Tag Archives: presidential

About Ron Paul and liberalism

liberalismMany of the mass media operatives and anti-American propagandists are once more desperately trying to bring Ron Paul back into the public debate and the media eye, somehow by alleging him as the new liberal “revolution” and anti-establishment candidate.

Passing on the fact that he is as anti-establishment as Arthur Ruppin was anti-Zionist and that most of his proposals are just rehearsals of previous internationalist and globalist political beliefs coupled with even more ethnomasochism, there is at least some truth to the media propaganda for once : Ron Paul is liberal. Liberal as in real liberal, not left-wing progressive. I intentionally avoid the label classical liberal.

Now if the media for once got their facts right, they are of course completely wrong in their analysis of these facts.

Many representatives will say that Ron Paul popularized, or re-popularized, liberalism. Some will even go so far as to say that Ron Paul is popular because of his liberal views.

But I assure you, if Ron Paul manages to combine popularity in the globalist media and liberal views, there is no causality involved at all. I would go so far as to say that not only Ron Paul is not popular because of his liberal views, but rather popular despite his liberal inclinations.

Notice that those that support Ron Paul, that is to say every internationalist media to an extend, doesn’t do so because Ron Paul opposes public spending, governmental regulations and Keynesianism, but rather because he is seen as an objector to what they call “American imperialism”.

Ron Paul isn’t that much more economically liberal than Newt Gingrich or Ronald Reagan, but the reason he gets support from the anti-American media is simply because he has a very globalist and demagogic message : peace.

Furthermore, Ron Paul also has support for opposing the government, which is the new scapegoat of 2012. And by opposing I mean deluding himself and blaming everything on. But what he forgets is that liberalism isn’t particularly anti-government at all.

Liberalism doesn’t have to mean a limited government, rather an efficient government.

The media are dead wrong to believe that liberalism has rejuvenated. Liberalism means individual responsibility, and ethnomasochism is far from individual responsibility.
The more the American people strive for globalism, foreignism and anti-Americanism, the more they will be drawn to socialism regardless. If liberalism is a little more popular now than it used to be, it’s simply the result of the Bush/Obama fiasco.

But don’t delude yourself into believing that liberalism is back on the political agenda and that the United States citizens will suddenly change their political and ideological views. Nowadays Americans, if we can even call them Americans, are far too attached to the socialist values that gave birth to internationalism and ethnomasochism in the first place : collective irresponsibility, group think and sheep mentality.

Ron Paul has a hard time with reality

It’s a notorious fact that Ron Paul, along with all the other pro-peace supporters, live in their fantasy.

Not only is “pro-peace” a totally irresponsible and globalist view, I could only imagine the reactions the Europeans would have if one of their candidates labelled themselves “pro-peace”, but it’s also very stupid.

Ron Paul, candidate for which I will not vote for during the 2012 Demagogic elections, strongly believes that “war” (read military intervention) is a catalyst for anti-American terrorist attacks.

And once again… these statements are backed by no data, or any real proof whatsoever excluding the so-called blowback.

First off, if his ideas were true, than military intervention would have preceded terrorist attacks. That not being the case, this alone should infirm his statements.

Secondly, military skids are more common in the Russian army, in the French army, and in most of NATO’s forces than in the US Army. As a matter of fact, the US Army is the most and only military force to be a minimum transparent. Why isn’t there any blowback against these forces ?

Thirdly, the Muslim terrorists claim than above being anti-American, they are “Muslim extremists”. But if that was really the case, shouldn’t they be pro-American rather than anti-American knowing that the USA is the most open country to Islam of all non-Muslim States ? We allow full veil (burqa), religious signs, the construction of minarets and we actually condemn religious offense, which is not the case in most European countries for example. Moreover, and still unlike most European countries, we don’t have any nationalist or anti-Islam political party. We don’t have any congress or white house representatives that pride themselves in Muslim and Arab torture during the wars either, unlike the European Union.

Point four, where is the blowback against Germany for the Wehrmacht war crimes ? Where is the blowback against the Red Army ? Against the Chinese Army ? Surely, they have more war crimes to their actives than the US Army.

Lastly, saying that military intervention causes blowback is a massive oversimplification at best, and a blatant attempt at obscurantism at worst.
It’s like saying that all delinquents were previously victims of delinquency, all rapists were previously rape victims, all criminals were previously crime victims (all killers victims of kill ?).

Ron Paul is denying the whole predator/prey concept, as a matter of fact he is even denying the food chain. He is saying that if a chicken never eats foxes, when he crosses the road of a fox he will go unharmed.

anti-americanism

Think of it this way, was there more disobedience in a concentration camp in 44 or in a rehab clinic nowadays ? If you can answer this question correctly, you are probably smarter than Ron Paul. Or less delusional.

War is not a catalyst for anti-Americanism, anti-Americanism (and especially ethnomasochism from our leaders) is a catalyst for anti-Americanism.

Ron Paul, may be the best “pro-peace”, “anti-government”, “anti-war” candidate. But for sure he is far from being a “pro-reality” candidate.

The 2012 Demagogic elections

About every four years a very particular and intriguing event is held somewhere in the United States of America Demagogy, and many signs show that this year’s event will be at least as lame as every other year.

Similarly to how other countries elect representatives to govern them and act in their best interest, we in the United States of America Demagogy elect notorious globalists and demagogues to govern us, and act against our national interest.

You would be thinking that with the economic crisis that touches our country more then any other, with nationalist movements rising more than ever in Europe and every other country, with the disastrous results of half a decade of ethnomasochism and globalism, Americans would start to wake up and demand that their government start working in the national interest.

But apparently Americans are more concerned with gay rights, birth control pills and the legalization of marijuana.

These same Americans don’t seem to notice that they will soon experience a very painful blowback to use Ron Paul’s favorite term, once the Fed stops printing money. The errors of half a decade of ethnomasochistic governing and foreignism won’t be repaired with yet another bailout, and the consequences that Americans are starting to see are only the tip of the iceberg.

It was pretty funny last year to watch the Occupy Wall Street movement, yet another blatant excuse for anti-Americanism promoted by our ethnomasochistic media, because of the wide ignorance of the protesters.

Not only were they proposing even more international socialism to resolve problems created by international socialism, but really if they think our economic situation now is difficult, wait and see how it will be when the Europeans or the Russian take us over.

And no, there won’t be a massive bailout to magically solve our decades of trade-deficit, debt accumulation and other consequences to our anti-American globalist actions.

Even Ron Paul’s policies to cut government spending are widely insufficient at best, on the wrong track at worst.
As much as we need government spending’s limited, that alone won’t solve most of our problems. Germany, China, India, Denmark, France, Sweden Russia and most of the globe all have economies that are a lot more government depended than us (59% of GDP for Denmark, 56% for France) and their economy is in better shape than ours.

In 2008, we had to choose between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea, but trust me in 2012 we will have both.

As long as American interests aren’t the top and only priority of the voters, you might as well keep Obama and his current administration because no candidate is projecting much change in our ideology.

And apparently, seeing the possible candidates for the 2012 elections, the public opinion hasn’t evolved one bit despite the economic crisis of 2012.

As for me, once again I will not vote for anyone.

I was considered voting Ron Paul earlier this year but seriously it’s not even worth the effort, and I wouldn’t want to encourage the globalist system with my vote.

As long as we won’t have American elections, based on American interests and not demagogy, voting will be as useless here as in central Africa.