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.
It’s funny to note how both the communist and the new wave of pro-European globalist share very similar views on most subjects. For instance, they both follow blindly the work of so-called economists that had very little real market experience (Marx for the Red, Hayek, Bastiat, Von Mises for the Blue). They’re also both eager to openly designate scrapegoats, the “invisible enemy” against whom we must all unite for the “greater good” even beyond American interests. And finally, they’re both also eager declare themselves outsiders, anti-system or anti-establishment.
Recently in our political debates, many conservative candidates have expressed views about a more open market, a free market if you will. Now free market doesn’t have to mean mere submission to the globalization of our economies as Ron Paul suggests, some markets can be very restricted yet very open to globalization (or even globalism) as California shows us.
Free market means a more open economy inside our borders, less governmental restrictions on businesses and business creation. Now as favorable as I am to this idea, our politicians and other leaders have now managed to turn what was once a genuinely good idea to a new masquerade of demagogy.
Politicians, and especially Ron Paul, seem not only to see free market as the new magic pill, but even as the only economic proposition. Free market is neither the new magic pill, there shouldn’t be any magic pills, neither should it be the only proposition of any decent candidate.
He seems to think that by allowing free market all the problems we face will be solved… well first of all that would imply that all are problems are economic, not political or ideological for example.
And secondly, where are all the other top free market countries in the world ? Once again, Ron Paul and the other liberal suckers are very good at scaffolding demagogic speeches, but as always they don’t translate in reality.
The two biggest exporters in the world, China and Germany, are also those who have some of the least free markets. The United States actually aren’t bad at all in terms of free market, ranking 6th on the 2011 economic freedom index. Germany is 25th and China 132th. Yet, we have the worst trade balance in the world, ranking 198th on… 198 countries. Note that the difference between the USA’s trade balance and the 197th is bigger than the difference between the 1rst and the 197th. If you have any experienced in statistics, you shall notice how fucked up that is.
But don’t forget that trade deficit is only the tip of the iceberg, the real consequences lie behind it : printing, taxing or borrowing money, reliance on foreign investments…
The top five countries with the best trade balance also have the least free markets : China, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Japan, Russia (source: CIA world factbook).
Not only that, but most of the successful countries also have a lot of governmental involvement : over 50% of GDP for France, Belgium, Denmark, Russia. How can Ron Paul still advocate free market as the ultimate solution, the magic pill ?
Sure free market is beneficial, I’m not saying otherwise. But it all comes down to supply and demand, and there’s a very (very) simple equation that both Ron Paul and Marx seem to ignore : supply = demand. No more, no less.
How can there be a supply when all our goods or produced by foreigners in foreign countries ? How can there be a demand when our economy, like our politicians, is completely disconnected from the reality of the market by countless stimulus plans that involve printing, borrowing or relying on foreign investments ?
Free market and economic liberty are both stimulating factors for an economy, but under no condition should they be considered as “magic pills”. If the candidates believed in real liberalism (individual responsibility), they’d drop the magic pill speech altogether and leave that for Obama. But the truth is that neither Ron Paul nor any other candidate is any better than Obama to answer our current economic issue. As a matter of fact, most of our politicians don’t even want to answer them.
Just when you thought that the so-called liberals and their supporters ought to shut up, here they are trying to get attention and occupy
wall street the media scene with the same old joke : the 9/11 conspiracy.
One could wonder why this event, which happened over ten years ago, still holds such an importance as of today but regardless.
It seems like the ethnomasochist wave generally accompanying Ron Paul’s campaigns has payed off and carried on to other candidates.
But seriously now, we really are lucky to have such insightful people to govern us.
C’mon of course it’s a conspiracy… the foreign attacking us ? The foreign hating America ? Impossible. That just doesn’t fit the ethnomasochist propaganda promoted by the mass media.
It can’t be the foreign, it just has to bey Americans. PHEW ! We were lucky, for a little while we were about to admit that foreigners could cause harm to the USA… unimaginable ! And utterly intolerant.
It’s also quite funny to notice that these conspiracy theories only arise when the United States of America are implied.
Why are the no conspiracy theories for the Holocaust for example ? For the Armenian genocide ? For Fukushima ?
Oh I forget, that would be “intolerant”.
Among the 2012 presidential debates that spread quickly and increasingly over this country, quite a few yet not as much as expected concern the economic situation of the United States of America.
Strangely enough, these same economic debates will have been characterized by two essentials elements : the overly pronounced taste for globalism of our candidates and the complete absence of solutions concerning the trade deficit.
For the first one, no real surprise you don’t step out of five decades of blatant ethnomasochism as easily. For the second characteristic on the other hand, even though I half expected it I must say I am nevertheless taken aback by the stupid of those who desire to govern us.
On the economic table,you might have witnessed a few lonely tirades about the public spending, and even less numerous interventions about the unemployment, which Ron Paul blames on the… FED. How original.
I truly have a hard time seeing how monetary creation, if that’s what Ron Paul reproaches to the FED in the first place, leads to unemployment since on the contrary, in the short term monetary creation will bring devaluation of the currency, and lead to more exports. It’s only in the long term that monetary creation can show its perverse effects, more on that later.
But aside from Ron Paul’s usual ramble, very few mentions to our current economic situation have been noticeable, like for example our record high trade deficit. It’s also funny to notice that we barely use the term “trade balance” anymore, only “trade deficit” implying that our balance couldn’t be positive.
Only once again, and if you dispose of whatever political experience or plainly common sense you may already have noticed, purposely ignoring an issue won’t make it fix itself. We’ve had proof for the public debt, the ethnomasochism, the anti-Americanism and countless other political experiments.
The truth about the trade deficit in America
Every candidate talks openly about such concepts as wealth redistribution and common wealth, but what they seemingly fail to notice is that to have any wealth to distribute you have to produce it first. And as we fail to produce any wealth, actually we lose some each day hence the term trade deficit, our economic system is only feeding on a smaller and smaller piece of cake : our past gains.
The only companies actually bringing money into the USA are the very old ones, often times the ones labelled as corporations by the mass media, and they are also believe or not the most taxed entities in this country.
But taxing our big companies is not and was never enough for our economic system not to collapse under the weight of the drag that is our American Business Model.
To substitute to our nonexistent and even hugely deficient production of wealth, there are three solutions.
1. Tax money
2. Print money
3. Borrow money
Needless to say that our government is applying all three of these, and rather ineffectively.
But don’t forget that Americans are sheep, and whole common wealth system is designed against them. In the long run that is.
The system is designed by essence for the supply to meet the demand by all needs necessary, disregarding our sovereignty and our long term national interests (the liberals always talk about collective interest, but what is more collective than our own nation I demand).
Americans are such sheep that as long as the supply meets the demand, or in this case the demands, they won’t protest. They all want the “miracle pill” to solve all our problems, and that’s exactly why charlatans such as Ron Paul can rise effortlessly on top of all political polls.
Americans aren’t lucid at all when it comes to political and economical decisions, and these democratic debates often turn out to be one way overbidding schemes.
– We aren’t producing enough wealth and bringing enough money in our country ? We can either change our ways and adopt a more patriotic form of citizenship, or we can just tax the rich and the companies. The latter solution is easier, more demagogic and by the time the consequences will arise there will be a new president in the office to put the blame on.
– We can’t tax the rich anymore but still aren’t bringing enough money in our country ? We can either change our ways and adopt a more patriotic form of citizenship, or we can just borrow our money with massive interest rates from other countries, most of which openly consider themselves our enemies. The latter solution is easier, more demagogic and by the time the consequences will arise there will be a new president in the office to put the blame on.
– We can’t borrow anymore money but still aren’t bringing enough money in our country ? We can either change our ways and adopt a more patriotic form of citizenship, or we can just print more money disregarding the issues linked to devaluation. The latter solution is easier, more demagogic and by the time the consequences will arise there will be a new president in the office to put the blame on.
The candidate Ron Paul and several other conservatives have strongly opposed the concept of monetary creation, at least indirectly, and the “FED system”. Unsurprisingly, none of them has ever brought up the consequences of ending a system on which our whole economy is now dependent.
And for once in the history of the United States of Demagogy, there is a possibility that the supply won’t meet the demand, simply because there is no more supply. There are no more fake issues, “miracle pills”, Jesus-is-our-savior-he-will-fix-our-economy-vote-Santorum-2012, nonviable settlements, wrong answers and non-solutions to disconnect the American people from the market.
Our politicians believed they could just ignore the reality of economic war and the market altogether, but they are only just starting to see the consequences of fifty decades of internationalism and ethnomasochism.
Surely many Americans are the biggest sheep in the world, and even more surely these same Americans will pay the price for this naivety in a very near future. Unfortunately, many not-so-sheep Americans will also have to pay the same price. That’s the beauty of collective irresponsibility.
I don’t know if you watched Ron Paul’s speech to a Town Hall meeting in Maryland, but it’s very revealing concerning his ambitions as a president.
A very interesting segment was when he said that we should all unite under our love for liberty and forget communities and differences. Replace liberty with equality and you have the exact same speech as Lenin. Anationalism in other words.
It’s funny how the globalists are always demanding for sacrifices in the name of a “greater good”, such as globalism, freedom. But what they won’t tell you and Americans won’t seem to realize is that it’s always the same that are performing these sacrifices (Americans) and the same that are on the receiving end (the foreign).
You don’t see such speeches in the European elections for example. No candidate would dare put a “greater good” above national interests. But Americans don’t seem to notice anything happening outside their borders.
You may see a lot of foreign support for Ron Paul as I previously evoked on this blog, but does that mean they like his ideas ? Or just that they want him in the White House ?
Notice that far from being ashamed of this foreign support, Ron Paul actually praises it on any possible occasion. It seems he accords even more value to foreign support than national support, which says long about a candidate to the United States presidency.
If Americans weren’t so much following the sheep mentality and mindless group-think they’d start to look a little closer at the foreign governments, and start to notice some incoherence.
For example, just look at how much support Ron Paul received from France or Russia. But who are their presidents ? Libertarians or nationalists ? This applies for any other country in the world, India, Germany, Poland, Czech Republic.
Look at the polls, look at their candidates, look at their senates, look at their propositions, look at their political programs ? Do they even have a libertarian candidate ? In most cases no, and if they do it’s far from being the globalist ethnomasochist hippie-fest that Ron Paul promulgates, and a lot closer to nationalism coupled with classical liberalism.
If Americans weren’t such sheep, they’d notice that far from wanting more libertarianism for their countries, they just want Ron Paul elected as president of the United States.
But unfortunately, Americans are sheep and will suffer the consequences. Too bad. But kinda funny at the same time.
Be prepared for more OWS crap in the near future, and don’t forget the popcorn (one of the rare vestige of American gastronomy that has survived decades of global imperialism and ethnomasochism).
If you are trying to win an argument over politics in the United States, there are some advanced cheats you can easily use to discredit your opponent, such as calling him a fascist, a racist, a nationalist… or a pro-corporation. These cheats are so powerful that you can win any argument simply by using them, even against someone much more competent than you on political or economical subjects.
You see, in the middle of an unprecedented economic crisis, the massive trade deficit and public debt we face, and the continuously growing influence of the foreign and foreign interests in our own country, Americans are worried about corporations.
And by corporations, Americans don’t mean corporate lobbies, they just mean American corporations. Once again, demagogy became a convenient excuse for anti-Americanism.
That just proves to show that once more Americans are blaming scapegoats, and not any scapegoat because they are actually blaming the wealth creators and the only ones that draw money into the United States, as opposed to the very common American Business Model.
Many “Americans”, loyal adepts following the sheep mentality, have expressed their desire for corporations to have less voice in the White House. They even came up with a slogan, “Corporations are not people”. Some would argue that by doing that they are shooting themselves in the foot, since most of them are also supporters of famous anti-American lobbies, such as ecology, anti-racism or even globalism. Others would also argue that the priority would be to lessen the voice of the foreign out of our politics.
Some real questions arise from these clear demonstrations of demagogy and sheep mentality, including the following, should the corporations have a bigger or small voice inside the White House ?
First of all, supposing that we should lessen the voice of corporations/companies means that they already have some, which is clearly not the case. Have you ever heard of an act favoring American companies ? Sure the international socialist media might talk to you about SOPA/PIPA, but was it really a corporate issue ? Similar laws are effective in many other countries in the world (only more nationalist version), and have proven that such laws are more of a political issue.
Furthermore SOPA/PIPA don’t really favor American corporations since most musical labels and films distributors are foreign, and these laws don’t make distinction between the origin of any intellectual propriety (unlike their European equivalents for example).
Secondly, when is the last time Obama’s administration addressed an issue that American companies/entrepreneurs have to face ? Like social dumping, foreign protectionism, foreign nationalism, foreign economical imperialism, American ethnomasochism ? Even more consternating, when was the last time any president or political candidate had an open discussion with entrepreneurs, companies or any other wealth creator ? Despite them being very good at showing appalling doses of demagogy on public media, those facts alone exhibit their clear aversion for those that are actually bringing money in the USA.
Lastly, the anti-American media is very good at pointing out the supposed size of the corporations in our politics, but they forget that the entire American system is based on feeding off of these big corporations. The middle-class doesn’t export, neither do they bring money in the USA. The companies are the most taxed entities in this country, depriving them from political power would be not only stupid but also very hypocritical. The recent American government decisions were never pro-business, and much less pro-American business.
I honestly believe that more corporation voicing their views in the political debate can only be more beneficial.
Not only is it only fare that the biggest contributors to our economy have a bigger voice, but especially since they are close to being the only ones that actually know shit about the business world and political economy.
If I wanted to see unbiased global political economics brought to the political table and had a choice between :
- Delusional politicians living in their fantasies incapable of seeing the facts of the market.
- Unemployed hippies calling themselves the 99% and whining about the economic crisis.
- Foreign news reporters writing about how globalism is good and how nationalism is bad, yet promoting the opposite in their respective countries.
…and actual companies that actually have real experience of how global economics work, I’d much rather have them inside a political debate.
In their political decisions American have for too long relied on principles, dreams, opinions, morals, ideas rather than on facts and on what actually works.
Ultimately, this is why the politicians that make the least amount of promises are always sanctioned. That tells you a lot about the voters, who at each election, will look for the person that says the most… without realizing that if he says so much, it’s because he doesn’t know shit.
Opinions and principles of our politicians are worthless, it’s time American stop the demagogy perpetuated by the media about what’s right to do, what’s ethical, what’s tolerant… and start looking at what works.
American multinational corporations, unlike most Americans, actually know what works and they also know what’s going on outside our borders. They actually know what discriminative laws they have to face when trying to implant themselves in this or that country, and also know that their foreign competitors don’t have to face these laws when implanting themselves in the USA.
I’d rather have them bring that to the political table then hear Santorum whining about Jesus or Ron Paul about torture.
The only way of seeing what works is to have actual global business experience. And actual global business experience comes from… reality, once again.
Not from Joe K. plumber since 1978 who thinks nationalism is bad because it’s “racist” and “intolerant”, not from Frank B. unemployed since always who thinks welfare is good because Obama said so, and certainly not from Jennifer A. writer for the Huffington Post who shares her political analysis every week yet learned about economy reading fucking cosmo.
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.