During the Donald Sterling “affair” fabricated by anti-racist lobbies and the mainstream media conglomerate, Michael Savage decides to take a blow at the NBA (National basketball Association).
In this video Michael Savage successively destroys the NBA executives, American ethnomasochism, the anti-racist politically correct thought police, and globalist “sex-slave” Jay-Z.
We recently revealed the demagogue in chief Ron Paul, leader of the Demagogic Party of America (the only party we have unfortunately).
This week we’ll introduce a new candidate, a forerunner who despite is late appearance has still many demagogic tools in his arsenal.
You know, the one that calls himself classical liberal but refuses to acknowledge the main principle of classical liberalism : the right of a civilization to govern itself.
While I have no doubt that Gary Johnson would be a perfectly good “liberal” candidate, as in left-wing socialist hippie, I have a hard time seeing him as a classical liberal of any form.
I don’t know what is a bigger spoliation than to refuse to a nation the right to govern itself.
I don’t know what is a bigger violation of private property than to allow invasions for foreign countries, and even encourage them (we are talking about the man who wants amnesty for all illegals).
It’s funny that when the US Army intervenes in Afghanistan or Syria, the globalist media is always whining about “invasions”, “unconstitutional wars”, and so forth. But they always fail to show the REAL invasion going on : illegal immigration.
But the global agenda will never allow a serious candidate for president of the United States, as their goal is that we become a mediocre country lacking our own culture, destroyed by 60 years of ethnomasochism, and being controlled and occupied by foreign interests.
I strongly criticize Gary Johnson’s views on immigration, but you would think that as a so-called “libertarian” he would at least have a decent economic program right ?
Bullshit, his economic plan is probably the weakest of any candidate (even behind Obama).
Abolish tariffs ? Seriously ? So how are you going to get any state income ? Tax labor ? capital gains ? VAT ?
How can you call yourself libertarian and want to tax labor ? As a matter of fact, how can you be in the twenty-first century and want to tax labor ?
He always brags about how he balanced the budget as governor (what more or less every republican governor has ever done), but it’s quite easy to do so if you’re going to tax capital, labor and consumption.
The real question to ask yourself is : what will be our economic situation in ten years, once every company will have moved offshore ?
High tariffs are an incentive for a company to move somewhere, as well as low labor/capital taxes. Gary Johnson wants the opposite for our country, the opposite of what has always worked, the opposite of what is working RIGHT NOW for the top exporters in the world and those who at least have a positive trade balance.
Will it work for the USA ? Has it ever worked for anyone who has applied it ? No.
Does it buy votes ? Does it seems serious to the uneducated masses ? Apparently.
I don’t know what’s the worst in all this : that an ignorant like Gary Johnson would become a presidential candidate, or that some people take him seriously.
After fifty years of denial, obscurantism, anti-racist propaganda and thousands of mild alcoholic drinks and other expensive cocktails exchanged by useless politicians, some of our media finally start to accept the facts : there is anti-Americanism, even in the United States of America.
Furthermore, many studies published by diverse media source now confirmed a well eluded fact : anti-Americanism is more present in immigrants than in strain Americans.
Example : Nearly 70 percent of Mexican-Americans – including those born in the United States – owe their primary loyalty to Mexico, not the U.S., according to a poll commissioned by the Center for Immigration Studies. No shit Sherlock.
The same studies many other groups of population all possessing at least two nationalities, or at least coming from a progeny of fairly recent immigrants show similar results.
Of course, such publications drew immediate and highly voiced criticism from many anti-racist organizations. You know, the ones that believe one American shooting a Muslim is a hate crime but terrorist attacks killing three thousand Americans is of course, not.
Note that these so-called anti-racist organizations reacted not initial study nor to the fact that 70% of Mexican consider themselves anti-American, but to the publication of this data. We already knew that left-wing extremists had a hard time with reality.
Now these studies lead to a primary question : is immigration responsible for anti-Americanism ? Are immigrants less prone to patriotism than strain citizens ?
As always we shall base our opinion on factual data and not some left-wing fabricated media-whoring to determine the best answer. It helps to actually have a brain when studying sociology (take notes Ron Paul).
Many nationalists seem to believe that to maintain an adequate level of patriotism, immigration should be restricted to very strict circumstances, or even banned altogether.
If it’s been proven that a vast majority of immigrants are far from maintaining an adequate level of patriotism in the USA, does that mean all immigration everywhere is as bad, or are these consequences simply a result of a much deeper problem strongly linked to our ethnomasochistic political decisions ? You may already know the answer.
Take most European countries for example, or Asian countries (Korea, Japan, India, China…). Having much less freedom to express their cultures, sometimes even leading judicial persecution (in some of these countries the mere fact of displaying a foreign flag is against the law), and facing much much more anti-immigration and ethnocentrism than in the USA, you would tend to believe that the immigrants would be even less adherent to their new nation right ?
Once again, the simplistic, fantasist and somewhat delusional views of Ron Paul and other liberal hypocrites don’t exactly coincide with the reality of factual evidence.
It’s been proven that in ethnocentric and patriotic nations, immigrants tend to try their best to fit into their new culture. On the other hand, in a country like the United States of America which lacks ethnocentrism like no other, immigrants will of course be unpatriotic.
What chance do you have for an immigrant to become patriotic when the country which is receiving him automatically places himself in the seller position (ethnomasochism) instead of the buyer position (ethnocentrism) ?
What chance do you have for someone that immigrates say from Mexico to the USA to be patriotic when all he sees from the strain Americans, including the media, is ethnomasochism and anti-Americanism ?
On a side note, I’m not trying to sound like a left-wing hippie at all and furthermore I believe that all immigrants committing offenses or unpatriotic acts should be deported and dispossessed, as in every other country in the world.
The goal of this article is not to provide yet another hippie ethnomasochist alter-dicksucker globalist view on immigration, but to clarify the correlation between immigration and anti-Americanism.
Following the perpetual ethnomasochism in our media, we now have instituted a new doctrine pairing with that : the cult of mediocrity.
It’s clear now, for those who still had any doubts, that the anti-American media’s only goal is to lead us straight to a soviet-like system, only very ethnomasochistic. In other words, they want Nationalsozialismus… without the National of course.
I don’t personally like Mitt Romney as a politician, and I certainly wouldn’t want him in the White House, but you have to respect what he has done for this country.
As CEO of Bain & Company he was credited for leading the firm out of crisis, and founded one of the biggest private equity investments companies in the world.
And not only did he enrich himself by bringing money into the United States, as opposed to the supporters of the American Business Model that do the exact opposite (Walmart anyone ?), he also chose to spend his money in a patriotic way, by buying not one but several American cars.
How dare he be rich ? That privilege should be reserved to the Foreign ! No American should be allowed to be wealthy, as that would mean less money for the Foreign invaders !
And not only did he acquire his wealth in a healthy way for our nation, as opposed to say public-spending profit-suckers, but now he also decides to spend it in a patriotic way ?
Such acts of blatant intolerance could only come from a nationalist, fascist, racist pornographer, intolerant child-rapist and maybe even a little antisemitic. Those acts go against everything propagandized by the media : worshiping the foreign.
That’s not demagogic / anti-American at all !
Buying American products ? What’s next, racial segregation ? Concentration camps ? He must be stopped at all costs !
He should of gave away all his money to the foreign the very second he earned it ! Or at least, he should of spent it promoting foreign films in our own nation !
How can a man aspire to be the next president of the United States, when he is not even capable of kneeling before the foreign colonization of our society !
He should of been proud to give his American money away to foreigners that despise Americans, and will probably never pay any taxes in this country.
He should of been proud to feed what’s left of American sovereignty to the European hegemony.
Did he even think of the consequences of his acts ? He could of helped an American company be more competitive and have more funds to spend on research, or even worse create more jobs in America !
No wonder the media is trying so hard to bring him down after that.
It’s stunning that the media would have more respect for a teacher (sucking public funds) that decides to buy Toyota or Volkswagen cars and then comes complaining about the “1%”, portraying him as the poor victim of modern society (bad banksters, bad government, bad America…), and exhibit successful and patriotic people such as Romney as the enemy.
Because in reality, we’d much rather send our precious and costly dollars to Martin in Germany or Carlos in France, which are very happy to receive them, rather than producing our own products and supporting our own economy, and maybe even sell our products to other countries that could give us their dollars for once.
What a pleasure it is for all Americans to participate in the wealth of countries that openly consider themselves our enemies, countries that apparently need our money more then we do despite the economical crisis we are floundering in.
What a pleasure it is for all Americans to enrich even more some already rich capitalists from all around the world that will never pay the slightest tax in America, and that probably vote for nationalist and anti-American political parties in their respective countries.
What a pleasure it is, finally, for all Americans to know that countries that openly promote anti-Americanism in all its forms will retrieve an increasing share of our wealth.
It’s so much better to “work” a 9-5 job sucking money out of the commonwealth, forcing our government to borrow or print our salaries directly from the Fed, then give it all away to our enemies while complaining that the government is screwing us up.
Americans already had a serious problem with ethnomasochism, but if we add to that the growing cult of mediocrity, I can clearly state it : we are fucked.
As much as I am supportive of most of Ron Paul’s economic projects, including the public debt reduction and the non interventionism of the State.
Now the grass isn’t all green in my opinion as a few points are making me doubt and express serious reserves about the benefits of having this candidate in the White House.
Lets take this video for example as it illustrates particularly well what I mean.
Why Ron Paul shouldn’t be president
“A man led by principles”
Unfortunately, this illustrates much to well the actual mindset of most politicians.
In our country that lacks ethnocentrism like no other, Ron Paul reinforced this non-partisanship by his messages based on “principles”, “what is right to do” and so on.
“voted against every tax”
It is clearly a form/substance debate here, but I am particularly opposed to the way he spreads the libertarian/liberal message.
It seems here that the only reason he is supporting liberalism is because it is against taxes and individual liberties. Yet another non-ethnocentric way of presenting it.
The correct way for a patriot to present the liberal ideas would be “It would be beneficial for the USA to […]”.
You see the difference ? By not being ethnocentric, like any politician should be (and is in other countries), he is reinforcing the ethno-masochism sentiment we currently live in.
Part of liberalism is individual responsibility (as opposed to collective irresponsibility promoted by socialism), eluding the facts of ethno-masochism is not part of making American people more responsible and more patriotic.
As such, I don’t even consider Ron Paul as a liberal. For me he is just a variation of the traditional socialists and anti-American that populate our political institutions.
A lot of his ideas are good, but not for the right reasons.
Why do you think that a lot of countries, for most enemies of the USA, are supporting Ron Paul ? If Ron Paul was really the “one” candidate that could revitalize our economy, why are the foreigners supporting him ?
1. They like USA and wish the best for us ? Hippie approach, highly improbable (except for Kosovo maybe). Most of the foreign media now promoting Ron Paul are the same that promote nationalism and anti-American in their own countries.
2. They want discounts in Calvin Klein fragrances ? Most of these countries have already showed that they are excellent in plagiarizing American products.
3. They want to serve their best interests and know what is beneficial for them ? Almost there.
4. They want America to continue so far down the ethno-masochist path that they wont be able to get back up ? Point.
The same medias that supported anti-Americans throughout the world, that even supported the OWS fallacy, are now promoting Ron Paul’s viewpoints in OUR country ?
And they want us to believe its in OUR interest ?
There is a common saying, “Whoever is feared the most by your enemies is a good ally”.
Just read or watch what the French/German/Belgians were saying when Reagan (a pro-American AND liberal) was elected. They were diabolism him by all means, portraying him as a fascist anti-European nationalist and totalitarian, while their own politics were a hundred times more nationalists and chauvinist than Reagan’s would ever be.
Now we have Italian and Indian dudes supporting Ron Paul. There is clearly a difference in the public opinion overseas. Did all these countries that hated us, supported anti-American organization and politicians, and spread lies in their media suddenly change their views on our country ? Or did they just see an opportunity to reinforce the ethno-mascochist in America ?
I’m not trying to sound as if I base my judgement purely on overseas public opinions, it’s obviously not the case but it serves as a perfect illustration of my point.
I do believe that the future of the USA will be, and must be, of liberalism. But clearly Ron Paul is not the best solution, despite the fact that I like most of his propositions.
On the other side of Ron Paul we have Gingrich, who is patriotic, but tends to be too much Keynesian/Statist for my taste.
The approach of a liberal candidate, or any candidate, should not be some sort of idealist quest to please the masses. As I said, if you want to promote freedom for the sake of freedom, or peace for the sake of peace, nothing stops you from joining Greenpeace or any other charity organization. But please don’t pretend your are trying to help America by doing so, the only things that can help America are NATIONALISM and PATRIOTISM.
The same remark goes to the religion fanatics (Santorum) and other Bachmann/Palin and all the others. If your concern is not the sovereignty and power of the USA, gtfo of politics and join some random organization, you will probably help your country more by doing so that by monopolizing the White House for 4 years.
In conclusion : Ron Paul, good ideas but not for the good reasons.