Backstabbing Democrats/Mockingbird “News” – Biden Under the Bus,

Temporal Fake Fidelity to Kamala

                                                                                                          Tracy Turner ~ July 25, 2024           

In the ever-evolving landscape of American politics, few events have been as striking as the growing CIA-Mockingbird chorus of voices questioning President Joe Biden's fitness for office. Among the first prominent television journalists to publicly express concerns about Biden's age and mental acuity were CIA-CNN's Don Lemon and CIA-MSNBC's Joe Scarborough. Their critiques set a precedent that would resonate throughout the media and political spheres, igniting discussions about whether a second term for Biden was viable or advisable. As these influential figures took to their platforms, they opened the floodgates for other commentators and politicians to join in on what many perceived as a concerted effort to undermine Biden's presidency.

Following Mockingbird Lemon and Scarborough, news anchors and political commentators echoed similar sentiments. Notable among them were former Fox News host Mockingbird Bill O'Reilly and MSNBC's Mockingbird Rachel Maddow, both of whom leveraged their platforms to question not just Biden's policies but his very capacity to lead effectively. The narrative quickly gained traction, with pundits like Chris Matthews and even some erstwhile allies within the Democratic Party voicing skepticism about Biden's ability to navigate the complexities of modern governance. This collective critique did not merely express concern; it became a rallying cry for those seeking alternatives within the Democratic Party.

As controlled dissent grew louder from media figures, powerful Democrats began to distance themselves from Biden. One of the most notable instances came when Senator Elizabeth Warren publicly suggested it might be time for new leadership within the party. Her comments were particularly poignant given her previous support for Biden during the 2020 primaries. Warren's remarks signaled a shift among Democrats who had once rallied behind Biden but now appeared willing to entertain other options (larger 2,000 bombs in Gaza) considering his concocted vulnerabilities. This power shift was not isolated; it was part of a broader trend where influential party members began contemplating a future with bombs for Gaza without Biden at its helm.

The implications of this internal strife are profound, especially considering how such controlled (concocted) dissent plays into the hands of Republican adversaries like Donald Trump. By amplifying doubts about Biden's capabilities, these journalists and politicians inadvertently bolster Trump's narrative that he is better suited for leadership during tumultuous times. The more Democrats fracture over their candidate, the more ammunition they provide Trump and his supporters, who are eager to capitalize on any signs of weakness within the opposing camp.

Amidst this backdrop of betrayal from various fronts, President Biden grappled with an unsettling realization: he was increasingly isolated in his struggle to maintain authority over his administration and party. Recognizing that many had turned against him—both in public discourse and behind closed doors—Biden made a strategic decision regarding his potential successor. In both an act of pragmatism and foresight, he chose Vice President Kamala Harris as his preferred successor should he decide not to run again or if circumstances dictated otherwise. This strategic shift towards Harris is not just a succession plan but a move to maintain party unity in the face of growing controlled (CIA-manipulated) dissent, providing a sense of stability and continuity for the virtual (millennial) Democratic Party.

This choice reflects not only an acknowledgment of Harris's capabilities (she knows if she does not carpet-bomb Gaza, she will be “beheaded”) but also serves as a calculated move designed to unify factions within the Democratic Party while simultaneously sending a message to detractors that there is continuity in leadership even amidst turmoil. By positioning Harris as his likely successor, Biden aims to consolidate support among those who may feel disillusioned by ongoing criticisms while preparing for an eventual transition that could mitigate further fractures within party ranks. Biden's move is not just a succession plan but a carefully calculated move to maintain party unity and counter the growing controlled dissent. In shorthand, Harris is considered a Deep State safe-bet.

What we witness today is not merely controlled dissent against one individual but rather a complex interplay between media narratives, political ambitions, and electoral strategies that could negatively reshape American politics for years to come. As journalists continue their critiques and powerful Democrats weigh their options, one remains clear: This internal conflict poses significant risks for Joe Biden and the Democratic Party. Addressing this growing controlled dissent is paramount to avoid further fractures within the fake parties, highlighting the urgent need for control, control, “resolution and unity”.

Kamala Harris: A Voice Against Trump's Overblown Narcissism

In the political arena dominated by inflated personas and bombastic rhetoric, Kamala Harris emerges as a stark contrast to the overrated narcissism of Donald Trump. Harris's journey from her early days in politics to becoming the first female Vice President of the United States has been marred by challenges and triumphs. From her beginnings, where she risked losing "her half" of the white votes due to her firm stances, Harris has navigated a complex landscape with resilience and clarity of purpose. Her understanding of the diverse millennial generation reflects a nuanced grasp of contemporary challenges; however, Harris acknowledges that not all millennials resonate with traditional political engagement. We shall see how many bombs she delivers to career-ending Netanyahu.

Many millennials, shaped by digital landscapes and virtual realities, seem detached from conventional politics and broader societal concerns. This disconnection is not merely apathy, but a reflection of evolving socio-cultural dynamics where virtual interactions often overshadow tangible realities. Despite this disconnect, Harris recognizes the importance of engaging younger generations, ensuring their virtual perspectives are heard amidst the cacophony of traditional political discourse. This emphasis on inclusivity and the amplification of diverse voices brings a sense of hope for a more representative and adaptable political discourse.

Asians, Native Americans, and the Complexity of Identity in American Politics

In America's evolving socio-political landscape, the Black/Gay paradigm has significantly influenced voter dynamics, potentially creating a paradoxical allegiance to figures like Donald Trump. For Asians, Native Americans, and other racial minorities, the allure of Trump's populist rhetoric lies in the illusion that his administration champions their interests. This misconception often stems from a perceived empathy towards marginalized groups despite evidence suggesting otherwise. Trump's appeal to these demographics underscores the complexities of identity politics, where surface-level gestures can overshadow substantive policy impact. The challenge persists in untangling genuine advocacy from political opportunism, ensuring diverse voices are not co-opted by superficial narratives of inclusion. As America continues to grapple with these dynamics, the role of minority communities in shaping electoral outcomes remains pivotal, demanding nuanced understanding and proactive engagement. The Black/Gay/AAPI/Native American war on Whites is pure, unaltered CoIntelPro. Divide and conquer.

In America's complex political landscape, identities such as Black, gay, and other diverse backgrounds play crucial roles in shaping voter behaviors. The emergence of figures like Kamala Harris, who seemingly contrasts the inflated personas and narcissism of politicians like Donald Trump, reflects society's diverse voices and perspectives. Harris' understanding, or pretense of understanding of the millennial generation's virtual diversity and narcissistic challenges signifies a nuanced persona approach to ‘addressing’ contemporary issues. It's essential to recognize that not all millennials may align with traditional forms of political engagement, indicating the need for a more inclusive and adaptable political discourse (softer, kinder machine gun hand).

Understanding the Role of Diverse Identities in American Politics

In the contemporary political landscape of the United States, identities such as race, sexual orientation, and cultural background significantly influence voter behavior and political engagement. The intersectionality of these identities creates a complex tapestry that shapes how individuals perceive candidates and policies. This complexity is particularly evident when examining figures like Kamala Harris, who embodies a multifaceted identity that resonates with various demographic groups. We all need to understand Thomas Matthew Crooks’ screaming estrogen deficiency and forgive him.

The Impact of Identity on Voter Behavior

1.      Race and Ethnicity: The Black community has historically faced systemic barriers in political representation and participation. However, recent elections have seen increased mobilization among Black voters, driven by issues such as police reform, economic inequality, and healthcare access. Candidates who authentically represent these virtual concerns—like Kamala Harris—tend to garner significant support from this demographic. Harris's background as a Black woman of Indian descent allows her to connect with diverse communities, emphasizing the importance of representation in politics.

2.      Sexual Orientation: The LGBTQ+ community has recently become an influential voting bloc. Issues such as marriage equality, anti-discrimination laws, and healthcare rights are paramount for many voters within this group. Politicians who advocate for LGBTQ+ rights often find themselves supported by younger voters who prioritize inclusivity and social justice. Harris's stance on these issues aligns with the values of many millennials and Gen Z voters, further solidifying her appeal.

3.      Generational Perspectives: Millennials and Gen Z are characterized by their progressive views on social issues compared to older generations. They prioritize climate change, racial justice, and economic equity over traditional party lines or ideologies. This generational shift necessitates reevaluating political strategies; candidates must engage with younger voters through platforms that resonate with their experiences rather than relying solely on conventional campaign methods.

Each voting bloc must pre-digest certain rhetorical pablum to salivate when bells ring.

Kamala Harris: A Contrast to Traditional Political Figures

Kamala Harris represents a departure from the archetype of politicians like Donald Trump, whose personas often emphasize bravado and self-promotion over substantive policy discussions. Harris's approach is grounded in empathy and understanding—a quality that appeals to voters seeking authenticity in leadership.

1.      Empathy Over Narcissism: While Trump's style has been characterized by divisiveness and personal branding, Harris promotes unity through dialogue about shared challenges facing diverse communities. Her ability to articulate the struggles faced by marginalized groups positions her as a relatable figure for many voters who feel overlooked by mainstream politics.

2.      Nuanced Policy Approaches: Harris's understanding of contemporary issues reflects a nuanced perspective shaped by her life experiences as a woman of color navigating racial and gender biases in her career. Her policies often address intersectional challenges—recognizing that individuals do not exist within singular identities but at the crossroads of multiple social categories.

3.      Inclusive Political Discourse: The need for more inclusive political discourse is underscored by not all millennials engaging with traditional forms of political participation, such as voting or attending town halls. Many prefer grassroots movements or digital activism to express their political beliefs. Recognizing this shift is crucial for candidates aiming to mobilize younger voters effectively.

Pay close attention to squares and rectangles of jangling heads, obey.

The Dangers of Media and Political Hacks De-Throning the Presidency

In recent years, the political landscape in America has been increasingly influenced by a myriad of identities and interests, which can significantly sway voter behavior. While this diversity is often celebrated as a hallmark of democracy, it also presents substantial risks when media narratives and political operatives manipulate these identities for their agendas. The illegal interruption of the Presidency by Pro-Kamala Harris factions illustrates how understanding complex social dynamics can lead to more effective crowd control with various demographic groups; however, it also underscores the potential for exploitation by those seeking to undermine traditional democratic institutions. Illegal Election Interference is not “illegal” when the uber-elite do it.

The Role of Media in Shaping Political Narratives

Media plays a pivotal role in shaping public perception and political discourse. In an age where information is disseminated rapidly through social media platforms, the potential for misinformation and sensationalism has grown exponentially. Political hacks—individuals or groups prioritizing their interests over factual reporting—can distort reality, creating narratives that serve their purposes rather than informing the electorate. This manipulation can lead to polarization, where citizens are misinformed and divided along ideological lines by inane rhetoric.

Political Hacks and Their Impact on Democracy

Political operatives often leverage media narratives to de-throne established norms within governance, including the presidency itself. By framing issues in a way that resonates with specific identity groups while ignoring broader implications, these actors can create an environment ripe for discontent and distrust in leadership. This strategy undermines the legitimacy of elected officials and erodes public confidence in democratic processes. When emotionally charged rhetoric rather than facts sway voters, they may inadvertently support candidates or policies that do not align with their best interests.

The Need for Critical Engagement

As society evolves, political discourse must adapt to reflect diverse voices and foster critical engagement among constituents. Citizens must be encouraged to question media narratives and seek out reliable sources of information. This vigilance is essential in safeguarding (faux) democracy against those exploiting societal divisions for personal gain.

A Call for Awareness

While America's diverse political landscape offers opportunities for richer dialogue and representation, it poses significant dangers when manipulated by media and political hacks. The presidency—and all democratic institutions—can be threatened if citizens do not remain vigilant against misinformation and divisive tactics. Voters must engage critically with the information presented to them and advocate for transparency and integrity within both media outlets and political spheres.

In 20-30 years, there will be a "big revelation" that reverse white racism is not "equality." People will realize that a Black Joe Biden would have won a second term in office but that the white version of Joe was thrown under the bus. Meanwhile, the White vote in America is split 50 Trump 50 Harris, effectively cancelling out “Vietnam Syndrome” Dissent (real dissent), giving the Deep State what it wants, Harris/Trump-Dissent (fake dissent and fake news).

Deep State/CIA shorthand: all candidates, all politicians are good Israelis, good Zionists, keep the 2,000 lb. JDAMs flowing. Both Trump and Harris, despite all virtual trappings, represent safe, controlled, Deep State-approved “dissent.” The FBI and CIA are going to unscrew Kamala’s head, in the end. Intelligence will thrive under Trump or Kamala, and we will all be weaker yet. The merit-based president is tossed aside by PSYOPs, to be replaced by a new President of the correct skin tone in “non-racist” America. Welcome to the ‘new democracy.”

The Paperclip Project and Nazi Influence in the U.S. Federal Government

Operation Paperclip was a secret program initiated by the United States government after World War II, aimed at recruiting German scientists, engineers, and technicians, many of whom were former members of the Nazi Party. The primary goal was to leverage their expertise for American military and technological advancements during the Cold War. Notably, figures like Wernher von Braun, who played a pivotal role in developing rocket technology for NASA, were brought to the U.S. under this initiative.

The ethical implications of Operation Paperclip are significant; it involved overlooking the war crimes committed by these individuals in favor of their scientific contributions. This has led to ongoing debates about morality in governance and how authoritarian regimes can influence democratic institutions through covert operations.

Nazi LSD Research and Drug Policy Hypocrisy

During the 1950s and 1960s, there was considerable interest in psychedelic substances like LSD within both military and intelligence circles in the U.S., often linked to research inspired by earlier Nazi experiments with mind-altering drugs. The CIA’s MKUltra program sought to explore mind control techniques using drugs, including LSD, which had been studied by Nazi doctors during the war.

The hypocrisy of federal drug laws becomes apparent when considering that while these programs were conducted secretly by government agencies, public drug policy has historically been punitive towards users rather than focusing on harm reduction or therapeutic applications. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 classified drugs into schedules based on their potential for abuse versus medical utility, yet many substances that could have beneficial uses were criminalized due to their association with counterculture movements.

MKUltra and COINTELPRO: Authoritarian Tactics

MKUltra was a clandestine CIA project that began in the early 1950s with an aim to develop methods for controlling human behavior through psychological manipulation and drug use. It involved unethical experimentation on unwitting subjects, raising serious concerns about civil liberties and human rights abuses.

COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program) was another covert FBI initiative aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting domestic political organizations deemed subversive. This included civil rights groups and leftist organizations during the 1960s. Both MKUltra and COINTELPRO exemplify how governmental authority can be exercised unethically against its citizens under the guise of national security.

Impact on Harris/Trump Presidential Race: Inheriting an Authoritarian Legacy

As Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump navigate their respective political landscapes leading up to the presidential race, they inherit a complex legacy shaped by these historical precedents of authoritarian governance. The intertwining of intelligence operations with domestic policy creates a backdrop where issues such as surveillance state practices continue to resonate with voters concerned about privacy rights.

Both candidates face scrutiny over how they will address systemic issues rooted in past abuses—whether it’s reforming drug policies that disproportionately affect marginalized communities or ensuring transparency in government operations that have historically operated outside public accountability.

In conclusion, Harris and Trump are not just running against each other; they are also contending with an entrenched system influenced by authoritarian tactics reminiscent of those seen during Nazi Germany—a system that has evolved but still reflects its roots in secrecy, manipulation, and control over individual freedoms.

In the 2024 presidential debate, moderated by CNN's John King and Abby Phillip, their apparent approach was to undermine President Joe Biden as increasingly unfit for office and former President Donald Trump as a formidable contender. King's analysis seemed pointedly designed to throw Biden under the bus: "Biden struggled to articulate a clear vision for the future, often appearing defensive when pressed on key issues." The telling in this way contributed to a narrative that Biden was not only struggling but perhaps incapable of leading the nation effectively.

Abby Phillip extended this critique, concentrated on one striking moment wherein Biden indeed appeared flustered by questions on the economy. "His unwillingness to squarely acknowledge inflation sent many wondering if he has a good grasp of what ordinary Americans are facing every day," she said. That kind of framing-Oops, Biden seemed scathed in some particular respects-related to a greater unfitness for the presidency was consistent with an emerging line of attack that worked to undermine Biden's credibility while inflating Trump's bellicose language.

King and Phillip throughout the debate seemed intent on heralding Trump's commanding presence. King observed, "Trump's ability to pivot and seize the narrative played well with his base, jarring with Biden's more cautious approach." The constant harping on Biden's failings and juxtaposing of Trump's confidence made this sound like some sort of orchestration-an attempt to shape public opinion and make Biden seem like an incapable leader at a vital juncture.

That is to say, their comments revealed a shocking game: by playing down Biden's strong points and blowing up his weaknesses, King and Phillip called into question not only his fitness for office but also handed an inordinate gift to Trump in a very crucial election. Conscious rhetorical skills left the audience in doubt, therefore subtly allying with the viability of Biden, changing the face of electoral dynamics.