More Biden Deathwatch

It's a new week and it's now officially the month of JewLie, and so I continue to follow the head-talk on the Black Thursday Dem Debate Disaster, with a little Judgment at the end

More from the “watching a slo-mo trainwreck and I just can't turn away” department. 🤓 Once again, I’m going to rely on shows standing slightly to the left of the Clintonite centrists, so consider that predisposition. To get back into it, let’s start with two altish-but-mainstreamy not-quite-corporate operations I hadn’t featured for a long time until last Friday, Ashkenocracy Now and The Yiddish Turkeys:

There are a huge number of players in the corporate media and government who have involved themselves in this matter, making it impossible to consider all of them, so my basic filter is to screen out everyone but Jews who matter, who have some level of influence or are connected in some way. In the first part there we have Amy and her repeat Jewish guest who works for publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel (widow of Steve Cohen) at The Nation, and of course he again, like Amy, has to make a point of what the essential problem is, which is Trump. He says Biden’s inner circle is staying the course, but there’s much more going on there than just that. Amy mentions New Yorker’s David Remnick, who is also a player in the media, and the Sulzbergers’ NY Times as having given old Joe the thumbs down.

In the second part you see CNN Jew Tapper trashing Biden and his people, and talking about insiders thinking he should go. But the really interesting part is what Anna K. said at the beginning - Jill Biden throwing the debate prep team under the bus: Dunn, Bauer and Klain. They are all Jews, folks, and Klain was Biden’s Rahm Emanuel, his chief-of-staff during his first two years, which is the critical period in terms of staffing the administration and setting the pattern for how it operates.

Junk then gives us his view on this, using Our Savior Orwell’s 1984 like it’s the damned bible:

Now, there are two ways to look at this: either the Bidens are throwing good people under the bus to explain Joe’s death scene performance, or there is truth in it and funny things went on during debate prep week, potentially sabotaging what would have been bad anyway to turn it into Joe’s dramatic final act. Me, I have no idea which it is, but it makes me look even harder at the universe of people I already described as my focus. And surely these must have been some of the people who pushed for this early debate.

But I suppose a third possibility is that Jill has seen all these Jews playing her husband like a fiddle for years and has had enough in the final days to let a few of them have it. On the other hand, all of the Biden children married Jews - the Bidens’ place is a fucking Jewfest - so that seems unlikely. Seems, maybe not is.

Junk goes on to frame this like it’s season five of the West Wing meets late Reagan Nancy running the country with the help of her soothsayer, with the junkie son RFK Jr mixed in for good measure. Oh sorry, the junkie son is crackhead Hunter the Laptop, I always get those two confused. Gotta commit this to memory: Bobby is the one running for president now, Hunter is the one who will be running for president in another 20 years, based around his “proven” claim that the Mars landings were faked…

More general feedback from Rising yesterday:

Bang, out of the gate we have Raskin, one of the most important Jewish congressmen, second (well, third) only to Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler in the Trump era. Waspy Morning Joe again speaks of love (for Biden) and hate (for Trump). Then another serious Jewish player Axelrod, Buttiplug’s handler for the Chicago Jewish political mafia, who rather softly pushes back, saying Biden is the nominee unless he quits. Duh. Then something about unnamed “top” (Jewish?) donors wanting their money back, but it’s not clear if that was because of Biden or Harris or both. Then after Pod Screws America the NY Times editorial again, and also their Tom Friedman, the voice of St. Jewish Park, MN, calling for Biden to give it up. Finally the 72% number again, although I’m not sure if that’s for mental incompetency or don't run, which are close to the same thing but not quite the same, amazingly.

What this reminds me of is the Nixon fall, which I watched very closely from the Senate Ervin committee hearings in ‘73 through the House impeachment in ‘74. It seems like there’s the small inner circle holding firm while everyone outside that slowly starts to melt away, this time at supersonic speed compared to Watergate’s drip drip drip. The throwing of people like Klain under the bus has echoes of Nixon firing people like HR Haldeman, his chief-of-staff. Unfortunately, the only smoking gun tape we’ll likely get would just be a replay of the debate medicare moment.

The difference is all the Jews, the whole matter this time having a decidedly blue pallet no matter where you look. It’s not just late-night drunken praying with Kissinger anymore.

Moving from drama to science by expanding on the numbers part, in my piece yesterday I said so much would come down to what the polls look like; yesterday Kyle Kulinski gave a detailed first-blush look at that:

So that in total doesn’t look good for grandpa. I’ve been thinking about what I would consider to be a clear material and fatal change in the polls, and settled on a 10-point swing: Biden five points down and Trump five points up would do that. But if Dems who won’t vote for Trump now won’t vote for Biden either, waiting on a new candidate on their side, that probably wouldn’t take a ten-point drop on the Biden side to be material. The one overall poll before-and-after he shows, New Leger near the end, has Trump up nine points but Biden down only one point.

You can also see on that “who won” number that a third of those polled didn’t respond, which are likely mostly Dem voters who can’t say Biden won and also don’t think Trump won anything - in other words, America lost and no one won. Me, that’s my opinion - until Biden quits, that is. I mean, if less than half (49%) thought Trump won in a debate without coherent opposition, that’s not encouraging for him - if Biden is replaced, that is.

Enough of Biden, let’s look at a slice of a theoretical replacement from Sabby’s Sunday pod:

Yes, let’s pause on Hunter's mentor. So what did he say there in terms of specifics? He said the nomination will be decided by the superdelegates. That’s not really true in this case, and instead is part of the oppositional mythology which came out of 2016 with the Berniecrats. In this case almost all of the non-super delegates are effectively-uncommitted Biden delegates, and not a relatively evenly-split group of delegates committed to two or more different candidates - we are not starting over with regard to who’s in the hall, these are all pro-Biden Clintonite people.

He’s mostly right when he says the donors will decide this, but who does he cite? Black Rock, State Street, Vanguard - all Wall St. - and Pfizer, which is the face of Big Pharma post-covid (with the Jewish CEO Bourla, who first supplied Israel with their vaxx). Then he says the military-industrial complex and the big pharmaceutical companies. 🥱

As I have shown before, the military contractors and the pharma giants are minor contributors to political campaigns, here using this 2022 election data from OpenSecrets; first the industry segments, then the top ten donors in defense and health:

So the financial industry is first by a mile, health (which is much more than just Big Pharma) is 6th and defense is 13th and last.

So the largest MIC contributor gave barely over $3M and the largest BF contributor, Pfizer, gave well under $2M. Now here are the top ten in the financial industry:

These guys absolutely crush the MIC and Big Pharma, and none of the three Wall St. firms he mentions even made the OpenSecrets top twenty FI list in ‘22. But who does give the big Wall St. money? Here again is a Forbes article from 2016 which showed Killary’s biggest donors:

There are eight banking/finance Wall St. guys on that list and all eight are Jews. There’s no one from Big Pharma or the MIC. The Jews own the Democratic Party, that’s just simply a fact, but RFK wants to play the mythology game of the MIC and Big Pharma, either out of ignorance or dishonesty.

Do you want ignorance and dishonesty in the Oval? (Not that you can avoid it, I suppose.) But there are all kinds of oppositionally-minded people out there who are pumping their fists and shouting, “Yeah, the MIC and Big Pharma, you get ‘em, Bobby!” Pfizer contributed a whole $1.7M in the entire congressional election in 2022, but this year didn’t AIPAC contribute something like $15-20M just to defeat Jamaal Bowman, hardly an anti-Israel extremist, in one Dem House primary? Not even the same ballpark.

Sabby then moves on to number three on the bad guy conspiracy list:

So yeah, the CIA. Big Pharma, MIC and the CIA, the JQ deniers’ trifecta…

I should mention that RFK always cites Zogby polls to show how popular he is; something is going on there. Sabs' main point seems to be that RFK is actually a Democrat, but in my view that’s mostly related to his upbringing and tradition, it’s not his politics, which are at least as Republican/libertarian as Democratic, once you dig through the syringe-sourced lunatic fringe stuff.

But what does the centrist core of the Dem Party think? Getting up to 30,000 feet, the Dems have framed themselves as the sanity side of the US electorate, with the GOP having succumbed to the lunatic fringe, and that was reinforced during the pandemic. So would they pick someone who absolutely appeals to that lunatic fringe, and that largely based on the pandemic? This is not Eugene McCarthy or George McGovern (or RFK Sr) running against the Vietnam war. And McGovern’s candidacy killed the party for 20 years before it was rescued by the moneyed Jews; what would Junior do to it? Just look at the Trumptard GOP.

Almost as importantly, he’s already bailed on the Dems, making accusations on the way out of that race to justify his plan B. You think that’s forgotten? My view is that if he wanted to be the Dem candidate he should have stayed in and fought for it, and not run because they wouldn’t clear the path for his nomination, and I’m sure I’m not the only one. Politics is a dirty business, Bob, get muddy.

Anyway, as much as the Dem’s mission as assigned to them by their owners is to defeat the New Hitler Trump, I just can’t see them going the Hunter Sr (RFK) route here, surely there has been planning going on behind the scenes for this inevitability. Especially if one considers this early debate to have been done to provide time to do exactly that, enable a Biden replacement. The initial trial balloon will almost have to be VP Kamala, but that might deflate quickly.

Stepping back again to look at the big picture here, it strikes me that this is a watershed moment in at least a couple ways. First, generationally. We had WWII presidents from JFK in 1960 until HW Bush left in 1992, both having served in that war. And then it switched to WWII era babies starting with Clinton, born in 1946, the first boomers. He was followed by W Bush (also born in 1946) “defeating” Gore (1948) and Kerry (1943). Then Obama (1961) signaled a generational change, defeating McCain (1936) and Romney (1947), but that didn’t stick, with Hillary (1947) facing off against Trump (1946), and then he’s taken on Biden (1942). Nothing could signal the end for this presidential generation more than Biden in that debate. So how would Trump come off in a debate against someone 25, 30 years younger? Would he suddenly start looking very old too, just as that’s taken center stage as the issue? Is Trump rapidly closing in on his expiration date?

Another change is political, and so relates to the deep state underlying the government, and the start date on that also is 1992, as I’ve said many times before. For the next 24 years we had the Clintonite-Bush era of Jew-compliant presidents, and it seemed that would continue in 2016 with another Clinton-Bush faceoff widely anticipated. But the fly in the ointment on both sides was rising oppositionalism, in the flawed forms of Sanders and Trump, who opposed more Clintonism, and that repeated itself in 2020, when the Clintonites reasserted themselves with Biden. Now that modified model - the Clintonites and the anti-Clintonites who are only defined by what they claim to oppose - seems to be on the verge of falling apart. But that entirely depends on what follows, and that’s what appears to be resting in the hands of all those Biden delegates in Chicago. And this appears to be happening because the string-pullers have blessed it. Rings within rings.

Judging the Judgers

The Judge doesn’t really cover domestic politics on his pod, so I’ve left it out since debategate, but I do want to note a couple very surprising moments of late. First, from Jeffrey Sachs, whose contribution has been minimal lately, probably the most sleep-inducing guest on the pod the last few weeks. But Monday he woke me right up:

I can’t even remember the last time Sachs used the N-word, but there it was, four times in two separate segments of this discussion! Of course it wasn’t a replay of his Tikkun article of two years ago, instead of talking about the ten neocon Jews that he did in that piece it’s all about the gentile Dick now. And there no way Biden can be called a full-fledged member of the neocon clique of the ‘90s, he simply doesn’t have the bloodline or then the right party soft-alliance.

So let’s look at those neoconservative ideas of “Richard” Cheney’s from back in 1992:

Wolfowitz Doctrine is an unofficial name given to the initial version of the Defense Planning Guidance for the 1994–1999 fiscal years (dated February 18, 1992) published by U.S. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz and his deputy Scooter Libby. Not intended for public release, it was leaked to the New York Times on March 7, 1992, and sparked a public controversy about U.S. foreign and defense policy. The document was widely criticized as imperialist, as the document outlined a policy of unilateralism and pre-emptive military action to suppress potential threats from other nations and prevent dictatorships from rising to superpower status.

Such was the outcry that the document was hastily re-written under the close supervision of U.S. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell before being officially released on April 16, 1992. Many of its tenets re-emerged in the Bush Doctrine, which was described by Senator Edward M. Kennedy as "a call for 21st century American imperialism that no other nation can or should accept."

Attributing the fundamental neocon ideology developed at that time to Cheney is simply bullshit, it was those core neocons that I chose for their Mt. Rushmore in my Friday debate piece who were the ones responsible, including Perle, Feith and Abrams in addition to Wolfowitz and Libby, all Jews. And Sachs named Wolfowitz as one of the ten in his Tikkun article, so he must know how important he was to the movement for three decades.

So only a rather half-assed reversal on Sachs’ part. I’ll give him a golf boo.

Next up is Col. Macgregor, and his reversal was considerably more disappointing:

Wtf. So Mac thinks Israel’s survival is so important that at some point under some circumstances the US should step in to assure it, and I have to assume that means militarily. Which means at a cost to US taxpayers, the US reputation around the world (what’s left of it), likely some US military lives, definitely lots of Arab Muslim lives including civilians. And for what? The continuation of a fascistic expansionist Jewish-supremacist apartheid ethno-state that is likely the most-hated country in the world today? What has Israel ever done for the US??

Fuck you, Doug, you definitely just dropped below Ray McGovern on my Judge regulars list, and you’re threatening Jeff Sachs down in the basement too. The only thing saving you is that I assume you’re factoring in the likelihood that Jewnatic Israel would start dropping nukes if they had to go it alone. Me, I’d favor the US dropping of a nuke in that circumstance, and it wouldn’t be on Iran…