed because we have an innate primordial instinct to protect children, even they are not related to us in any way. That makes it an evolutionary Achilles heel, but if you want to protect the children, protect their rights not attempt to protect them from their rights.

The world isn’t perfect and complete security is an unobtainable utopian dream, things happen, some good some tragic, but making your children safe won’t be accomplished by giving into fear or emotional blackmail. That’s the best thing you can do “for the kids.”

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has written books on pop culture and has new upcoming book–Confused Yet?: Understanding the Utterly Incomprehensible–soon to be released.

By R.C. Seely

MARVEL HAS SCORED another hit with the release of the film adaptation Black Panther. Just like other Marvel movies, this one has had its share of controversy but this one wasn’t unexpected.

From the onset, it was almost guaranteed the predictable racial rants–on both sides.

Comments on Twitter and Facebook, makes one wonder how many were actually familiar with the character or story; and who though it was a black nationalism propaganda piece.

Critics condemned it because of its lack of diversity, this time with few whites. It was set in Africa! Of course, it would be a mostly black cast! Both sides are turning this into a race issue when it’s simply a movie.

It could be pointed out that there is a discussion about English colonialism in it. That is true, but it’s less about social justice and more about legitimate historical accuracy. It was less subjective, than say the feminism in Wonder Woman, and more reflective of genuine sentiment and history. That’s where the racial discussion should be focused not on the film itself.

To be fair, there was a few social media posts by clueless social justice warriors who didn’t appear to have a clue what the film was really about. I’m hoping that is what brought this on. Either side are really reaching if they genuinely believe the movie to be anything other than a harmless piece of artistic expression.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has written books on pop culture and has an upcoming new release Confused Yet? Understanding the Utterly Incomprehensible.

Doesn’t Add Up

Posted: February 22, 2018 in Uncategorized

By R.C. Seely

THE PARKLAND SHOOTING HAS been cast as unusual but it’s not. The activists for gun control go on their rampage and call for measures that make no sense. I could get into the argument about the futility of gun control but instead let’s look at the possibility of it.

The renewal of Assault Weapons ban of the Brady Bill is one of the greatest pushes by these advocates. Since the firearm involved in this shooting is the AR-15–one of the so called assault weapons–it has gained traction. So, let’s just ban those for now.

From the logistical stand point alone, this is not improbable but impossible. There are 51 million AR-15 rifles in the United States. Think about that for a moment. 51 million of just one type of gun. And this isn’t a cheap gun, it’s over a thousand dollars. That means there are a lot more handguns and shotguns–because of cost for one thing, in the $200-$400 range for most. The total number of firearms in the US is 300 million, or basically a gun for every one of it’s citizens. That’s just the registered firearms, that doesn’t include “ghost guns” or illegal ones.

This is part of the logistical problem. The land mass of the United States is approximately 3,800,000 miles. Europe’s largest country, Russia, isn’t as large as the United States.

Gun control activists bring out Australia, the UK and now the Netherlands for examples that it works. But the math isn’t right here either. The population of the UK is approximately 65 million, Australia is about 24 million and the Netherlands is only around 17 million. Of course, there will be more crime in a country with such a larger population density.

Voluntary relinquishing your firearms is the only methodology that could even come close to being feasible, a forced home-to-home theft (and it is theft!) would be impossible. If it were, Senator Dianne Feinstein would have already done so.

In a 60 Minutes interview in 1995 Feinstein had this to say:

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”

At least she saw how pointless that would be and still is. As much as gun haters hate to admit it, a confiscation of firearms in the United States doesn’t add up in any way. The size of the country, the population, the number of firearms, make it quite challenging. But there’s still the problems of enforcement.

Many state lawmakers in states strong on the second amendment would be essentially ending their careers if they tried any type of seizure or even restrictions. If that did happen, the next hurdle is law enforcement, many refuse to enforce the strict and unconstitutional restrictions in place already. It would again come down to a voluntary relinquishing of the owner’s firearms, an act that I personally would have no intention of doing.

The youth of the nation are being used as pawns by the gun-grabbers. They are scared and naturally inclined to emotional responses over logical ones. It’s easy to either look at them with scorn or pride, but in the end they simply want “something done.” That’s why it’s important to not give in to their proposals and show them the adult way of handling situations is logically and not act brash because of fear.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has written books on pop culture, with an upcoming new book Confused Yet?: Understanding the Utterly Incomprehensible.

Consent

Posted: February 14, 2018 in Uncategorized

By R.C. Seely

RECENTLY THERE HAS BEEN a fracture within the Libertarian Party, caused by it’s current leadership. It was due to controversial comments by Vice President of the Libertarian National Convention (LNC) Arvin Vohra that make the party appear to favor pedophilia or at the very least accept it. This is an example of why the Classical Liberal libertarians in the party advocate “limited government” and not complete abolishment. It’s a “necessary evil” as Thomas Jefferson had said but at times it stops even greater evil.

The fire was flamed when LNC President, Nicholas Sarwark, defended Vohra and didn’t distance himself and the party from such declaration. Others haven’t had such trepidations, including rising stars Larry Sharpe and Merrisa Hamilton–both dropping out of the Libertarian Party and their races for political offices of their states.

While the party has always been about tolerance towards others, the stipulation has always been between consenting adults. There’s a valid reason for that. Age eighteen is when humans are considered capable of fully comprehending the ramifications of their actions, the stage when brain development is at that key stage. So the age of consent is supported scientifically not just legally. Deviation from consent laws ends up putting minors directly in harm’s way, a stance that violates non-aggression, the cornerstone of libertarianism.

All this is further compounded by the last Presidential election, with the Johnson/Weld campaign. The in party fighting never stopped from their nomination for the president and vice president for 2016. Many were alienated, for starters because they were both converts to the movement, just a couple of Republicans playing the role of Libertarians. To be fair, the US Libertarian Party was founded by a group of disenchanted Republicans in the 1970’s so that doesn’t necessarily dismiss their dedication to the cause.

What did raise concern was their understanding of freedom, especially with voluntary association, when Johnson agreed that the Christian bakery had to bake for a gay wedding, for one example. No matter how you feel on the issue, they have the right to refuse service to whoever they want. That’s freedom of association and it’s critical for a free market.
Some libertarians will claim I’m homophobic for saying that. No, homophobic would be if I said I agreed with this, that’s making it moralistic standard and not a principled one. I disagree with the bakery but stand behind their decision.

Even those who supported Johnson were concerned with Weld. I always had been and still am. He seems too establishment for my taste.

Then there is the internal bickering about what is limited government. Should we support the social safety net or not? Or maybe there shouldn’t be any government at all. Then we leave ourselves vulnerable in regards to private property issues and the original topic of consent laws. That’s the continued argument between the Classical Liberal and anarchists wings of the party. Other libertarians believe we should adopt the social libertarian–a mix of socialism and libertarianism–or a quasi-communist variety.

Sharpe and Hamilton left their association with the party because they felt the leadership isn’t listening. Sarwark, Vohra and Weld are too focused on the growth of the party that they are distancing themselves from the ideals of the party and risk further alienation. Or worse turning it into a safe space for NAMBLA. Either way, it appears the Libertarian Party is facing an identity crisis and hopefully it can correct it and become the much needed third-way the nation needs.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has also written books on pop culture with a new one–Confused Yet?: Understanding the Utterly Incomprehensible–expecting to be released this year.

Premium Scam

Posted: February 11, 2018 in Uncategorized

By R.C. Seely

IF YOU SEARCH YOUTUBE and other social media sources, you would come to the conclusion that pretty everyone is a conman or liar in one way or another.

One such story declares that premium gasoline is a clear deliberate attempt to fraud the consumer. Investigators state that since there is no additional benefit to purchasing premium fuel, it must be a scam. Shame they aren’t so skeptical of organic foods! Are they right though? Well, yes and no.

For some consumers it is a waste of money but calling it a scam is kind of a stretch.

First off, let’s consider a concise definition of a scam: It’s the intentional effort to mislead, generally to profit off of others, with questionable or non-existing benefit for the consumer. That’s not exactly the case with premium fuels.

There are benefits to be gained with premium fuel, if you use your vehicle excessively. So clearly there is a proven market. For general use by most people, yes, it is a waste of money. But whether or not that constitutes a “scam” is debatable.

Another question is the manner of its marketing, is that intentionally misleading. Many high-end vehicle manufacturers recommend premium because it does protect the engine and increase performance. The line of thinking here is that since you are buying the best, you will want to protect your investment. I’m sure they also figure that if you’re spending that kind of money on the vehicle you won’t be oppose to spending more on fuel. That sounds logical and not nefarious.

Average vehicles don’t have such recommendations. Most say you should buy what you feel most comfortable with. This sounds like simply offering choices in a free market. If you want to extend the life of your vehicle, premium fuel could do that, it’s as simple as that and hardly malicious.

Premium fuel is about choices, that’s not a bad thing for the consumer and there’s nothing to suggest that it fits the definition of a scam. Just more sleeping media conspiracy theories.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has written books about pop culture and has a new book–Confused Yet?: Understanding the Utterly Incomprehensible–is set to be released soon.

Is that so “Progressive?”

Posted: February 3, 2018 in Uncategorized

By R.C. Seely

THE RESPONSE TO Donald Trump’s State of the Union address was not unexpected. A few Democrats in the Senate and the House saying they were not going to attend is neither a concern nor a valid threat. Neither is the fact that they won’t give him credit for the state of the economy and that workers are seeing benefits from their employers–that would go completely against their understanding of reality.

What was unexpected was a statement from Charles Payne in a discussion group on Cavato on Fox News. He was questioning the consequences of companies offering their employees extended benefits such as, paid maternity leave and paying for their expanded education. Claiming that this is simply more big government style progressivism and they should instead be focused on hiring more employees.

I like Charles Payne–although I’ve never met him personally–and have great respect for him and generally agree with him, but not this time. He does have a somewhat valid point, I’ll give him that, but he’s missing the bigger point.

The progressive movement is a big government movement, one of intervention into business and the personal lives of others. This is one major step away from that, making it as about as anti-progressive as possible. The goal here has always been to get government to step aside and let businesses and individuals spend their money, their way. Or did I miss that memo?

Wages are going up, unemployment is going down and everyone should be celebrating that regardless of who gave us the booming economy. When it comes to the economy limited government is winning out and the authoritarians are worried and for good reason. Everything they have told the public about laissez faire is being shown to be untrue.

But why can’t Charles Payne celebrate? Because rewarding senior employees is against economic theory? Trying to keep a proven employee who’s pregnant isn’t valid for the bottom line? It’s not those policies that were wrong it was how they were presented, through federal intervention. Because someone on Capitol Hill believed they had the right to mandate how a company conducts itself and what it can give it’s employees. That they are offering them such benefits proves progressives wrong and that maybe the government intervention isn’t as necessary as we’ve been led to believe.

The Trump administration has so far been about what I expected, I don’t need to hear him speak to know how things are going. The economy is doing excellent but on social issues a lot of work is needed. A huge step would be letting Jeff Sessions go, even if you agree with Sessions on the failed War on Drugs, he is a proponent of Civil Asset Forfeiture and expanding surveillance on Americans.

Then there’s the border wall, the one that “Mexico is going to pay for.” The one that won’t curb illegal immigration and is a security blanket but keeps us from a meaningful secure border and restrict freedom of movement. Illegal immigration will continue with the wall since they are finding other ways across and the Northern border isn’t even being addressed. Mexicans are a no go, but Canadians are okay?

Progressivism isn’t about offering the individuals more choices or freedoms, it’s also not about what employers benefits to their employees. It’s about the authoritarians appearing benevolent to the American citizenry. And the appearance of false security. Once all the “general welfare”, “national security”, and “well intentions” are stripped away, then it’s clearing all about control. So while Trump is progressive, he’s not so on the economy or company benefits.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has written books on pop culture with a new one–Confused Yet? Understanding the Utterly Incomprehensible–scheduled to be released this year.

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 americanuslibertae.com 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.