The times they are a crazy-ee. One candidate is shot but the other is the one felled. After the prolonged despondency over Joe Biden as their 2024 champion, in a burst of celebratory relief, newly-energised Democrats are rallying behind Kamala Harris as his replacement who represents the future to Trump’s disreputable past. Not so fast. The Democratic liberal elite march to the battle hymn “I am victim, hear me whine”, even from a child of privilege. The handover from Joe from Scranton to Kamala from California symbolises not just the baton passing to the next generation, but also a Democratic party more concerned today with environmental and social justice activism than its historic mission to protect the jobs and raise the living standards of workers.
I’ve been speculating since January that the Democrats would wait until after the Republican convention had confirmed Trump before forcing out a clearly impaired Biden. This would allow the party powerbrokers to nominate the candidate of their choice without the messy untidiness of a contested primary. The strategy owes much to Harris’s flawed candidacy as an electoral liability with a record of failing upwards. She was elected Attorney General of California, a deep blue state, in 2010 with less than 1% margin when other candidates won landslide victories. Her 2020 primary run collapsed with spectacular swiftness. In 2020 and 2024 combined she won exactly zero delegates in two runs to be the Democratic presidential nominee. She wasn’t chosen as Biden’s running mate based on past achievements and known potential, but because she ticked all the identity boxes. Kamala Devi Harris is a diversity pick thrice over: a woman, a black and a South Asian. The very same traits bullet-proofed her against being passed over in 2024. Yet the multitude of security failures that gave an amateur assassin multiple shots at Trump show the deadly consequences of elevating diversity criteria above merits and competence.
Not only does Harris present as a diversity candidate in violation of the merit principle, she is the candidate anointed by the D.C. elite backed by the Democratic-adjacent media, Hollywood celebrities and wealthy donors, rather than chosen by voters as the party’s standard-bearer. Saving democracy means protecting the Democratic party’s right to rule. Democratic voters who have been gaslit for years and were given an unqualified candidate, are now assigned a candidate they didn’t rightfully elect in a primary and told to laud Biden’s selfless gesture in stepping aside. Trump noted at a campaign rally on July 24th that the 14 million primary votes for Biden have been transferred to Harris without voter consent. Biden’s withdrawal was not a noble act of sacrifice but a brutal palace coup against a stubborn and delusional President. The announcement was made not from the Oval Office but on X from Biden’s personal account during a period of zero public appearances following an unspecified medical emergency. The Harris coronation was orchestrated by a ruling elite, terrified of losing the holy trinity of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives due to the belated public exposure of Biden’s decline. Yet we are told that Trump is the great white threat to American democracy.
Both parties are busy trying to define Harris with respect to her organising principle of politics and who she is as a person. Trump will paint her as a failed and unpopular Vice President who knifed her boss to steal a nomination she could not win in an open primary. As possibly the Democrats’ weakest and wokest candidate, she offers a target-rich record along four attack lines.
- She is a California progressive-radical Leftist who supports slavery reparations, racial and gender identity, elimination of private health insurance, cuts to police budgets, BLM rioters, decriminalisation of illegal immigration and health insurance coverage for the border-crossers (powerful ‘root causes’ of the problem), sweeping state diktats on what to drive and eat in pursuit of Net Zero, and federally legislated abortion almost to full term. How does she reconcile her passionate support for women’s choice and opposition to end Hamas’s hold over Gaza?
- Her transactional record as a San Francisco and California prosecutor who opposed criminal justice reform, cut corners in disclosure requirements that led to over 1,000 cases being dismissed, flipped and flopped between tough on law and order who was harsh on blacks committing drug crimes and wanted to punish parents for their kids’ truancy, and a soft-on-crime persona. Like Groucho Marx, Harris has her foundational principles and if voters don’t like them, why she has many others in her ethics cupboard.
- She cannot disown the administration’s policy failures: the porous southern border under ‘border czar’ Harris, inflation, student debt cancellation, the shambolic Afghanistan withdrawal, heightened geopolitical tensions in Europe, the Middle East and East Asia, and, as someone who interacted with Biden on a regular basis, the insistence that his visibly fading health and cognition were A-okay until suddenly they weren’t. Biden can’t even manage reading from a teleprompter without gaffes and stumbles including reading aloud the prompts to pause, repeat a word, etc. He mumbled and stumbled in his address to the nation to explain why he withdrew. Matt Orfalea has posted a six-minute ‘sharp as a tack’ compilation on X. What did Harris know about Biden’s failing health and when did she know he was no longer fit to serve? Can she explain why Trump’s age is a problem in the context of her continuing support for Biden even though he is a few years older and clearly less physically fit and mentally agile?
- Her addiction to word salads, speaking mannerisms and condescending speeches. While Biden is famous for gaffes, fabulism, mental blackouts and physical stumbles, Harris matches him for inauthenticity, kookaburra cackles, babbling word salads and kindergarten teacher homilies. Her abrasive management style caused a high staff turnover in her 2020 primary run and then again in the Vice President’s office.
Gerard Baker wrote in the Times that Harris “is the product of the modern elite” who “deploys her status as a woman and an ethnic minority to portray herself… as a victim of structural racism and sexism. Which makes her, in fact, the perfect Democratic candidate”. As the Democrats become the party of elites, the “deplorables” are drifting to the Republicans. The Harris honeymoon based on sharp age, gender and race product differentiation from Trump could have a short shelf life. The Democrats’ switcheroo changes the election dynamics but not the candidates’ relative strengths and shortcomings. The road to Kamalot has many a pothole to upset the apple-cart. In the first set of Trump-Harris head-to-head RealClear Politics poll averages on July 25th, Trump was ahead by 1.7% nationally, 3.8% in five battleground states, 23 points in the betting odds and 312 to 226 in electoral college delegates. The election is still Trump’s to lose – not that he can’t.
Ramesh Thakur is a former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General and Emeritus Professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy, the Australian National University. This article was first published by Spectator Australia.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
What is interesting about things that are censored is that people generally know about them. Censorship doesn’t work in that respect.
But it does serve its real purpose which is to intimidate. It is a tactic deployed by authority with the message: don’t make a fuss or else.
You can tell people know full well that these covid jabs are poison by the way nobody wants to go anywhere near them. You can also tell that people know to keep their mouth shut about it, particularly those who are more visible and can reach others. Like the scum in the media or the scum in parliament.
We all know they know the facts and that they’re keeping quiet about it because they’ve been intimidated and have no moral courage.
And of course when somebody with courage does stand up and say something, like Bridgen, they ravage him like a pack of wild dogs to cover up their own shame and complete lack of courage and integrity.
Absolutely.
I would say that most of the normies did not know about the risks so the censorship succeeded in many cases by being absent in the media that most people consume, all the way up to the smug people who read the Guardian, Economist, FT, NYT “high brow” papers. A friend with very high IQ who teaches at Edinburgh, got his third booster and proudly stated that he had mixed AZ and Moderna, which was more effective and that he was wearing antiviral armour.
He knew my thoughts on the matter but felt free to brag about the poison. No clue even though I had sent him an early article on how the various ingredients may be dangerous. The article, which proved to be bang on, he dismissed as being written by someone who was not actually an immunologist.
Wierdly he is a climate skeptic but things I’m on the edge of paranoia- cookiness.
“the race to inoculate the world”
Nobody was inoculated. It was a race to make billions and to introduce a new process and technology to the development, approval and sale of “vaccines”, to provide a hugely more profitable business model for Big Pharma and the “pandemic” and “public health” industrial complexes which have nothing to do with pandemics or the health of the public.
People who should know better by now are determined to stick with the charade that large authoritarian social projects like covid jabbing or energy policy is carried out in good faith by people who just haven’t been exposed to enough of the right facts and arguments.
I’m sure there is some good faith in the chain, otherwise the whole thing would fall apart. That’s the fiendish aspect – do evil while pretending to do good. There may even be an element of good faith among some of the prime movers, though I strongly doubt it and have seen no evidence of it.
Really? You think there are MPs who don’t know the covid jabs cause quite a lot of harm?
If they don’t know, it’s because they don’t want to know, which to me is the same. Because a colleague of theirs was very publicly taken down for raising the alarm.
And it’s been debated in Parliament, although practically no one turned up, which we later found out was because they had been told to stay away.
I know it’s hard to digest but it’s really bad. These people are evil, not ignorant.
Look at those letters to the Rumble etc about Russell Brand. These people know exactly what they are doing.
In the medical service? You think they don’t know there either? The vast majority of the population know to stay away from the stuff, but the people working in the medical service are still in the dark?
It’s just not credible.
Everybody’s hands have been dipped in blood. The politicians, the media, the entire state sector, plus private companies.
Everybody strongly encouraged employees/students/patients/service users to get the jab.
Nobody can now admit that their advice has killed and maimed people.
This recent interview with Naomi Wolf and Ed Dowd about UK excess deaths is a much-watch. The deaths are now accelerating despite nobody taking the boosters:
https://twitter.com/naomirwolf/status/1704254517729247316?t=MS16L4S-jWwVgz_fai9vZg&s=19
“Nobody can now admit that their advice has killed and maimed people.”
Nor that these injections [fake “vaccines”] do not work – don’t stop transmission – don’t stop infection.
“Nobody can now admit that their advice has killed and maimed people.”
Nor that these injections [fake “vaccines”] do not work – don’t stop transmission – don’t stop infection.
I agree about MPs, probably doctors too, anyone senior involved in the whole chain, public and private. Maybe some of the jabbers thought and still think that they are doing good – certainly some of the general public think that.
MPs are a waste of God’s space. They are meant to speak for their constituents but instead of standing up for them keep their mouths shut and their fat arses sat down.
See no truth, hear no truth, speak no truth.
I think we have/need to believe that some acted in good faith. Our society is built on trust of institutions and our fellow man. What’s the alternative–our leaders and institutions rule by force and we live in fear of our neighbors? I don’t know that we can wrap our heads around what we’ve seen from those in trusted positions over the last few years. Did average citizens lose trust in institutions in the aftermath of WWI when so many were led into slaughter for apparently no good reason?
“Did average citizens lose trust in institutions in the aftermath of WWI when so many were led into slaughter for apparently no good reason?”
I don’t know. But if they didn’t, perhaps they should have done.
Obviously beyond a certain point scepticism can turn into paranoia and life becomes unlivable. One has to keep a sense of proportion and one will sometimes get it wrong – either being too trusting or too cynical. But on big ticket items where someone is locking you up or making you take an injection or telling you how you must heat your home, my default question is “cui bono?”.
I don’t live in “fear” of my neighbours, but I am pretty disgusted with how they behaved during “covid”.
The more I think about it the more it seems to me that people generally know the score and what appears as stupidity or naivety is in fact people giving in to coercion. Basically they don’t want trouble and will do a lot to avoid it.
I find many people even in conversation say what they think is the right thing to say. I know this to be true because on many occasions someone has said something “corrrect” to me but then after giving them an opening to express a very different view have jumped in head first and contradicted themselves to reveal what they really think.
Even when they don’t, much of the time I bet they are being safe. And even those that think they believe it I reckon are just very adept at aligning opinion with self interest.
In my estimation that leaves the psychos who will do anything to advance themselves and a handful of NPCs.
You may be right. I speak to others in real life very little about any of this kind of stuff. There are those who broadly share my views, and we sometimes speak of these things but don’t feel we need to and often prefer to avoid the misery of being reminded of it. There are those who don’t seem to share my views but know them, and when I try to engage they don’t seem that interested. And there are people who I don’t feel I know well enough to discuss anything controversial with. I’ve lost heart to be honest. Since “covid” I have little faith in people, I have lost respect for people and I am still angry with them. I tried to speak to someone about the Energy Bill the other day – she had no idea what it was, and when I explained the part about forcing you to have a smart meter, it didn’t seem to register. This is an intelligent person, on top of her life. She’s also been affected by the ULEZ in London – has to sell her car. But she doesn’t connect any dots.
I look at people in the street and wonder if they are awake, or complicit or injured or oblivious to this foul crime against us and our families. I try and smile but my good will towards humanity has basically gone, at least in this country. They should know better.
I consider educated adults who continue to inject themselves with mRNA at this time, as a lost cause. I have contempt for my local medical centre and NHS that has done and said nothing about my vaccine safety warnings and continues to jab.
MSM silence makes my blood boil. Our Governments and Parliament are indeed scum. The Medical Regulators, MHRA, JVCI, FDA, CDC, NIH etc. likewise.
There is a stench of evil floating across the world.
Yes that’s more or less how I feel
Why are people so obedient .. Compliance and Tyranny..
https://youtu.be/URdXC6UtfVg?si=uySlAJILUZf00TRg
I think that many must have lost their faith in institutions after WW1. But this is arguably more heinous. This cabal has conspired to assassinate millions of people, of all ages, across the globe for greed.
And the long term risk is the loss of reputation, and the decline of demand for other products that might actually be beneficial. E.g. conventional, or real, vaccines could become less popular than they have been. Being selective with the truth is not a good plan, but it appears that this is what they have done.
Maybe, but I think on balance it would be a positive if the reputation of Big Pharma and the “Public Health” industrial complex was ruined beyond redemption and we start again.
The World Council for Health & the People’s Health Alliance are doing exactly that – developing local, grassroots health communities.
The biggest challenges faced are by those professions who are regulated & have to be licenced & the removal of these registrations for upholding ethical & moral clinical practice is harming the access patients have to these professionals.
How to break out of this situation is the next challenge. Half in, half out is an uncomfortable place to be.
Absolutely. Wipe out the whole lot of them.
The link for this (below) didn’t work for me and I couldn’t find the article with a search or on wayback machine.
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/did-pfizer-fail-to-perform-industry-standard-testing-prior-to-requesting-eua-from-the-fda
Aside from that, let’s not try and spread the blame to “society”. There was no “first, do no harm” or informed consent propaganda campaign or even one to raise awareness of their importance.
Edit: yes, people should not be so trusting of the government, corporations and media to begin with.
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/did-pfizer-fail-to-perform-industry-standard-animal-testing-prior-to-initiation-of-mrna-clinical-trials
That’s a link to a different article.
Yes, so I see. It’s very similar wording.
The same link you posted is at the bottom of this substack article but also doesn’t work:
https://covidreason.substack.com/p/ignoring-the-heart-of-the-matter
Ooops, it’s the same article as the Daily Sceptic article! (It’s too early in the morning for me!)
No cause revealed for this latest tragedy. Probably another case of ‘coinciditis’. She certainly didn’t seem to be ill. Has being fit and sporty replaced being a couch potato in terms of risk of dying, even at a young age?
”SHEFFIELD UNITED women’s star Maddy Cusack has died aged 27, the club confirmed in a heartbreaking statement Thursday afternoon.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/24075035/maddy-cusack-death-updates-sheffield-united/
This must eventually reach a tipping point where all potential causes are to be examined.
https://www.facebook.com/SheffieldHCP/videos/maddy-cusack-from-sheffield-united-women-tells-us-why-shes-going-to-have-her-cov/1402078806844506/
It’s all the confirmation we need then isn’t it? That’s why it’s justified in having the stance of ”the death jab did it until proven otherwise”, as per Peter McCullough. But what investigations were undertaken prior to her death? Will there be a post mortem to establish cause? They can’t just stick ‘SADS’ on her death cert and call it a day. What family member would accept that?? Terrible.
As there’s no details, it could turn out to be completely unrelated but it’s the quantity of tragic reports like this and seeming lack of genuine curiosity by the reporters beyond a sensational headline.
It’s also more concerning when I’ve heard more direct reports of sudden deaths of those in their 50’s or below and heart issues in the last 2 years than I can remember in previous years.
I think it’s very unlikely it can be completely unrelated now we know what we know about how the pay load of those jabs travels all round the body. Be it the spike, LNPs or the recently discovered DNA contamination, all bodily systems are effected, and a quick check on any adverse event reporting system can show us the increases in deaths and many different injuries being reported across the board. However it does make more sense for any deaths reported as ”sudden” to be cardiac related, especially in the younger age groups.
The problem is the longer the time between a person getting jabbed and their death the harder it is to prove causation. Big Pharma can easily just sit there in a court room and repeat ”correlation does not prove causation”, ad nauseam and maintain all of these excess deaths are just coincidence. In a sane world one would have thought this recent bombshell about the DNA plasmids being discovered in vials, now from research teams in various countries, would be enough to get the stuff recalled and mass-jabbing stopped, ( the recent discovery of mRNA being found in breast milk is another example ) but we no longer live in a world where safety/good manufacturing standards apply, pregnant women don’t get experimented on or where regulators regulate, and it’s pretty obvious for those who can see that TPTB have objectives that are nothing to do with the actual health of the public.
Back in July 2020, AstraZeneca was concerned that side-effects may show after an extended period, such as “four years”. They didn’t make it to four months as I remember.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-astrazeneca-results-vaccine-liability-idUSKCN24V2EN
I was going to post a link to this event & to another about a cardiac event to a cyclist who has now had to retire at the age of 27 courtesy of having a pacemaker fitted. The professional peloton were heavily jabbed & the covid theatre is still being heavily enforced by cycling bodies.
He’s lucky to be alive but his professional career is in tatters at the age of just 27. He was an absolute beast of a domestique.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/66871751
From my limited experience attending coroner’s inquests years ago, I was surprised that the coroner had the power, should she choose to exercise it, and the alacrity with which she utilised it, to ban press attendance from inquests and to limit the amount of information made public about the cause of death. The reason was ostensibly “to respect the privacy and feelings of the deceased’s family”. While I can appreciate this principle, it provides a very convenient pretext for concealing a more detailed explanation for causes of death, and could easily be abused by coroners who for some reason believe that it is not in the public interest to disclose more details of the cause.
I thought, but could be wrong, that the purpose of the coroner was to establish whether there was any criminality involved in an unexpected death.
For sudden deaths of youngsters, in the absence of a knife in the chest, one would expect a post-mortem and would also expect that if there were similar reports some further investigation would take place.
If these steps are being omitted, a logical person would assume the coroners have been got at.
As Coroners stopped insisting on post mortems at the request of government in 2020, you can be assured that they have been well & truly captured. The Coroner’s Court is meant to investigate the dead, to protect the living & to hold medics to account.
We really have been well and truly kippered. The lack of ethics and morality, from the demise of Christian teachings, combined with the lubrication of money, has been lethal.
As I was told once when asking for information:
It feels quite good not to have to worry about this.
Unfortunately, we still have family and friends who took the jabs. And we’re still going to be personally harmed by their deaths and disabilities. So far, I haven’t seen these effects, but I feel like a pin waiting to drop. Is that how our ancestors lived, in a state of mild anxiety, with their higher rates of child mortality and deaths in general?
I agree with your point about friends and family who took the jab – I have recently been told of a 47 yr old woman who had a heart attack while driving her car, went headlong into another car whose driver suffered a broken leg. Heart attack victim got to hospital and was treated and is still alive.
We are like that poor other driver waiting for the jabbed to crash into us in one way or another.
I was in about the 7th tier of the UK roll-out, so was invited to be jabbed sometime around mid – late February 2021. I distinctly remember reading a report about Israel’s Pfizer experiment and an apparent link to myocarditis, particularly in young men. I sent it to my two sons (then aged 31 and 29).
The authorities knew about it very early on and warned no-one. So no-one gave Informed Consent to be jabbed. By rights, there should be millions of prosecutions in the works.
Yes the article above mentions that the Israelis noticed young men of military age with heart issues very early on. How can the Israeli government have got into bed with Pfizer to the extent that they did?
Andrew Bridgen MP v Penny Mordant MP [and all the other 630 or so]
aka
Science & Fact v Response – Conspiracy theory, tin foil had nutter
This article => Penny Mordant MP = Liar liar pants on fire.
[If only sometimes metaphor became reality – would love to live to see it – (not) – because not allowed to even think that these days let alone write it – like getting arrested for standing outside something and thinking prayers for the misguided)].
‘The evidence continued piling up into 2022 that the vaccines were inflaming hearts.’
This link goes to a study of ocular dermoids in cats. ¿Qué pasa?
‘…the CDC finally admitted publicly that the mRNA vaccines cause myocarditis.’
Don’t get me wrong – my overall feeling about the Covid vaccinations is that they’re dangerous and best avoided – but I don’t get it: the study linked to in the quote above is hardly condemnatory. Yes, risk exists (it says), but it’s very rare. Am I reading the conclusions section correctly?
‘Myocarditis turned out to be the tip of the iceberg when it came to underestimated vaccine risks.’
Again, I don’t get it: the study linked to here doesn’t appear to be concerned with vaccines; it’s a study of the incidence of heart diseased in patients who have Covid. Vaccines aren’t mentioned. I’m very sceptical about the value of many vaccines, particularly with regard to Covid- but am I missing something here?
‘And why does debate about vaccine prudence remain taboo despite mounting evidence condemning overly broad immunisation policies?’
Sorry, I’m having real trouble with these links. I’ve looked at three, randomly. One links to a paper about skin problems in cats, another to heart disease incidence in hospitalised Covid patients (with no reference to vaccines) and a third (below) to a “hematology reference guide for Arabs in Qatar” (see below).
I’m deeply sceptical about the value of many vaccines; I’ve read RFK’s book from cover to cover (which shows commitment!) – but can someone explain to me how the evidence provided by these linked papers supports Justin Hart’s article?
“Hematologic reference intervals vary with gender, age, ethnicity, and geographic area. Therefore, local or national laboratory reference ranges are essential to enhance the accuracy when diagnosing health conditions. Still, no comprehensive list of reference ranges tailored to the Arab population living in Qatar. Accordingly, this study aims at establishing a hematology reference guide for Arabs in Qatar.”
Is there any scientific evidence that Covid vaccines actually have any benefits?
“The families forever changed want accountability. Recognition that mass vaccination programmes failed to uphold informed consent. And assurances that blindly “following the science” won’t again take precedent over individuals’ health.”
A forlorn hope I fear if/when the W.H.O. get their evil way.
My 75 yr old husband is currently in hospital being investigated for heart problems, possibly myocarditis, possibly a clot, possibly a malignancy. When I asked the cardiologist if this was connected to Covid Pneumonia (which he’d had in April) or the ‘vaccines’ he laughed and said everyone wants to blame Covid.
I think this article is more relevant than his cardiologist.
I was very cynical at the outbreak of Covid and did not believe it originated in a Wuhan Market, imho it was a ‘flu’ but, given our age and the media overload we were persuaded to have the ‘vaccines’. I suffered no ill effects but have had Covid three times. My husband on the other hand became unwell within 10 days of the first jab, worse after the second, and deteriorated markedly after the third, and has had Covid only once.
I have been an avid reader of DS for about 18 months and am extremely grateful for being educated by the articles published, and the links included in the comments written by much cleverer people than myself.
Do hope your husband makes it through.
Maybe something here could be useful:
Vaccine injury resources
https://expose-news.com/2022/10/03/a-list-of-post-vaccination-resources/