michael Savage

michael Savage, a photo by POONDOG64 on Flickr.

MORE FROM POONDOG64



BANNED IN BRITAIN: ONE YEAR LATER — PART TWO

THE SAVAGE EFFECT

AROUND THE WORLD, AN ONLINE REVOLUTION OF SORTS WAS TRIGGERED BY JACQUI SMITH’S DECISION TO BAN ME FROM BRITAIN. ACCORDING TO FOREIGN POLICY MAGAZINE, IT CREATED A VIRAL TSUNAMI WHICH COMPLETELY DEFEATED THE INTENT OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT’S ATTEMPT TO SUPPRESS MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

WEBSITES SUCH AS FACEBOOK, YOUTUBE AND TWITTER CAME ALIVE WITH COMMENTARY ABOUT THE SAVAGE BAN. ACCORDING TO A WEBSITE THAT TRACKS DISCUSSIONS ON TWITTER, CONVERSATIONS ABOUT MICHAEL SAVAGE AND HIS BEING BANNED FROM BRITAIN HIT A HUGE SPIKE THE DAY AFTER THE TRAVEL BAN WAS ANNOUNCED. FOREIGN POLICY MAGAZINE EVEN COINED A NEW TERM, “THE SAVAGE EFFECT,” WHICH IT DESCRIBES AS A PHENOMENON IN WHICH EFFORTS TO LIMIT THE DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION IN THE ANALOG FORM BACKFIRE AND ARE TRUMPED BY THE VIRAL POWER OF DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS.

SO BY TRYING TO STRIKE ME DOWN, THEY MADE ME MORE POWERFUL. BY TRYING TO PUSH ME OFF THE OLD LINE FORMS OF MEDIA COMMUNICATION, THEY HAVE ONLY MADE ME THAT MUCH MORE POPULAR IN NEW FORMS. WHAT THEY FAILED TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT THOUGH FOR A SHORT TIME THEY MAY BE ABLE TO CONTROL THE MIDSTREAM MEDIA AND WHO COMES INTO THE COUNTRY, BUT THEY CANNOT CONTROL THE NEW SAMIZDAT, THE NEW LITERATURE THAT THE MAINSTREAM ESTABLISHMENT CONSIDERS TO BE SUBVERSIVE. THE INTERNET AND TALK RADIO IS SOMETHING THAT THEY WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO SUPPRESS.

IN GOOD COMPANY

BECAUSE OF LEFTIST POLITICS IN BOTH ENGLAND AND THE UNITED STATES AND ALSO BECAUSE I STOPPED THE DUBAI PORTS DEAL, I HAVE BEEN BANNED FROM TRAVELING TO BRITAIN. NOW I’VE BEEN FALSELY ACCUSED BECAUSE OF THE VIEWS I EXPRESS ON THE RADIO. BUT I BEGAN MY PROFESSIONAL CAREER AS A WRITER. OF COURSE I DON’T COMPARE MYSELF TO THE WRITERS I’M ABOUT TO MENTION. BUT THEY WERE MY MENTORS. AND THERE HAVE BEEN QUITE A FEW BOOKS BANNED IN QUITE A FEW NATIONS OVER THE YEARS.

"BRAVE NEW WORLD" BY ALDOUS HUXLEY. GREW UP ON HIM. BANNED IN IRELAND IN 1932. I READ EVERYTHING THAT HUXLEY WROTE. EVERYTHING INCLUDING HIS MAGAZINE ARTICLES ON FURNITURE. "CANDIDE," VOLTAIRE — SEIZED BY U.S. CUSTOMS IN 1930."DOCTOR ZHIVAGO," ONE OF THE GREAT BOOKS. BORIS PASTERNAK, BANNED WITHIN THE EX-SOVIET UNION UNTIL 1988 BECAUSE IT CRITICIZED THE BOLSHEVIK ."GULLIVER’S TRAVELS," JONATHAN SWIFT. BANNED IN IRELAND, "1984" BY GEORGE ORWELL. BANNED BY THE USSR IN 1950 BECAUSE STALIN, THE MASS MURDERER, THOUGHT IT WAS A VIEW ON HIS COUNTRY IN THE FUTURE. "THE SATANIC VERSES" BY RUSHDIE — BANNED. "THE SORROWS OF YOUNG WERTHER" BY JOHANN WOLFGANG VON GOETHE. BANNED. WHY? BECAUSE "THE SORROWS" ENCOURAGED SUICIDAL DEATHS IN SUSCEPTIBLE INDIVIDUALS. THIS IS A SHOCKER—DID YOU KNOW THAT "THE CALL OF THE WILD" BY JACK LONDON HAD BEEN BANNED IN YUGOSLAVIA AND ITALY? I DON’T HAVE ANY IDEA WHY.

BUT THOSE ARE SOME OF THE BOOKS THAT HAVE BEEN BANNED. SO IF MICHAEL SAVAGE IS NOW AMONGST THOSE AUTHORS WHO HAVE BEEN BANNED I THINK I’M IN VERY GOOD COMPANY INDEED.





POONDOG64 (19 months ago)


Banned in britain: One year later — Part one

the attack on michael savage

on may 5th, 2009, the government of great britain announced it would to close its borders to michael savage. I awoke that day at about seven o’Clock in the morning, and as i usually do, began scanning for news on the internet in preparation for that days show. There on the headline of the drudge report was the unbelievable news: “Michael savage banned from uk.” I didn’T believe it, i thought it must be some kind of joke, or some rumor perpetrated by enemies of the show. But on following the link from the headline i found that sure enough, reputable newspapers in england had reported that the british home office, the equivalent of our state department, had placed me on a list of those who are prohibited from entering the country. Here is what the website of the british home office said:

Individuals banned from the uk for stirring-up hatred have been named and shamed for the first time, the home secretary announced today. The list covers people excluded from the united kingdom for fostering extremism or hatred between october 2008 and march 2009.

And there was my name on the list:

Michael savage

controversial daily radio host. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence.

The first thought i had was, “Darn, there goes the summer trip to receive their fine dental care.” My second thought was “Darn, i’Ll have to give up my summer trip where i was going to do a tour of british restaurants for their famous cuisine.” And then i realized that this was no joke

the list

i had been placed on a list with madmen who had murdered jewish children by bashing their skulls in with rifle butts. I was on the list with islamofascists who had threatened the violent overthrow of the british government. I was on a list with violent nazi skinheads who were serving ten year sentences for murder in russia. This was pure insanity.

How can they put michael savage in the same league with mass murderers when i have never avowed violence? Had i avowed violence i wouldn’T be on the radio. I wouldn’T have lasted fifteen minutes let alone fifteen years. In fact, my opinions are more in keeping with the mainstream of america than you would like to believe. The whole point of the rights guaranteed by the first amendment (Rights which the british do not enjoy) Is to protect offensive speech, not polite speech. And whatever happened to the famous liberal saying, first stated by voltaire, and repeated by liberals in the sixties: “I may disagree with you but i will fight to the death your right to say it.”

My views are held by tens of millions of people who listen to my program in the united states, i thought. Would they ban my listeners from going to their wonderful nation as well? I wondered if my dog would be banned as well, if i appeared at heathrow with teddy, the ten-pound poodle. I wondered if he would be considered potentially to incite inter-kennel anxiety, or something like that. The truth was, i hadn’T planned on going to england, and i had hadn’T been there in over twenty-five years. But i couldn’T just leave it at that. The point was, today it’S me, but tomorrow it will be someone else. I had to fight back.





POONDOG64 (18 months ago | reply)


Mcchrystalnacht: Conduct
unbecoming … Of a president

obama, along with sycophants in both the democratic and republican parties, have conducted a mcchrystalnacht, a public character assasination of general stanley mcchrystal. In terms of obama’S role in this civilian coup, it constitutes conduct unbecoming of a president. Now, conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman is an offense outlined by article 133 of the united states uniform code of military justice. Article 133 states that the kind of behavior defined as “Unbecoming” Is “Action or behavior in an official capacity which, in dishonoring or disgracing the person as an officer, seriously compromises the officer’S character as a gentleman.” Article 133 then lists the attributes which constitute “Conduct unbecoming. They are “… Acts of dishonesty, unfair dealing, indecency, indecorum, lawlessness, injustice, or cruelty.” Anyone found guilty of these acts or omissions are subject to court martial defined in the punitive code. Now, there are some of you who might say that obama isn’T in the military, and so shouldn’T be subject to these rules. But you would be wrong. The entire left-wing media has been gloating over the fact that obama is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces ever since he called mcchrystal back to washington. So he’S not only in the military, he’S the head of the military and therefore subject to its laws. Remember, conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman is defined by:

1. Acts of dishonesty – Obama has been dishonest about why he got rid of mcchrystal. It’S clear that this has nothing to do with mcchrystal being insubordinate and everything to do with obama being intimidated.

2. Unfair dealing – Obama dealt with mcchrystal unfairly. He had decided he was going to fire mcchrystal even before he gave mcchrystal an opportunity to defend himself. According to news reports, mcchrystal offered his resignation at the beginning of their meeting at the white house. Obama immediately accepted. He didn’T bother to ask for an explanation. That’S the definition of “Unfair dealing.”

3. Indecency – Obama has had the indecency to shackle our troops with rules of engagement that will prevent them from ever winning in afghanistan.

4. Indecorum – Obama’S indecorous and imperious removal of mcchrystal emarasses and undermines the command structure of the military.

5. Lawlessness – Obama has displayed his lawlessness on healthcare, on the bailouts, and in numerous other areas. But his violations of the military command structure and his extra-legal conduct in dictating over the military are perhaps the most dangerous lawlessness of all.

6. Injustice – Obama’S refusal to even give mcchrystal a fair hearing is the height of injustice

7. Cruelty – Obama has cruelly left our army in afghanistan without a real commander who has real combat experience.

On every count, he demonstrates conduct unbecoming of a president.

Now, remember, obama isn’T the only one complicit in this mcchrystalnacht. All the traitors in the republican party that i’Ve told you about for years were in on this, too. Senator lindsey graham defended obama’S decision and said that as members of the military, we have to keep our opinions to ourselves. And why did he say we? And why did lindsey graham say we? Because as a reservist in the military, lindsey graham serves as a lawyer telling troops going overseas how they have to be careful not to fire back if they’Re attacked from a mosque. And then there’S john mcshame. John mcshame who lives up to his name. John mcshame shamed himself again by applauding obama’S decision like the weak old man that he is. And then there was defense secretary robert gates, a republican, who also supported obama’S decision. Remember, this is the man who when asked if the ft. Hood massacre conducted by the muslim major hassan was an act of terror said, “I’M not even going to go there.” It just goes to show you that this isn’T so much the night of the long knives as it is the night of the small knaves.

And what about the desk generals and desk admirals like mike mullen? Mullen came out today and said that he couldn’T excuse mcchrystal’S lack of judgement. Mullen is a desk admiral. As far as i can discover, he’S never been in combat. He attended harvard business school. His father was a hollywood press agent and his mother was an assistant to jimmy durante. When we’Re trusting our top level military decisions to desk generals like petraeus and desk admirals like mullen, we know we’Re really in trouble.

And let’S not forget the role of the media in all this. You heard the way andy mitchell and softball and wolfie blitzer treated mcchrystal, sticking in their knives as the general fell. They instinctively fear the military. Because of their years smoking bongs at anti-war protests in college, the image they have of any real military man is of general pinochet disappearing people in the middle of the night. The same thing is true of the obama administration. The bong-smokers in the media and the bong-smokers in the white house are deeply uncomfortable with the military because deep down, they know that they, the bong-smokers, are guilty of sedition.

Mcchrystalnacht has left our troops in afghanistan without a real leader. And this combined with the fact that the rules of engagement prevent our military from killing the enemy is a recipe for disaster. The rules of engagement used to be, “Don’T fire until you see the whites of their eyes.” But under clinton, and given the recent news about al gore, it seems as if the rules of engagement have become, “Don’T fire until you see the whites of their thighs.”