The Unintended Consequence of Elite GOPers Fleeing to Hillary Clinton

By -


They are, without meaning to, ripping the mask off of our one-party state, run by the military-industrial-legal-financial complex (henceforth MILF).

The MILFs are quite happy to have "two" parties fighting fiercely over abortion, and who gets to go in which bathroom, and legalized pot... because they don't care about these issues one little bit. So long as both candidates are on their side on MILF issues... they win every election.

This realization was starkly thrust upon me in 2004, when 50% of the American people wanted us out of Iraq... and we got two candidates committed to keeping us in Iraq! How could this be? In a two-party system, with an electorate divided 50-50 on a crucial issue, how could we not get one candidate taking each side? Well, because there aren't two parties. There are the two masks of the MILF party, "fighting" furiously over non-MILF issues, to keep the voters distracted, while in almost complete agreement over MILF issues. (Disputes such as: "Should we actually invade Iraq, or just keep bombing it forever?" are allowed.)

And in 2004, when someone threatened to capture one wing of the MILF party who was not a MILF, namely Howard Dean, he was immediately cast as a lunatic by the mainstream (meaning MILF supported) press.

It was probably the case that the only way someone could break the MILF grip on the "two" parties was for that person to be an egomaniac completely impervious to all of the smears he would face from the MILFs if he looked like a threat, in fact, someone who would cackle maniacally at the smearers and give them the finger. Oh well.

And now that the candidate has captured the nomination of one party, the flight of the GOP elite is unintentionally revealing the truth: all their over-blown talk of how "disastrous" and "evil" people like Clinton are was a mise-en-scène meant to camouflage our one-party state. The people they pretended to demonize yesterday they will gladly support today, given the prospect of a non-MILF getting elected.


Comments

  1. Thomas L. Knapp8:29 AM

    I see what you did there.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Andy9:30 AM

    I agree. Have you been reading Scott Adams (Dilbert author) on Trump. I think he's really nailed parts of this. Ignore his nutty "reality isn't real" stuff.

    Also, I suspect that this post will soon have your highest rate of landings from Google searches.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah12:32 AM

      I saw an initial Adams interview. Is there more?

      Delete
  3. Josiah Neeley8:30 AM

    Interesting post. However, it seems to me like GOP elites have been *more* accepting of Trump than the rank and file. For example, you had folks like Boehner, Rumsfeld, the WSJ, etc. say that Trump wasn't so bad and was preferable to Cruz.

    By contrast, my Facebook feed is full of people posting about how they are reregistering as Independents and are #NeverTrump. These folks aren't people who work in politics or have any influence there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah12:27 AM

      The PR goal of the one-party system is to convince lots of people that it is really a two-party system. And they are good at it.

      Delete
  4. Silas Barta7:03 PM

    May I suggest the acronym FLIM -- or even FILM, though I prefer the former -- instead of MILF?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah12:28 AM

      It was a joke. I actually threw in "legal" just to get the acronym: you can read it as "Mother-F*ers I'd love to F up!"

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more