Post-Mortem: Post-Progressive Joy and Grief

The outcome of the election left former Berniecrats laughing and crying, but mostly Jew'splaining in the end

The post-mortems have been coming hot and heavy after at least a somewhat surprising outcome (I’m not surprised Trump won but I am surprised that he’ll take the popular vote by more than two percentage points). So let’s feast on the post-game spin, starting with the Grayzone at the end of their election night livestream, when the result was becoming apparent:

The “factional fighting” line feels like staging for a narrative if/when Trump continues the wars. Tucker the Fucker was around the first time, and do you believe a youthful, inexperienced VP who was sold to Trump is going to have real influence? When has that happened? Please don’t give me Dan Quayle. 😁 At least they got the aging right, but that’s kinda too late, isn’t it, shouldn’t that have been more of an elevated issue before the election? Shutting down Ukraine should be rather easy if it’s as opposed by the electorate as claimed, but the problem is doing so without accepting total defeat as a legacy, even though it was Biden’s war. The 24-hour deal sold by Trump and RFK while campaigning simply doesn’t exist in the real world.

And Stein made an impact?? Here is the nationwide vote (as of Saturday evening):

And here is Michigan, where Stein had been played up as this major threat to Harris because of the Palestinian/Arab/Muslim community:

I’ll get into this more, but Stein’s vote total in critical Michigan is half the margin between Harris and Trump, and her percentage in that state is also less than her nationwide percentage in 2016. In 2016 Hillary lost Michigan to Trump by 12k votes, and Stein got 51k votes, 1.1% of the total vote. Way to bring it bigtime, Jilly.

Continuing from there:

Newsflash, Max, political parties play hardball. If you can’t stand the heat, etc. On covid, he says Trump benefitted, which is worth noting for later into this. And he says inflation was due to pandemic debt spending, which is true but easily forgotten, as is that Trump started that. The message on Perot is that any 3rd party candidate has to start with what the parties align on that isn’t supported by the electorate, and not extremist shit that a small minority supports. Anti-war and protectionism and culture war disinterest is a good start.

Of course Sanders comes up, and that had to include the way he was influenced by the neocon-inclined goy Duss, instead of accepting that he’s a Jew who is ethnically-inclined to view a Jewish-driven political philosophy with some generosity. Remember that the guy was a Russiagater who voted to remove Trump from office. Twice, once after he had actually left on his own. Left rather unwillingly it must be said, but still…

And when did doing three-hour interviews with Rogan become a measure of a presidential candidate? Will the real test be who lights up and who doesn’t? I didn’t watch the Trump interview, but my impression is that it was a pre-coronation and not any sort of responsible drilling down. I did watch the three-hour RFK Jr job last year, where Rogan revealed himself as a biased non-journalist, incapable or unwilling to break through RFK’s blue wall of medical bullshit.

On the notion of a Dem celebrity candidate, let’s turn to Kyle “Kuck” Kulinski:

So yeah, yet another Jew in Kyle’s career collection of presidential hopefuls. Thank God he’s always wrong. What I find most amazing is that apparently he’s given up on Tim Walz already - maybe he’s been going through Jew withdrawal since abandoning Jill Stein after the Biden bailout…

Speaking of Jews, let me get this distasteful one out of the way early on:

So sorry, I don’t know how that last part got in there…

That’s all we have to hear from Greenwald, because it tells us all we need to know about his award-winning “professionalized” journalism. In fact just the opening seconds of this segment tells us that, when he refers to the 2020 election: “…and his extremely close race with Joe Biden despite every conceivable headwind one can face with a worldwide pandemic that closed down the country and resulted in extreme economic harm.”

In his show intro he said this: “In a sweeping landslide Trump won all seven of the so-called swing states. He’s almost certainly likely to win over 300 electoral college votes. His lead in the popular vote over Kamala Harris is almost four million.”

You can see the 2024 numbers in the first image above, an here are the numbers on the 2020 election:

Huh. So Biden won by seven million votes (Trump four million), 4.5% margin (Trump under 3%), and took 306 electoral votes (Trump 301). But that wasn’t a landslide, it was “extremely close”. Once again there are two possibilities to explain Greenwald behavior, ignorance and/or deception. I think we can agree that neither of those should qualify for a real journalist’s toolkit. But a talking-head influencer with a hidden agenda living in the post-truth world? That’s different, that’s where lying is skill #1.

But there’s more going on here than just that, although at least superficially Greenwald gets some things right. What stands out most are all the gross exaggerations, which wind through every sentence in this - I mean, they demonize Trump beyond Hitler, seriously, the worst person in human history by an order of magnitude? But also all the mocking tone that goes only in one direction, and telling you what people really think, which inexplicably somehow he’s determined. “Believe me, I know.” It’s not journalism, it’s manipulative ghey performance art.

Another example of manipulation in what I quoted above: a pandemic is an opportunity for societal leadership in a moment of national crisis, that’s what creates the (largely-mythical) image of great leaders in history, particularly related to wars. But Greenwald just frames that crisis as creating a parallel economic crisis which Trump could do nothing about, and so got hung around his neck (whether that’s actually true or not). That happened in part because Trump didn’t really act forcefully, rather he helped to politicize the pandemic in ways that helped to divide the nation. He wasn’t alone in that to be sure, not remotely, but I never had any sense of reassuring competence at the top. Trump in his rhetoric is the kind of person who can only tear down, he cannot build up. At the same time that he was designating a vaccine as the silver bullet he was enabling the resistance to using it, tearing down his own cure.

And remember what Max said about Trump benefitting from the pandemic and starting the inflation spiral. It’s like Bush setting off the neoliberal disaster of 2008, starting the bailout cure and then handing that off to Obama, one big shit sandwich.

All this ends up distracting from what I believe is the reason many people feel that way about establishment institutions (and they do, Greenwald essentially got that right, although his depth and breadth of that is bullshit), which is the takeover of what can be referred to as the broader deep state by a subversive influence, and you know what that is. It’s the reason that Trump ‘16 got elected in the first place, when he vaguely ran against those influences - neoliberalism’s job exportation, neoconservatism’s endless wars, cultural Marxism’s open immigration, and the fake news controlled mainstream media. Greenwald will never tell you any of that, rather he creates an ethnically-cleansed parallel narrative.

Btw, my definition of a landslide is when the winner gets at least 55% of the popular vote, wins at least 400 electoral college votes and at least 40 states. By that criteria there have been four landslides in my lifetime: Eisenhower over Stevenson in 1956, Johnson over Goldwasser in 1964, Nixon over McGovern in 1972, and Reagan over Mondale in 1984. In all of those elections the term was/is used universally.

The closest we’ve come since the ‘80s (Reagan-Carter and Bush-Dukakis came close) was Clinton over Dole in 1996, when Sellout Bill won 379 electoral votes and 31 states +DC… and only 49.2% of the popular vote, because of Perot (8.4%). I do not remember people in general calling that one a landslide, although it was a pretty solid beatdown for Dole. In 2008 Obama got 52.9% of the vote, 365 electoral votes and won 28 states (+DC of course), and that was seen as a very respectable win but not a landslide, by my recollection.

Another thing to consider is total votes. In 2020 Trump got 74.22M votes, and right now with some votes still to count he has 74.37M. So to claim he has seriously-growing popularity is a little hard to justify, unlike in ‘20 when his vote total increased by more than 10M over 2016. 2020 of course was a highly politicized year, with the covid lockdown and BLM on top of Russiagate and the impeachment, and turnout was extraordinarily high.

What matters here is that Biden got 81.3M votes and Harris now has only 70.5M - the enthusiasm and/or urgency simply wasn’t there on the Dem side. There’s definitely a lot of reasons to explain that, from the bloody and Treasury-bleeding wars including the Putin price hike to the morgue-like mood over the Biden White House to the selected woman of color replacement thing. And some (like Trump, and Vance if really pressed) will claim millions of faked votes in ‘20.

That’s being defined as anti-incumbency in a year of anti-incumbency globally by a lot of talking heads (like Kulinski above), which is a little strange given that Harris isn’t actually an incumbent and it’s a generality that needs much more detail to mean anything. When the worldwide voters’ work is throwing the rascals out there has to be a common reason for they being seen as sufficiently rascally, and that’s usually economics, which is often global. That means neoliberalism these days, which in specifics would seem to be… inflation? Needs more work.

Now that I have the Vancetard Greenwald out of the way, let me also dispose of Stein Sis Sabby Sabs, talking about the Man with a Black Job:

Btw, just in case you didn’t know, the other guy was David Axelrod of the Chicago Jewish political mafia - see the WaPo article on creating Obama I pasted at the end of my piece D-Day Minus One. His next project was mayor Pete in ‘20.

There are 150k Muslims in PA, which is the 9th-largest by-state population, and Harris lost PA by about 150k votes. But many of those Muslims aren’t Arabs, many are children, many of the adults didn’t vote either, and many who did voted for Harris. So that’s bullshit. It didn't help Harris, but it didn’t cost her the state either. Maybe she was sabotaged by shadowy Josh Shapiro with his eyes on 2028, who knows…

Jill Stein got 34k votes in PA, btw, which is 0.5%, same as her national percentage. So much for the Muslim-driven Green boomlet.

From there Sabby goes on to cover something I included in my last piece:

Now, what Miss V actually said was that the Iowa poll suggested that the state might be in play, and that was encouraging regarding the Midwest overall; Kulinski pushed this line harder. And her weepy woman thing was about Harris losing unexpectedly (in terms of decisiveness anyway) on top of the same for Hillary in 2016, and her interpretation of that being closeted misogyny. I don’t like the overloaded language at all, but I also think that the no-balls thing factored in the outcome. But abortion is just a ramification of the Harris defeat, even if partially symbolic, it’s not entirely why Emma was weeping. The consequence of this election might well be that no woman gets nominated again in my lifetime, although surely not in hers. No judgment on that, just keeping it real.

Btw, the number one issue for Republican voters was the economy; the number one issue for Democratic voters was democracy. So I guess the economy won.

But let’s get to the spin on the superficially-real Sabby story:

Of course this is just bullshit, complete bullshit. In 2016 when Stein last ran, she got a gray cunthair over 1% of the vote nationwide, and this time she got half of that. The Libertarians did far worse - in ‘16 Gary Johnson got over 3% of the vote, and this time Chase Oliver got less than Stein and less than RFK, who by the end wasn’t even running. And Johnson was even less radical that Thomas Massie, he was just a libertardish Republican.

The reality is that the very best these 3rd parties can do is to occasionally act as a spoiler in very close races involving very specific circumstances. This was one of those, and it didn’t happen. Until a 3rd party arises which doesn’t espouse a radical agenda in American political terms, this “movement” will go nowhere. It’s not about even more right or even more left.

To a large extent, Trump has turned the GOP into a 3rd party of this type, in terms of voter reaction if not in actuality. In this respect it’s much like the failed Bernie movement was, on the surface an attempt at turning the Dems into a progressive/social democratic party. If Shady Vance is a harbinger, the further evolution of the Trumptard GOP will be toward neo-libertarianism, a Jewish-led free-market capitalist oligarchy with few constraints on power. 50 years ago that would have been considered an incredibly radical thing, but not so much today - evolution vs revolution, and the left always talks revolution. Instead try to find yourself a bastard son of Bernie and pre-Shmuley RFK, with the good DNA from both. And not the DNA of a two-faced Brooklyn Zionist Jew on ‘roids who feeds his brainworm kosher roadkill and finds a gold-digging divorcee running mate with Jewish billionaire money to fund it all.

More concise, more honest and perhaps equally blind is Danny Haiphong, who cut to the chase in just three minutes:

Cut! So there we have a combination of Greenwald and Salvati but without the agendas, with a little Matt Taibbi and Chris Hedges thrown in for good measure. At least he mentioned the neocons, and I guess I could give him a quarter point for the corporate media. But this is clearly a guy who has bought into the full ethno-cleansed post-progressive oppositional leftish narrative and couldn’t see the Jew if he had his circumcised dick in his mouth and could read his “Fuck you, goyische sucker!” pubic tattoo right in front of his face.

But what he does go on to do from there is to rip Trump a new one as well, saying more war in the middle east (he specifically mentions the Adelsons) while Ukraine/Russia is a coin flip that could go either way. Can’t argue with that. He goes on to call the US an empire of lies, which is absolutely true in the sense that real power and its intentions are hidden under a cover of hateful covert deception and the blinding universal belief in Holocaustism.

From there he seems to suggest that the war in Ukraine could be stopped with massive public pressure, but nothing can be done about Israel and the middle east. Then he blames all this on Wall St. which one could generously interpret as the Jews, but he almost certainly means the generic American empire. And he finishes with America First meaning the American elite first, above the rest of the world. The system remains the same; the people who elected Trump and the people who tried to elect Harris are not in conflict. Which is clear in the image below that shows GOP mega-donor Adelson and Dem mega-donor Saban jointly lubricating warmonger Graham’s electoral A-hole.

Good work pulling out of that nosedive, Dan-O.

Next up is Kim Iversen, who in her show title also claims it was a landslide:

Cut! I just couldn’t take any more after “bigly”…

So, being generous here, basically the same Dem-demonizing pro-Trump story but on steroids, accentuated by Kim’s usual covid fixation, her moment of professional glory, in large part due to her conspiracy theorizing and outright lying. Aside from all the “just a bad flu” covid stuff, maybe the highlight for me was that the Dems started the war in Gaza (a secret alliance with Hamas, I guess), but “they tried to kill the guy” was right up there as well. And let’s recall that this is someone who talked about “Democrat derangement syndrome” only a couple months ago. Beyond that, I have nothing else to say about that truly unhinged post-truth rant, except that it was kinda entertaining, one of the better examples of infotainment one could find in the disinformation-industrial complex. Next.

So let's flip to Sabby’s rich white girl Miss Vigeland, first from the day after featuring the progressive cheerleader AOC, just to set the mood:

Sorry about giving you all that AOC right after giving you all that Kimmy. But what does she really say, what defines her leadership here? Build community, fight and win, what does that actually mean? In tone it sounds like hiding liberals like Jewish children from the Nazis who are looking to Holocaust them out of existence. You know, the enemy within.

I kept the off-camera Matt bit at the end because the RFK embrace has very real potential consequences, it might be the most real thing AOC said. This effective embrace of anti-vaxx lunacy and destructive demonization of public health can rightly be placed at the feet of everyone who uncritically promoted the RFK Jr campaign from the beginning, including Rogan and even Blumenthal. Note: I am NOT defending Big Pharma here; RFK’s narrative goes way beyond the Big Pharma problem, which is really a neoliberalism capitalism problem - and RFK is all in on free-market capitalism. No, this at its core is about MMR and autism, that’s where it started for him more than 20 years ago - and all sailing routes lead to Samoa.

Moving on to 24 hours later and the shark Mehdi Hasan:

I like hearing someone actually saying Trump could be worse on Israel/Gaza and the middle east in general, because he can be. But that acknowledgement by those formerly on the anti-war Berniecrat left is highly problematic after effectively working for a Trump victory in this election.

Later on post-Medhi it’s doom and gloom regarding the Dems, that built on the need to go full Bernie, the guy who simply won't die on the left half:

So it’s the usual line that the Dems just need to be more leftist to win. The most leftist they’ve ever been in a presidential election was McGovern in 1972, that bright and shining moment at the height of New Leftism, and they lost 49 states and 61.7% to 37.5% overall to Tricky Dick, a broadly-reviled political criminal who wouldn’t last out that second term.

The bit about the Democratic Party dying, this election being a fatal wound, is amusing in the context of what Trump losing would have meant to the GOP, leaving the party in a true civil war over its future. The Dems are not in that position at all, they are owned lock, stock and barrel by the Jews and that’s not going to change. And they didn't get just 37.5% of the vote, they got at least ten points more than that, even after failing to smoothly pull off the inevitable Biden-Harris switcheroo, mostly because of Biden’s resistance. McGovern’s 37.5% killed the party for 20 years and led to its fire sale to the moneyed Jews, but this is nothing like that. Trump alone could make the Dems victorious in 2028, especially if he’s succeeded by Vance carrying that baggage along with his minimalist donut-purchasing skills. By 2028 it could be the GOP who are eating high on the dog.

In fact I’ll go as far as to say had Biden fully cooperated in that switcheroo from the beginning and had the Trump assassination false flag patsy incident not happened, two deep events arranged by each campaign/party, Harris might well have been elected. (Possibly deep events, I should say 😉)

Off-camera Matt disparaging a Shapiro VP pick as the worst kind of politics is interesting given Emma’s prior declaration that he’d be great in ‘28. Then Emma downplays Walz, who was damaged by this campaign and its result but who is also the kind of everyman Midwest populist who the Dems should turn to instead of some internationalist Zionist Jew like Shapiro with blood on his hands. What isn’t recognized is the selected factor with Harris, that she didn’t have the elected legitimacy of someone running the gauntlet of a primary process against real opponents (Williamson and Phillips/Pfefer don’t count). Again that gets back to Biden, who should take all the blame he’s now getting, but it was always the plan starting four years ago when she was selected by the owners of the party, playing on the identity theme of their Cultural Marxism paradigm.

I don't want to leave TMR and end this piece before getting to the most overtly Jewish take related to the election I’ve seen from them thus far, thanks to off-camera Matt, featuring another despicable J-figure included in my last piece:

Matt: “Israel”. Bingo.

Note the Weiss turning point on the Dem philosophical change - 30 years ago, the beginning of the Clinton Sellout, the exact point where he hired the Brooklyn Jew Dick Morris to cook up triangulation, and when political correctness was first rising. She’s not wrong, that’s when the traumatized left simply stopped being the left.

Matt: “Bari Weiss does not care about Jewish people, Bari Weiss cares about Zionism.”

Of course Israel doesn’t mean the Jewish state, it means the Zionist state, which means Jews get a pass, the usual politically-correct bullshit. The Great Debate I discussed in my last piece didn't feature three Jews (including Weiss), it featured three Zionists. But white people, they're a real problem…

Matt: “Westchester dictating to Mt. Vernon”. I’ve never heard that before - does that mean wealthy suburban NYC dictating to DC? If so, he couldn’t be more correct.

But here we get “Zionist money” and not Jewish money - even though Jewish money can largely be quantified including its dominance, and Zionist money cannot, beyond AIPAC and other Jewish/Israeli lobby organizations donations, like those of the Conference of Presidents of Major American JEWISH Organizations.

Matt:”Hasbara”. Meaning Jew’splaining.

But by the end even Emma says “Israel money” is a systemic problem within the party. On the other hand, she doesn't know the toady story, no doubt because that happened on Rogan and involved Tulsi who ran against Bari’s neocon wars but was also seen as taking votes away from Bernie and so was destroyed, including by the Berniecrats like Emma.

Matt: “Batya-Ungar Sargon”. Greenwald’s despicable dual-citizen ethno-buddy who promotes 10/7 atrocity lies and left-hands antisemitism, and was pictured on his show in an image earlier in this piece. But would Matt have mentioned her if she wasn’t an Israeli citizen?

So this is as close to real meaningful analysis of the Dem defeat and the party's problems as we’ll get from the post-progressive left and right. Even though the “Jew” is hidden under the cover of the “Zionist”, a term that is intended to point you toward white Christians.

In my opinion the most important ethno-work Weiss has done is on building the antisemitism paradigm, it’s not her Zionism. But that’s out because it’s not the Jews, it’s the Zionists. Because talking about Jews is antisemitic. Wait, isn’t there a circular illogic operating there? You can’t talk about them because they told you that you can’t talk about them? Huh.