Martians and Assassins: the ABC/Yahoo Debate

Posted by T on December 27, 2011

Though I have foresworn politics, one of the Republican debates, a couple weeks ago, was sponsored by Yahoo so that, as a possessor of Yahoo mail, I almost could hardly avoid watching it. I allowed it to run in the background.

The extreme measures taken by the kikenpress — excuse me, we can be dignified — the extreme measures taken by the”MSM” to advance their theme — Mitt or Newt, which will it be? — was shocking even for my jaded sensibilities.

The other “candidates” were allowed a place to the side, and constantly made to look like pretentious and preposterous child hecklers. The two sponsored candidates occupied the center. They wore their best solemn dignity mask. The cameras, Leni Riefenstahl-like, pointed up at them adoringly. The bulk of the questions to the sillies that occupied each flank were of the form, how do you respond to the statements just made by the real candidates?

However, let’s not be too easy on most of the flanking faux-candidates. Most of them are also stooges of the “MSM,” put on the stage intentionally to distract attention and dilute the distribution of loyalty of the nationalist and conservative base within the goy population.

Rick Santorum is surely the silliest of all. I have earned the right to ridicule that whore, having cast one of the votes in 2006 that ousted him from the Senate in the last election I participated in. It is not at all that Pennsylvania is a “liberal” state. It is not. It is two cities separated by Alabama, as Carville rightly noted. Moreover, the “city” at the left end is hardly an east-coast style liberal city: indeed, with the right leadership, it has the potential to be a true right-wing bastion. To some extent, this is true of the one at the right end as well, and even the dark vote is exaggerated in its influence by all the dead people that still vote there. And that could be remedied. No matter what the “MSM” tells you, Santorum was not defeated because of his anti-abortionism. Santorum’s single non-negotiable stance is loyalty to Israel.  This is what defeated him, even if most voters would have been unable to articulate it. They felt a rage at Bush’s series of unjustifiable and unending wars, and rightly blamed Santorum for being part of that crowd. The rage was so palpable that our rulers, even armed with their Diebold voting machines, did not dare throw it to him this time.

In this debate, it was especially ludicrous that Santorum’s chosen sound-bite du jour was to keep repeating how successful he has been as a politician, in distinction from the other flanksters.

Then you had the Minneapolis chick. She’s not bad looking. The cameramen kinda ruined it for her, at least amongst the males, by constantly panning to her adoring, gawking wussman of a husband. Then again, her job was undoubtedly only to pick up and nullify the soccer-mom vote, so no biggie. Someone should have coached her that Cain is no longer in the running, however. Her irrelevance was a little obvious.

There was Rick Perry. I want to say something about him, but I literally can’t remember a single thing he said. It doesn’t matter — it’s obvious by their own statements that the “MSM” has decided to kill him off for the remainder. They can always keep him in the back pocket if Newt and Mitt both flame out later on, but, aside from that… enough said.

Finally, you had the only honest man on the stage, Ron Paul. He was given, what, maybe 90 seconds total? You see, because RP does not make an exception for Israel in his position that we should stop subsidizing foreign regimes, the “MSM” tags him as an anti-Semite. The fact that he wants to audit the Fed adds fuel to the fire, and sets them into a barely controlled rage. How dare someone suggest that the makers and keepers of our national currency should be audited and accountable to the unwashed goyim! It really is shocking. He must be an anti-Semite.

Their first line of defense is to ignore such a man into oblivion, if only they could. When they are forced to come up for air for a brief moment, they chuckle, “of course, Ron Paul is unelectable, but…” And indeed he is unelectable, in that he will die mysteriously if he starts winning too many primaries. Like the Godfather presciently observed in his great speech, he will be accidently shot by a security officer, or hang himself, or be struck by a bolt of lightning. Indeed, he is unelectable. However, that does not stop me from sending him money, because I am an Anglo-Saxon. We believe in supporting lost causes.

Little Davy B. cannot understand that. He wants always to back a winner, in the name of incremental progress. But the irony is, backing those kind of winners always leads to defeat. I was already an adult during the Reagan Revolution, and during the first Gingrich Revolution, both of which were “successful” they say.  But can anyone seriously suggest that, compared to 1980, we are the tiniest increment closer toward being a healthy nation?

The sudden rise, almost as remarkable as that of George Bush in 1999, of serial polygamist Newt Gingrich in 2011, is proof of the existence of the, ahem, “MSM.” He has no objective credibility, starting with the significance of taking an oath of office, on any issue except loyalty to Israel.

Indeed, the sole point of heated contention between him and Mitt was on Israel. There was a brief tossing of fur and bluster. I forget who said what… something like, Gingrich made a heroic and fearless defense of some plain injustice perpetrated by Israel, and Romney courageously countered that… only Israel should be allowed to make statements about the morality of their own actions. Something like that. It was really heated.

This debate was the first time I have ever heard Mitt himself speak. He was surprisingly articulate and urbane. Abstracting from who he is and what he stands for, I liked him.

But think about it. The only honest man on the stage would surely be assassinated by the “power behind the throne” if he ever mounted a serious challenge. Besides him, the most “reasonable” sounding man is a man that believes that Martians have coitus and produce gods, one of which we are supposed to revere as “our Father” and aspire to become like. This is what America has incrementally become.

1 Comment to Martians and Assassins: the ABC/Yahoo Debate

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *