It is a shame that an event such as the enactment of laws such as SOPA/PIPA turns out to be, once more, a clear demonstration of anti-Americanism and ethnomasochism, both from the sides of the instigators and the dissidents.
As with all laws recently adopted, the goals are not the sustainability of our economy and sovereignty, but simply a massive display of demagogy and propaganda.
The goal of American legislation is not to please the masses, much less the masses of the world, but to be efficient to our country.
And since no one seems to acknowledge this, no one will address the real issues of the SOPA/PIPA problems. Even Newt Gingrich, who I usually hold in decent esteem is simply hiding behind the fable of anti-American populism and demagogy, as seen in this video.
And since everyone is hiding behind demagogy, the will be no real debate concerning the problems that can cause SOPA/PIPA.
By the way, it’s always interesting to notice how laws like SOPA, PIPA and NDAA who exist and are effectively applied in many other countries only become controversial when instigated by an American. This proves that, similarly to the environmental socialists, the demagogy extremists are simply anti-Americans.
Here is my share on the 3 flaws of SOPA and PIPA.
Firstly, such laws are socialist and statist. They impose more legislation on American web hosting services, and by doing that they are contributing even more to the off-shoring process. They are making American web hosting companies less attractive, which is really undermining their efforts.
Secondly, they are protecting foreign products ! Yes, the American government is protecting the foreign companies that come here to sell their products to OUR consumers on OUR market, while using protectionism and economic nationalism to secure THEIR market.
At least, the french law HADOPI (similar to SOPA) only condemns the illegal download/diffusion of local products. But in the United States of Demagogy, no such national preference should be tolerated.
In a liberal and patriotic society, Americans should be free to choose to buy American products, and download for free foreign films for example.
Lastly, by laws such as SOPA and PIPA, the government is only delaying the inevitable : the end of an economic model. The government is not wrong because they are trying to protect our national Hollywood companies for example, they are wrong for relying on socialism and statism, instead of individual patriotic responsibility (liberalism).
Ten years ago, nobody would have thought of encouraging free music streaming online. Now, several sites as Youtube and Grooveshark, as well as the foreign copies that invade our market, propose the same. Those sites allow artists and majors to monetize their content in a new way.
Socialism is only delaying the inevitable and trying to preserve an already dead model, instead of focusing on new ways to monetize the content.
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.