More Mom: What Jewish America Needs are more Dumbass Negroes?

A postscript on Stone-Skipping leads us to RBN's version of the BJA going after the bearded mayor-to-be-elect

At the end of the main segment in my last piece, on Zohran Mamdani, I included a clip of Sabby Sabs going off on Zohran for utilizing a SuperPAC to raise money for his NYC mayoral campaign, being conducted within the Democratic Party, which is really her main issue. I continued listening to that podcast, and later in that segment Sabby was ranting on that superPAC:

So again we have Sabby throwing a wet blanket over any importance in the Mamdani win, and by the end there we see it’s because of her experience getting all wet and bothered by three Democratic candidates who didn’t end up saving her and hers.

Btw, the Working Families Party isn’t a socialist party, it’s a progressive party whose roots go back to the Jesse Jackson campaigns, so very much part of the broader Dem left. Here is what the WFP wiki says about the NYC mayoral race:

For the ranked-choice Democratic primary preceding the election for mayor of New York City, party leaders planned a two-part endorsement process in which they would initially announce a slate of candidates before later consolidating support behind a single candidate closer to the primary. The party announced its "Working Families slate" of four candidates in March 2025: city councillor Adrienne Adams, city comptroller Brad Lander, state assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, and state senator Zellnor Myrie. A separate announcement for a ranking of the candidates was later made in May, with Mamdani ranked first, Lander second, Adams third, and Myrie fourth, with state senator Jessica Ramos additionally endorsed as the fifth ranked choice. Party officials have indicated that they would likely not support former governor Andrew Cuomo in the race, even if he wins the nomination.

I have no idea how much money they donated to the Mamdani superPAC, if any at all. An article in MSN just before election day said this:

A PAC supporting Mamdani titled “New Yorkers for Lower Costs” has raised $1.3 million, including $99,000 from Rocket Money head Haroon Mokhtarzada, $100,000 from the Council on American-Islamic Relations super PAC “Unity and Justice Fund,” $25,000 from Michigan Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib’s campaign committee and $15,000 from the American Committee for Middle East Rights. Mamdani’s campaign has separately raised more than $8 million from more than 20,000 individual donors, while the progressive Working Families Party’s national Super PAC has spent almost $600,000 opposing Cuomo’s candidacy.

If that’s all of what WFP spent it was focused on making sure Cuomo didn’t win, in part by pushing a number of candidates to list on NYC’s rank-choice ballots. If that’s the case, staining Mamdani over that is just stupid. You better check those receipts more closely, Sabby.

I should also point out that if those numbers are right, the average individual donor contribution size is $400, which is a big number - Bernie’s seemed to always be at $27, until it dropped to $18 at some point in 2020, when he was still raking in millions. Me, I think that was strategic on the part of those campaigns, really encouraging people to make micro-donations to provide them with a grassroots talking point, but in any case $400 is a pretty large average give, assuming those numbers are correct.

What Sabby doesn’t talk about and what might impact this number is New York's public matching funds system, which includes a limit of an $8M spend on this race. It’s possible to likely that the $8M includes the matching funds, which would explain the high average donation size - if so, the actual average would be more like $50, a number that makes more sense (the matching he received apparently is 8-to-1).

That also explains the use of the superPAC - it became a vehicle for more small donations to benefit the campaign once that $8M limit was reached, because they could no longer accept any more direct donations. Which is why a donation of only $1000 from Jane Fonda ended up going there, instead of to the campaign itself, which told people not to send them more money in March, I believe. Here, from Huffpost:

At the time, Mamdani was still well behind former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in polls for the New York City Democratic mayoral primary, but he had raised just under $8 million — the maximum amount candidates are allowed to spend under NYC’s campaign finance system if they want to receive public matching funds.

There was one issue: Team Cuomo was not going to stop at $8 million, and he didn’t. While he similarly hit the $8 million cap for his campaign, Cuomo also had an allied super PAC, Fix The City, which would go on to raise an additional $20 million, much of it from billionaire Michael Bloomberg, according to campaign finance records.

Shortly after, a group of progressive operatives came together to form a super PAC backing Mamdani, though it had a bit of a twist. Most super PACs generally aren’t interested in small-dollar donations. They can raise unlimited sums under campaign finance law, and tend to pursue donors who can provide seemingly unlimited cash.

This super PAC, with the on-message moniker New Yorkers for Lower Costs, would end up raising about a third of its $1.5 million haul from grassroots donors. “We’re a Super PAC, usually we’re the bad guys, we don’t think we should exist, but we need to exist. What do you think about giving us whatever you can?” is how Regina Monge, a progressive operative and the group’s chairwoman, summed up their pitch to donors large and small. “We didn’t know if it was going to work.”

So it’s pretty clear that all superPACs are not created the same anymore, and in this case because of public financing rules. Bernie Sanders didn’t have this kind of superPAC because there’s no matching funding in presidential nomination races that also sets an overall limit on direct spending.

She also shits on money spent by David Hogg’s superPAC, the “Parkland survivor” guy who recently left the DNC because he was being pushed out for openly talking about primarying worthless Dems in congress. Yes, this is superPAC money being spent to benefit Mamdani’s campaign, but this isn’t Mike Bloomberg’s money, and it also ain’t AIPAC money.

So her claim that she’s just “showing receipts” unlike the mainstream media is bullshit, she needed to do a lot more homework before opening her mouth. Or did she (or her “staff”) do that homework and didn’t like what was found?

At the end of the podcast Sabby took a pee break while superchats (yes, Sabby accepts superChat money 😱) were responded to by producer Eric Thomas aka EricT Red, who I have speculated might actually be Eric Thomas Roth. Roth meaning red in German (it’s royt in Yiddish), as in Rothschild, that meaning red shield.

“I just can’t see how anyone can have any faith in Mamdani, he’s literally a member of a genocidal party”.

That is pretty fucking extreme, much more so than anything I’ve heard Sabby say. About a guy running for a major political office in a city whose politics are dominated by Jews, who has made clear statements on Israel and Gaza and hasn’t backed down from those. Now, faith is a weird thing to place in any politician, but in this case I’m not clear what that even means, given the issue of mass killing in Gaza bears little to no relationship to the mayor’s office in NYC. Maybe the best one could do to connect them is something like Adams’ police repression of pro-Palestinian protestors, and I have a hard time imagining he’ll do that. And if he does, doesn’t that make the power of Zionist Jews even more apparent to everyone?

ETR goes on to claim that a candidacy like Mamdani’s is actually counterproductive, because he “gets in the way” of Green Party or independent candidates. As if they have any chance of winning. NYC has a long history of wishy-washy party affiliations in mayoral races, but as far back as I can remember no one has actually won who didn’t rise up in the Democratic or Republican parties.

What this makes clearer is the RBN (Revolting Black Negroes… er, Revolutionary Blackout Network) position that it’s the association with the Democratic Party that is Mamdani’s biggest sin. I’ll get to that roundtable discussion below.

Red’s response to the last comment there had two components worth noting. The first was that the commenter was saying Sabby trashes CNN more than Fox, and Red’s response is that they see corporate media as all the same, which doesn’t explain why Sabby goes after CNN more than Fox, quite the opposite, it says she shouldn’t be doing that. The parallel is her election coverage last fall, when she might have spent ten times as much time and energy going after Kamala than she did Trump, but in that earlier segment she said they don’t play favorites when it comes to “the duopoly”, an absolute lie. If you spend almost all your time criticizing one candidate or one party you are playing favorites, that doesn’t take endorsing someone or even promoting someone.

The second is the way that Red said how “we” see it, which makes me wonder how much influence he has over editorial opinion in this RBN operation. He’s a guy who also does video-related work for Grayzone, definitely a Jewish operation however great they’ve been on Gaza, and he promotes the work of the neo-libertard Jew Glenn Greenwald, not exactly his political ally across the board one would think. This gets us to the Black-Jewish Alliance.

So let’s move on to RBN itself and a show Nick Cruse (rhymes with Jews) did with someone whose name I have heard around here but never quite understood:

I didn’t realize listening to this that the woman on this show is actually the person who he was talking about, as I thought he was saying Shamas Awad or something like that. Sawant is a politician/socialist activist in Seattle who was on the city council for ten years. Here from her wiki:

In January 2023, Sawant announced that she would not seek re-election, and would instead promote the Socialist Alternative campaign Workers Strike Back to unionize workers. In 2024, Sawant announced she had left Socialist Alternative and formed her own party Revolutionary Workers. She launched her candidacy for the 2026 United States House of Representatives election in Washington's 9th congressional district as an independent in June 2025.

More on her party affiliations from the World Socialist Web Site in 2021; later in 2021 she barely survived a recall election:

Last week, Kshama Sawant, a leader of Socialist Alternative and member of the Seattle City Council, announced that she was joining the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) in the US. Sawant’s declaration followed a December 15 statement by Socialist Alternative announcing that it would be sending a significant section of its membership into the DSA.

Sawant said that her decision was motivated by the need for “a mass working class party, a stronger labor movement, and victorious struggles in our ongoing fight against the billionaire class.” She added, “In my view, to move forward we need to advance the Marxist ideas that will be necessary to win both immediate gains in the present crisis and a final victory over capitalism’s exploitation and oppression.”

“Because of the urgency to build a wider socialist movement,” Sawant wrote, “I am now joining DSA, while remaining a member of Socialist Alternative.”

The previous statement by the Socialist Alternative National Committee, “Why Socialist Alternative Members are Joining the DSA,” claimed that it was directed at building “a viable alternative to the Democratic Party and its ruling class leadership.” It is necessary, Socialist Alternative stated, to “rebuild a fighting and democratic labor movement, struggles against oppression, and lay the foundations for a new mass working class party in the US.”

In fact, Socialist Alternative’s effort to forge a closer alliance with the DSA is aimed at creating a new political trap. It takes place under conditions of an extreme and intensifying political crisis within the state apparatus, a growing radicalization among workers and youth, and the discrediting of the Democratic Party. Pseudo-left organizations in and around the Democratic Party—including both Socialist Alternative and the DSA—are working out organizational forms to block the development of a genuine socialist movement.

What this points up is the fractured nature of the true left in America, which during the death of communism over the period 1950-1990 became various forms of socialism, and that fractured landscape lasts until this day. So what is the DSA? From its wiki:

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is a political organization in the United States and the country's largest socialist organization. On the left-wing to far left of the political spectrum, DSA is a big tent coalition that includes democratic socialists, eco-socialists, revolutionary socialists, and libertarian socialists. DSA formed in 1982 as a merger of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) and New American Movement (NAM). Early DSA supported grassroots social movements and progressives in the Democratic Party.

And what was the DSOC?

The Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) was a political organization founded by Michael Harrington that advocated democratic socialism in the United States. DSOC was formed in 1973 when Harrington led a minority caucus away from the Social Democrats, USA (SDUSA), which had recently gone through two name changes from Socialist Party of America (SPA) to Socialist Party Democratic Socialist Federation (SPDSF).

Harrington was a critical figure in socialism in the 1970s, the face on that segment of political ideology. That decade was a critical period on the left, after the New Left had taken over with all its social revolutions starting in the ‘60s, and also during the initial rise of two other Jewish-dominated ideologies, neoliberal economics and neoconservative foreign policy, both on the right. This was a critical period in the development of Jewish socio-politics, across the board essentially shifting from the left toward the right, and dragging America with it.

A major debate in the 1970s within socialism was effectively how far toward the center to shift, toward Scandinavian-style welfare state democratic socialism and away from any association with Soviet Communism whatsoever, including non-aligned socialist states like Yugoslavia, and whether or not to build any alliance with the left wing of the Democratic Party. The party structures crumbled and realigned in various ways during that period.

The one place that I’ve read about the socialist struggle and transition during the New Left period was in Ron Radosh’s autobiographical book Commies - A Journey Through the Old Left, the New Left, and the Leftover Left. I did a long series of videos on the book in November 2021 and so went back to see what I did on Harrington and that transition from the book. What I found was interesting to me (many of my videos I never actually watched after recording them, so have little to no memory of them now), and the most applicable thing I found to the subject was probably here, where I started out addressing one of three left-to-right shifting New York Jews of that era, Todd Gitlin, covered in a published dissertation I came across in the course of doing these videos. It doesn't really get to the socialist shift which then was taking place, the transition from Soviet communism to Marxist socialism to Democratic socialism to the question of alliance with Democratic liberalism which had its peak with the McGovern nomination in 1972, Harrington playing a key role in that. But it does frame that New Left era and the Jewish role in it reasonably well.

The third of that trio is covered in this video, which is an analysis of Radosh “fellow traveler” David Horowitz and doesn’t feature any of the Radosh book or the socialist transition. Rather, a significant part of it is about Horowitz’s relationship with the Black Panthers, which gets us back to the BJA. Most of that comes from that published dissertation.

Listening to these videos brought to mind all the parallels between today’s subject and that period a half century ago, related to socialism, black revolutionaries, and of course Jews with their hands on the till/tiller.

But back to the RBN video, most of that discussion is about Israel and the Gaza genocide, which is the one matter truly elevated by the national interest in the Mamdani candidacy, and in a good way. Yet Cruse fixates on this internal pissing match between microgroups within the rather marginal American socialist movement, and in the course of that criticizes Mamdani and people having an interest in him over the matter of Gaza.

Why? Because he, and his allies here, have grown bitterly disillusioned over the Democratic Party, that surely rooted in “The Steal 1” in 2016 and Bernie Sanders, basically the root cause of all post-progressivism, and maybe even a feeling that their Barack got corrupted by the dastardly Dems.

Also note that Sawant herself is much more positive about the Mamdani campaign than Cruse, you don't hear her openly criticizing it.

So let’s look at three examples of this at RBN from one Mamdani-centered conversation. Here is a clip from near the beginning of an RBN roundtable on Mamdani which included Sabby, Nick, some other black fella named Fountleroy who I’ve seen before, and a professor Zenkus from Colombia, a left activist and I assume a Jew - here is the Joogle AI word on his surname:

The surname "Zenkus" is not definitively identified as a Jewish surname, but it has roots in Eastern Europe, particularly among Lithuanian and Polish communities. While not exclusively Jewish, the name's origin could be tied to Yiddish or Slavic roots, and some families bearing the name may have Jewish heritage. Further research into specific family histories and genealogical records would be needed to confirm any Jewish connection for a particular Zenkus family.

So a name from the Paradisus Judaeorum of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the northern half of the Pale of Settlement of the Russian Empire, and it’s also one most common in the US today. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and… 🕎

I’ve featured a Sabby roundtable at some point which included him as well. Here Zenkus had given his opening thoughts on the primary which included his aunt dying from covid in a nursing home in the spring of 2020, and he blames that on the criminal Cuomo.

First, here is the end of my recent article Women:

Since the NYC mayoral primary is the latest shoe to drop this week (I think), I will end this with a clip played on TMR on election day of Mamdani’s appearance on the Colbert show, fielding a disgusting fully-loaded question in this situation, and probably pre-arranged:

This is no criticism of Zoran, who fielded it very well, I know he has no possibility of answering this question any more directly than that, if he even wanted to. Rather it’s a statement on our time, when bending the knee to the Jew is an absolute requirement of any meaningful public utterance on our socio-politics currently absorbed with the matter of the criminal state of Israel’s despicable, murderous conduct. Suck my circumcised dick and then you can so carefully make your extremely limited, ethnically-cleansed statement.

That was before the primary election, and Mamdani says exactly the same thing as he did in the RBN clip played, including the two anecdotal stories. So this isn’t new, it isn’t some change resulting from now being the Dem nominee, which is what Sabby implies. Rather it’s just part of his elevator speech on disarming the charge of antisemitism, probably repeated dozens of times at this point.

I don’t like any of that, but it’s a reality of politics today if you actually want to win, especially in NYC, you have to offer up a fig leaf to allow the Jew to cover up his smelly junk. And Sabby is wrong about the “rise in antisemitism”, if one defines that in the manner of the Jew, which is any criticism of Jews as a group, a culture, an ethnicity. There is no question that the volume of such criticism has increased immensely since 10/7 and all its fallout, both here and there.

But she isn’t defining it that way, rather she’s surely defining it as unjustified bigotry, which is how it should be defined. That’s what she assigns to Muslims instead, and I have no idea if there’s been any real increase in that since 10/7, although there certainly has been since 9/11. What she doesn’t do is to offer this fig leaf to Mamdani, to help explain his “anti-hate” burnt offering to the Jews of NYC.

Perhaps in part because she claims this is an effort to appease establishment or corporate Democrats, which is simply idiotic. What, she’s tying this to corporate DEI or something??

Zenkus struggles to frame his response, finally saying, “…because that’s what the people who… because if he doesn’t he will… something will happen and they won’t let him be mayor”. What does that mean, what is this Jew (presumably) trying to tell us?

Then Sabby tries to equate this minor waste of taxpayer money to AOC pushing the IHRA definition of antisemitism, something that has the real potential to limit free speech in violation of the first amendment. She never does make clear how he’s trying to appease progressives, or if that is good or bad in her eyes.

Next up is Lord Fountleroy:

So what is “engaging in civil disobedience”? Is that just ghetto crime, or is it political protests of the type of the civil rights era? Sounds like the former to me, which would be saying garden-variety criminality is actually acts of political protest, the kind of definition one might expect from black revolutionaries, whether that’s Black Panthers 50 years ago or SocialistMMA types today (that’s just Nick, if you don’t know). In other words, understandable criminality as a consequence of victimhood.

These are supporters of de-funding the police, from what I know, whatever that actually means. Three-and-a-half years ago Nick debated Garland Nixon on this on Sabby’s show, and then he said he liked the slogan because it was a demand, and one that couldn’t easily be watered down by liberals, who he then already saw as the real enemy of the left. Nixon said it sounded too anarchistic, which it absolutely does.

Fountleroy says Mamdani could have just skipped the Dem primary by running as some sort of socialist or independent, and “it remains to be seen” if he would have won that way. But it doesn't, the only thing that remains to be seen is if he’ll win as a Democrat, because that’s what he’s actually doing. We already know with near-certainty that he wouldn’t win running as some sort of 3rd party radical, no one ever has. In primetime depression 1933, when the Republican Jew Fiorello LaGuardia won, the socialist candidate got just 3% of the vote and the communist candidate got 1.3%. The high water mark for the socialists was in 1917, when their candidate Morris Hillquit got 21.7% of the vote, something and someone that was addressed in the book Trotsky in New York 1917, which I dissected at some length immediately after I did my job on the Radosh book in late 2021 (starting here).

At that time socialism was split on the debate over their position on America’s possible entry into that war and the socialist possibilities in the post-war environment. In the end what they got was the first red scare, the Palmer raids.

Fauntleroy condemns Mamdani for running as a genocidal Dem, even though he also represents an internal revolution against that, the Dem base currently at significant odds with its leadership beholden to the party’s owners. This is the most important aspect of the Mamdani victory, at least outside of New York, but apparently it means nothing to this guy.

At the end he mentions Soros and his funding the WFP, who he somewhat oddly labels “an out and out Zionist”, which has me climbing into the time machine and going back a decade with E. Michael Jones, who was doing the same thing, going into the past:

Jones takes this alliance from its beginning with the Jew Leo Frank’s conviction of murder in Atlanta in 1913, the Jewish takeover of the NAACP in 1914 (it was founded in 1909) and Frank’s lynching in 1915, up to where it stood a decade ago, when George Soros began pouring millions into BLM after the Michael Brown shooting in St. Louis. In between was civil rights, and then the radicalization of that with the black power movement and the Black Panthers, which gets us back to David Horowitz and part of the story I was detailing in that linked video of mine above.

So here Lord Fountleroy has a problem with Soros money, but did he have that same problem with regard to BLM starting ten years ago and continuing right through 2020 and George “Sleepy” Floyd? I kinda think not. Perhaps the issue isn’t the Jew money - sorry, Zionist money - the issue is who gets it.

On the subject of the break in the BJA, while digging around I came across a piece written by Glenn Loury in 2023, who is one of the “alt-black” figures arisen in visibility over recent BLM years, like Coleman Hughes. At some point I did a breakdown of a roundtable with these guys hosted by IDW Jew Bret Weinstein back in 2020 which included Loury. The piece was mostly just a reposting of another piece he wrote on the BJA 38 years earlier, which was published in Commentary magazine, the neocon rag then run by elder neocon Jew Norman Podhoretz. Here is the first paragraph of that republished older piece:

Relations between American blacks and Jews have become strained in recent years. These two groups, long allies in the historic struggle for social justice in this country, find themselves now at loggerheads over issues which each perceives as vital to its interests. Demagogues have magnified these differences; distrust and ill-will are now much more common in our dealings than was the case two decades ago. Efforts have been made to repair the damage, to restore the old comity but mostly in vain. And just beneath the overt expressions of disappointment and disagreement one senses that there are feelings of betrayal, ingratitude, and disloyalty. Some blacks, it would appear, feel betrayed by Jewish opposition to quotas, by Israel's relationship with South Africa, by the advent of a “Jews Against Jackson” committee. Some Jews seem to view black support for the PLO as ingratitude in the face of the contributions to the struggle for civil rights which Jews have made over the years, and are alarmed by the reluctance of black political figures to denounce Louis Farrakhan—a reluctance which to them appears a tacit acceptance of black anti-Semitism.

Clearly there is an Israel aspect to the split that Loury then described, and remember that Jones said the obituary was written in 1967, the same year as the Six Day War, the rise of the anti-war movement (ML King came out against the war in 1967) and so the birth of the neoconservatism with which Loury was apparently aligned in the mid-’80s, just like Radosh and Horowitz and black civil rights leader (and homosexual) Bayard Rustin. I appreciate the mention of Farrakhan, btw, a black leader who at least can talk openly about the Jew and his influence on black America. Maybe I should refer to him as eLouie… 😉

Finally it’s Nick’s turn in the barrel:

There he says it straight - “Zohran is not going to free Palestine”. Of course not, arguably the only American who really can is the president, and Zohran is ineligible to ever be president. But what he represents is a change in the conversation, which is made clear by the level of opposition to him seen in the establishments of both major parties. This is something that doesn’t really enter the conversation by these RBN guys, because that gets in the way of their anti-Dem mission.

What I don’t think Nick understands about politics is that it’s defined as the art of compromise. So every time some progressive compromises on something they’re “selling out”. They don’t engage in that losing game of theater called Force the Vote and they’re compromised. Cori Bush votes for arms to Ukraine, a conflict that she knows less about than my left sneaker, because the party was pushing her on that, and so she was selling out and not just displaying her ignorance about something that just didn’t interest her as much as it absolutely should have, or at least in the way it should have. But Nick ain’t gonna criticize her for just being dumb and ignant.

Here is Bush, the congresswoman of BLM, and trimmings from the peace ball during the inauguration as I covered her the last time I did something like this, in my piece ASSigning BLaME five months ago:

Since I mentioned it in my last piece, I would like to start with perhaps the most black person in the last congress, who was tossed in significant part by her benefactors, in her case AIPAC and their millions of shekels. She was interviewed/assaulted by gin & tonic-addled Michael Tracey at the anti-war ball or whatever it was called:

That is some dumbass shit to be saying into a microphone - I guess George Soros got his money’s worth with her. Welcome back to living in your car, Cori, I hope you were able to upgrade your vehicle’s accommodations while on the government dole - hopefully you saved up for a stretch job with a wet bar…

Then Nick is off on supporting Sawant again, as if someone running as a Democrat for mayor of NYC is going to reach across the country to Seattle and endorse someone who is running for congress under her own Revolutionary Workers party banner, after having done the dance between Socialist Alternative and the DSA in recent years. Now, if Mamdani came out and openly endorsed Adam Smith, the incumbent Democrat, against Sawant, you’d have a story worth talking about, I suppose.

After that it all gets very personal, as if RBN is some major political organization deserving universal attention and respect. In there he mocks Emma Vigeland, a Judaized Bernie-sucking progressive Dem talking head who is thrilled that Mamdani won, for local governance reasons as a New Yorker but also because of his stated positions on Palestine and Israel, and the threat that the attention he’s receiving is to the center-right establishment who backed the scumbag Cuomo. What a dumbass she is, says Nick from down home in Memphis or wherever.

Oh, and Cori Bush is as legit as they come, this dumbass who has no understanding of foreign policy whatsoever. I absolutely don’t think Mamdani is that stupid.

I loved the way that ended, with Zenkus “checking his privilege” - do you think that’s his white privilege, or is it his Jewish privilege? My thinking is that one doesn’t mean much to him at all, like a worn out set of old work clothes destined for the dumpster, while the other means an awful lot to him, like the skin that covers his body. Well, at least until he got to the end of his dick…

One other RBN clip, this one Nick with someone self-labeled as UnholyRom3, taking the piss out of another talking head, this one post-progressive in the opposite direction:

I had to laugh when I heard that Kim has finally come to her senses on Trumpism as oppositionalism, although her lightbulb moment on habitually voting out the incumbent party is as asinine as Nick suggests. But what Nick doesn’t want to recognize is that at this moment it’s the Dem base that has suddenly emerged as our current last, best hope in a democratic process:

He also doesn’t really want to recognize the Trumpist GOP at all - note how quickly he moved on from his friend Sarah when he saw she was talking about Trump’s desire to escalate the war. And he criticizes Kimmy for being anti-communist, as if there’s really any question left about communism at this point. Kim the post-progressive started out a Berniecrat, which suggests at least mild socialist leanings, but today she seems to be developing libertarian(/Bircher) leanings - I heard her say this past week that she’s opposed to the income tax entirely, but also still thinks universal healthcare is a right. Incoherent, unless you think of progressives as millennials who just want free stuff, which is how I used to describe them in part.

Then it’s Harris and Buttiplug, right back to the centrist Dems he’s fine with talking about all day long. His red line in the sand on talking heads is opposition to “the duopoly”, even though he only wants to talk about the Dem side of that, just like Sabby. There are a whole lot of reasons not to listen to unserious Kim Iversen, but he picks a fairly lousy one on balance.

Then comes Rom, the reborn Black Panther talking about Lovely Luigi doin’ the business and shooting people over women’s rights and human rights, which sounds oddly cultural Marxist in this bloody context. My thought was that Rom should change his name to Rahm, as in…

In fact it’s the other guy there Nick should be worried about, not Kamala or Mayor Pete or even Slickback Gavin. My money is on shekelmeister billionaire JB in 2028. And in part for reasons that Nick and the RBN crew are clueless about, by all indications.

It wasn't until the last ten minutes of this roundtable discussion of nearly an hour before the Jew dragged it to where it should have started:

Jews always love to joke about their therapists. 😁 Then he does the ethno-bit about not being sure who Bill Ackman is, calling him Ackerman as “confused” Sam Seder has also done - they know exactly who Ackman is, including his name, his dualie wife’s name and her story.

After Zenkus got to the real point of the Mamdani win Nick mocks the Jew York Times for trying to create a divide between Jews over Mamdani - what, there is no divide? If not, which side are they all on, Nick? Besides their own, of course. He mocks the idea that all Jews support Israel, when polling has shown us that nearly all Jews support Israel, like 18 or 19 out of 20, if not doing so uncritically. And that “critically” is the issue today, a lot of the Jewish left proletariat can’t blindly accept murder in Gaza, that’s a red line for even them.

Then Fountleroy erases the ethnic issue as best he can, saying it all comes down to policy, on both sides. He displays his ignorance on the history of Palestine, saying Jews and Muslim Arabs lived in peace until the expulsion resulting from the war in 1948, not aware of the conflict that had become apparent at least 20 years before that, which ultimately resulted in Britain’s abandonment of the Mandate that created the moment for the Jews to take over.

When Mizrahi Jews were a small minority in Ottoman Palestine there weren’t serious problems, yes, but after the birth of modern Zionism, WWI, the Balfour Declaration and the creation of the British Mandate the problems started almost immediately, as Ashkenazi Jews started buying up property, moving in and taking over. That was 25 years before the Nakba.

Then he goes to the “settler colonial state” bit that’s commonly used to blame Europe for Zionism, in black terms blaming whitey and in Jewish terms blaming Euro-Christians. Remember, conflating Judaism and Zionism is antisemitic, they all have been telling us that. Jews have nothing to do with Zionism, that being Jewish nationalism. What??

What did eMike paraphrase about utilizing proxywarriors? “You always attract criminals to your cause, and they always get out of control”. Here we have a cabal of proxywarriors who last year worked hard effectively to get Trump elected via hating on Kamala, and now are working hard effectively to get Eric Adams reelected via hating on Zohran. Adams himself no doubt a criminal proxywarrior, as was evidenced by the crackdown on protests at Columbia. But he black, I guess, even though he’s a real Democrat and not just playing one on TV.

In both cases they're working in parallel with Bill Ackman, someone who they would disparage in the harshest terms - as long as those don’t involve ethnicity, that is, respecting the BJA and the cultural Marxism that empowers them. So are they really out of control, or are they operating just as hoped and intended, at least by a segment of contemporary Jewish power?

Stepping back, the big picture suggests the anti-Dem obsession of these people (minus the Jew), possibly combined with ethno-victimhood bias, likely will enforce the notion of the past as a predictor of the future, which is that they will spend some amount of the next few months trashing everything they can about Mamdani, and not so much about Adams. That’s the past of the 2024 election between Harris and Trump, which remains the present anytime there’s an excuse to raise Kamala from the dead and kick her squarely in the cunt.

Sabby isn’t saying Adams, the criminal candidate “with a record” in his own words, can win because she’s warning people they need to do what they can to avoid that fate, rather she’s setting up an “I told you so!” when she helps to podcast that into reality by trashing his opponent.

I do think the one thing that could change the story here is “audience capture”, that the perception of being unfairly harsh on Mamdani in the eyes of the audience will change the tune. There were indications of this in Sabby’s last pod before this July 4th weekend, where she focused on Trump’s and the MSM’s attacks on Mamdani as some kind of radical leftist and/or jihadist. That’s easy for the RBN cabal to spin because they view him as simply not radical enough, and the jihadist thing is just racist.

In that same podcast she also showed her predisposition, when she did a bit on the Big Beautiful Bill (the first time I recall hearing her talk about that), which bizarrely ended up being a rant on the Democrats as part of the duopoly or uniparty. As if had Harris won this same thing would be going on, the gutting of Medicaid, the massive tax cuts for the wealthy, the resulting deficit explosion, etc. Only a retard would say that.

She also featured an interview of Paulite Bircher-libertard Daniel McAdams (initiated by McAdams, who seems to be doing sales calls these days) on opposition to the wars, seemingly lacking any understanding of how broader right-wing libertarianism runs completely counter to her socialism-influenced leftism. SuperPAC-fueled socialist-lite Mamdani is a real problem, but the Judeo/econo-politics of Murray Rothbard apparently aren’t. Wasn’t Ron Paul “literally a member of a genocidal party”, as her handler Red said about Zohran?

Maybe it’s just a case of “keep your friends close, and keep your enemies closer”, who knows. It’s hard to tell, because I don’t see any indication that these BJA-addled black left activists have any idea who their friends and enemies really are.