Divergent Sociopathy?

More weird days in the alt media world - I say "weird" and not "strange" because weird is a happening thing on the Dem left...

Juggling the JQ

First, I’m going to say it straight, I sold Kim Iversen slightly short at the start of my last piece, not having realized that she was actually addressing something important in that pod, the intro of which I mocked derisively if briefly. In fact the segment is a great example of how “JQ normies” are being forced to address matters which they are loath to address on any level, that the result of the 10/7-triggered Jewish mass murder campaign (they being the perps and not the “survivors”, of course) and our election campaigns.

So let’s give part of that a listen:

The core matter in all that is Lifeboat Israel, the safe haven in a murderously hostile world for Jews, which comes down to the Jewish side of the belief of Holocaustism. What Kim is expressing is the gentile side of that faith, that we have learned the lesson of Hitler, that we are trained puppies now and won’t ever again pee on the kosher floor. That is a fundamental contradiction built into that religion’s construction, once both halves of it have completely embraced its tenets.

There are at least a couple problems with this expression of the overall issue. One is that it’s way too narrow - Jewish political behavior goes way beyond simply wanting the US to fund and protect their safe haven, and in the context of Gaza maybe the best example is Ukraine. While I suppose it’s possible that part of that neocon project is to prepare the ground for a new Jewish homeland in Europe, reverting to the Ashkenazim’s more recent roots in the Pale, the dark heart of it is simply cultural revenge - in black terms, reparations for their past mortal sins against the Chosen. Black terms adopted from the Jews, btw.

Another obvious problem with this is that Kim has this absolutely backwards - when the shit hits the fan, which it almost certainly will and quite possibly in this decade, we will want the Jews to run to their safe haven and get the hell out of here. Because that fan-hitting of the shit will be the result of Jewish control over our government and culture, and so part of that process I will optimistically assume will include a general awakening to who is responsible.

But a more likely disastrous development as a consequence of the 10/7 bomb being dropped into a world already prepped by the new cold war is that broader Middle East war will result in Jews feeling the need to abandon Israel and not America. And where will they likely go, at least in the shorter run? Yep, you guessed it - America. And all those trained goy puppies will welcome them with open arms and furiously wagging tails, sealing America’s fate.

Kim’s noble effort to address an aspect of the Jewish Question should be applauded, I suppose, but it’s only the first step down a long road for her. At least we should acknowledge that she can use the word “Jew” and mean it, attaching it to criticism of its owners. Because not everyone can do that yet; some people still treat it like the J-word it isn’t:

Note the way that Tina worships Saint Bernard at the beginning, reciting his Holocaust chops like scripture. His father left Galicia in newly-recreated Poland for Brooklyn in 1921, so I don’t know how that qualifies as “making it out” - did he somehow know that in another two years a drunken corporal Hitler would get up and start ranting about overthrowing the government in a beer hall in Munich?

The sin that Tina clearly is committing here is that she’s still operating within the context of the Democratic Party and hasn’t done what the good post-progressives have done, which is to abandon that orientation to move outside of the party and then to viciously and often irrationally attack it from that new vantage point. No matter where that vantage point is - it can be anything from Sabby in the third party left to Glenn Greenwald in the Trump/RFK-favoring neo-libertarian right.

So even though Tina is rockin’ for the Palestinians on CNN it’s just not good enough for Sabby, because Tina’s still “working within the system”, still trying to do what progressives did in 2016 when they naively lined up behind Sanders as an act of protest against Clintonism, and what they did in 2020 when they even more naively lined up behind Sanders to take over the party.

But what is Tina’s real sin? Apparently she supports Kamala. It’s not that she doesn’t respond with 186k instead of 40k, or say that Israelis don’t deserve their good life. And more specifically it’s about AIPAC, the organization that apparently funded Kamala, the organization that intimidated Tina according to Sabby. And we all know who AIPAC is, right? Kim’s pod title declared her awakening awareness: “AIPAC isn’t foreign?”

But where does Sabby also go? Kamala is a “corporate” candidate. What, where did that come from? That’s just like BJ Gray in a clip I included in my last piece, “corporate” coming out of nowhere when we’re talking about Gaza and Jews. Is this the new black euphemism for those who are J-word challenged? Or do they think the real problem with AIPAC is that it’s a corporation?

Tracey does the Dems, from white to black

At least she recognizes that progressivism is dead, in the 2016-20 sense. But as a scattered-yet-spiritually-aligned force attacking the Dems it’s still alive and well, as we could see emanating out of Greenie’s studio in Rio:

So the first of three segments on this show all dedicated to attacking Kamala and the Dems, this one related to white “dudes” featuring the Big Liberalowski. What’s not clear is if he’s mocking the Dems for the left's demonizing of white men in favor of all the victim groups over the last half century (the core mission of Cultural Marxism), or if it’s for trying in a small and superficial way to stop doing that.

Maybe there’s a hint in his snide comments on Kamala’s historical history, where he somewhat-wrongfully claims Biden was blackmailed into naming Kamala as his VP because she’s a black (Afro-Caribbean/South Asian) woman. To add more depth of color to this, let’s go back to the now-available second part of my video from 2020 after Biden first revealed “his” choice (yes, I’ve gotten it to play too!):

What Tracey says there is in acknowledgement that Biden had said that he would name a woman, but that the black thing is something he adds on top because it creates political advantages. Nothing about being literally blackmailed into doing it by BLM.

Btw, Cheney is actually the last VP who hadn’t been either a governor or senator prior to becoming VP, before him Bush Sr, and Ford before that. The Dems love to select senators, while the GOP loves to select governors and/or House reps, but they’re quite willing to select deep state operatives too (Cheney, Bush and Ford all qualify). The last Dem VP who wasn’t from the Senate was Henry Wallace.

There seems to be this new theme that I’ve mentioned before, that Biden named Kamala because he’d promised to name a black woman, when he only promised to name a woman (which, again, is what Tracey said here). All of this seems to be part of the broader progressive narrative of mocking the centrist Clintonite Dems for their identity politics.

But they, the post-progressives, are not attacking the politics of race from the same direction as the right anti-racists do, they are taking a position of superiority on race/gender. As if all that’s all been said and done, and any developed left political thinker has moved beyond dealing with these matters with specific intent, rather that’s just part of their being now, in the DNA, they have become entirely color- and gender-blind. Or at least that’s the way it feels to me.

In case you don't know, Val Demings ran for the Senate against Little Marco Rubio in 2022 and lost, thereby also losing her House seat, and then Biden named her to some US Post Office advisory board. I’m guessing she’s lost her so-brief position on the political fast-tracking lists.

Let’s turn back to Sabby for another angle on the matter of race as weaponized in the post-progressive war on Kamala:

I din’t know about you, but in the comments by Kamala that she cites I don’t see any smoking gun there at all, regarding to her claimed self-identification as Indian - it’s all sooo nit-picky. I had left San Francisco for the east bay before she was elected district attorney, but I certainly remember her as Attorney General, and my impression always was that she was black, including being part of the Willie Brown mafia. It seems like Sabby is pushing the line that if you ain’t all in on identifying as black, you ain’t black.

As for Obama, he and his handlers were trying to establish his chops as a black man, a person of color - let’s remember that his other half is white, which gets us back to what Tracey was bashing in that last clip, and that he grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia, not exactly centers of black culture. Kamala is a person of color on both sides, and let’s recognize that Indian-Americans are a very wealthy ethnic group, centered in neighboring Silicon Valley, who have arisen up into the political activist class (Ro, Nimarata, Vivek, et al). It benefits Kamala to also identify as Indian.

But then she gets to the busing thing:

So here’s what her wiki says about her childhood:

Kamala Devi Harris was born in Oakland, California, on October 20, 1964… In 1966, the Harris family moved to Champaign, Illinois (where Kamala's younger sister Maya was born), when her parents took positions at the University of Illinois. The family moved around the Midwest, with both parents working at multiple universities in succession over a brief period. Kamala, along with her mother and sister, moved back to California in 1970, while her father remained in the Midwest. They stayed briefly on Milvia Street in central Berkeley, then at a duplex on Bancroft Way in West Berkeley, an area often called the "flatlands" with a significant Black population. When Harris began kindergarten, she was bused as part of Berkeley's comprehensive desegregation program to Thousand Oaks Elementary School, a public school in a more prosperous neighborhood in northern Berkeley which previously had been 95 percent white, and after the desegregation plan went into effect became 40 percent Black… When she was twelve, Harris and her sister moved with their mother to Montreal, Quebec, where Shyamala had accepted a research and teaching position at the McGill University-affiliated Jewish General Hospital… After high school, Harris attended Vanier College in Montreal in 1981–1982. She then attended Howard University, a historically black university in Washington, D.C., living initially in a dorm room at Eton Tower near Thomas Circle.

Thousand Oaks Elementary is only a matter of blocks away from my house in California, and Milvia and Bancroft in Berkeley aren’t much farther away; the wiki has this photo of her childhood home on Bancroft that sure looks like that area to me. This is one of the sources cited.

The judge claimed Kamala’s father is “Irish and Hindu”, and one assumes the latter means Indian, but I can’t find any verification of that. The Irish thing relates to his grandmother, who has been claimed to be a descendant of Hamilton Brown, a slaver in Jamaica who died in 1843. I look at Donald Harris and I don’t see anything particularly Indian about his appearance. He black.

Who knows for sure, but this guy Sabby shows as her source doesn’t strike me as very credible. But he is to her because… he black, he real black (Crenshaw). And he is coming down on the same side that Sabby wants to promote, which is anti-Dem.

Again, this is the same right-wing birther stuff that plagued Clinton and Obama, “fatherless” presidential candidates, where I think the real issues in their psychology aren’t the ones being addressed, the fact that they all ended up being mostly-willing puppets of a certain elite in their desires to accomplish political fame at the highest level.

Let’s get back to Tracey’s Dem-hammering, this time with a Republican media-critic on the “weirdness” craze:

Part of the reason for this discussion is that Ziegler was a defender of Palin back in 2008, and in particular related to her SNL-sourced ability to see Russia from her front porch or whatever, the equivalent to Shady’s couch potato status. In other words, just what Dems do… as opposed to, say, Donald Trump. So he’s throwing any rancid potato he can find at Kamala and the Dems.

What jumped out at me here was his decidedly cool profiling of Walz, the “moderately successful governor”. As opposed to the highly successful senator from Vermont one assumes, who I guess has his name on lots of important enacted legislation. Me, from what I can tell about him so far, I certainly prefer his Midwestern populist style over, say, the Brooklyn-sourced New York Jew style of that other nameless national politician of some note. I just found this surprising that nothing Democratic can penetrate the wall of post-progressiveness, it’s all black and white, just like with Sabby. Coastal elites, anyone?

Round three from Tracey, this time with a liberal Democrat, Bill Scher (Jew?):

I don’t have any issue with what Scher said here, it’s what I’ve been saying. There simply was no way to start the primary process over at the point that Biden dropped out, so the Biden delegates are the universe of decisionmakers in the end. And apparently they mostly support Kamala, which is exactly what one would expect. No other candidate of any substance has even hinted at contesting that to my knowledge (RFK Jr seems to have been the only one watching the Biden turd circle the bowl with interest). There is going to be a virtual vote this week, as I understand it, and if for some reason she fails to get a majority, then they have time to set up an open process at the convention - but we all know that won’t be necessary. And we all know that the presidential candidate always selects his (or her) VP running mate, that’s the way it’s been forever (since whatever amendment changed it from first loser in the election).

I’m not going to get deeply into Humphrey in 1968 again, but here is the story on those primaries; note how few votes Humphrey got:

He didn’t get that few votes because he was unpopular, he got that few because he didn’t run in those primaries and so his name wasn’t on the ballots. Btw, the top two maps show New Hampshire in McGovern red, which I assume is an error - LBJ won NH 50% to 42% over McCarthy, even though LBJ wasn’t on the ballot (he was written in by those voters); McCarthy won most of the delegates because of the nature of the delegate selection process paralleling those voting results. McGovern didn’t get into the race until after RFK was killed.

What I will say is that vice presidents who become president aren’t necessarily subject to independent national voter approval. LBJ really wasn’t, because he had come in second to JFK in the 1960 race using the same primary-avoiding convention strategy as Humphrey in 1968. Nixon lost to JFK in 1960 and then beat Humphrey in 1968, after contesting the primaries against Reagan and Rockefeller; but he only received 43.4% of the vote in the election because of the Wallace candidacy (and fewer votes than Reagan in the primaries). Ford became president after not even having run for vice president and only having been elected by his House constituency in Michigan. Bush ran for president once, losing the nomination to Reagan in 1980, before riding his coattails in 1988 and having only ever been elected to the House; he did have to beat Dole in the primaries and did so easily. Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but not the presidency. Like Gore, Biden ran in 1988, and again in 2008 without much notice, and then won in 2020 largely on Obama’s coattails after being heavily contested in the primaries (but got the majority of the votes).

Throw Truman and Coolidge onto this list and ask yourself how many of these people would have ever become president without having been undemocratically selected as a veep candidate first. So this situation isn’t really as historically different as Tracey tries to portray it. But that’s become the standard oppositional line now.

There are the three segments of Dem-bashing by Tracey in this show. I want to go back to that 2020 video again, to get more on the view of Kamala, this time from Max on Jimmy:

Max said Kamala’s father was Marxist, which Caleb Maupin also claims, but I don’t know that’s true. He’s referred to as a “post-Keynesian economist”, and here is what the wiki on that says in part:

The term "post-Keynesian" was first used to refer to a distinct school of economic thought by Eichner and Kregel (1975) and by the establishment of the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics in 1978. Prior to 1975, and occasionally in more recent work, post-Keynesian could simply mean economics carried out after 1936, the date of Keynes's General Theory.

Post-Keynesian economists are united in maintaining that Keynes' theory is seriously misrepresented by the two other principal Keynesian schools: neo-Keynesian economics, which was orthodox in the 1950s and 60s, and new Keynesian economics, which together with various strands of neoclassical economics has been dominant in mainstream macroeconomics since the 1980s. Post-Keynesian economics can be seen as an attempt to rebuild economic theory in the light of Keynes' ideas and insights. However, even in the early years, post-Keynesians such as Joan Robinson sought to distance themselves from Keynes, and much current post-Keynesian thought cannot be found in Keynes. Some post-Keynesians took a more progressive view than Keynes himself, with greater emphases on worker-friendly policies and redistribution.

It seems like post-Keynsian economics might have largely been a reaction to neoliberalism, which was arising and taking over at the same time. Harris may have been more of a Marxist in his early years, but a lot of people were in their youth in those days, especially educated activists in Latin America (even though Jamaica isn’t really Latin I guess).

But again, as I addressed toward the end of that clip, what really matters about Kamala isn’t really ever discussed. You’ll have to wait a bit for what I said about the 2020 election, and relating that to the matter of the moment, Kamala’s veep choice.

Btw, Maupin’s book on Kamala is mysteriously again available on Amazon, after a week or so of his promoting it based on Bezos’ blatant censorship of Truth, and now he’s apparently got a GoFundMe working so he can distribute it to folks in Chicago for the convention. Caleb, I see you.

Revisiting the chameleon Younes

One last moment from replacement killer Mike on his last night doing the show, when his rather trivial female last guest was Jenin Younes, there to talk about something out of her wheelhouse, Gaza - at least until she supplied personal info new to me:

So her father is Palestinian. Last year I discussed her prior appearance on the show related to MO v Joe, and one of the things that I said in that piece was this:

I also assume she’s Jewish, in part because she’s been writing for Tablet, which is not a Jewish Left rag; her writing there has all been related to the pandemic.

So I want to correct the record on that… even though I don’t know what her mother is ethnically. Because Jenin only says as much as she needs to.

But there’s more to discuss than just that. Here is how Greenie introduced Younes back on 9/11/23, and her own declaration later in the discussion:

A couple important things to note there. This was about a month before 10/7, so before the congressional GOP went apeshit on censoring “antisemitism”, showing their true colors. This was also during the period when Greenwald and others were trying so hard to sell the idea that this MO vs Joe action was fundamentally non-partisan, which was absolute BS.

Having dug more deeply into her after initially featuring this video, I came to the conclusion that she was not only not a leftist at that point, but that she was clearly on the more radical right, specifically the libertarian right - I detailed this in a postscript at the end of that piece, which included information about her organizational associations that I could find:

But then in that clip she came back over the top and absolutely confirms what Greenwald had mildly suggested regarding her leftism. My conclusion was that she used to be a leftist but then completely flipped to the libertarian right over covid, the lockdown and the vaccines (and possibly more). Now in the Tracey interview she finally confirms that - she’s someone who doesn't identify as a conservative, but who usually votes Republican, who believes in small government because the US doesn’t do government well at the federal level, who wants conservative Supreme Court justices, etc.

Now, it’s possible that she’s one of these post-progressive neo-libertarian types who have convinced themselves that they’re still on the left, because they remain adherents to Cultural Marxism or something along those lines. But I think that’s very unlikely in her case, I think deception is much more likely the operative tactic here. Which makes her just like Greenwald, who by this point in the evolution of the post-10/7 world we know somehow gets everything wrong.

Also, speaking of shape-shifters, one of my other discoveries was that she’s been buds with the lunatic fringer Jewess Naomi Wolf, who believes covid was a biological attack on America by the Chinese. 🙄 Wack-a-doodle-do…

Btw, early last year Younes announced on Twitter that she’d gotten married, in Miami, while reiterating her desire for retaining personal secrecy generally. Hubby certainly looks eastern Mediterranean to me, but who knows. I’ll guess… a Semite? 😉

Veeping to the end…

Finally, we are mere days or hours away from hearing who Kamala will choose as her VP. My read at the moment is that the leading candidate is Shapiro, which would confirm who she is under the control of. Buttiplug was my expectation, since 2020, but 10/7 has changed things, we are now in extraordinary times where the need for managing the flow of military support for the ethnostate is at an existential level. So a Zionist loon Jew becomes a better choice than to put together the ultimate identity politics team.

Walz would signal something considerably more optimistic, a populist-type white male who would be entirely out of character for the party over the last couple decades. Beshear would basically be the Dem counter to Trump naming Hillbilly Vance, and would be a kind of non-statement beyond being able to do better in the war over Appalachia. Kelly would also signal that Kamala wants to avoid the whole thing, making a simple battleground choice without too much baggage - beyond his Jewish wife, the possible loss of the senate as a result and the matter of the southern border, that is.

I think it’s going to be either Shapiro, Buttiplug or Walz, with odds falling in that order, and who it is will tell us a lot, really more than much of anything she can say as VP in the Biden administration, where she has to tow the company line, and as a candidate beholden to the donors. The only thing that makes me think it might be Walz was seeing the oligarch Pritzker echoing his “weird” line. In any other world he’d be the obvious choice.

I’ll finish this off with the end of that old video, where I talk about the 2020 election and beyond:

So there I talked about Kamala as the deep state’s favored candidate and heir to Biden, and Buttiplug as the favored VP replacement for her when that happened. If you’re interested where that went from there, here’s a link to the next part in that series, which includes Eugene Puryear and Cornel West on blackness and the 2020 Kamala choice.