Kamala Kameleon 2024: Welcome to Obama 2.0
Like her predecessor, Kamala Harris is hand-picked and groomed by the political elite to be the perfect President for a late-stage capitalist totalitarian state .
When I sat down to write this article, I found myself stymied: Kamala Harris is so vacuous, so tepid, so lacking in virtue, so devoid of vision and personality, that writing about her seemed like a grossly dispiriting enterprise.
Moreover, she has so obviously showed herself to be all those things over the past 8 years that I would not be informing anyone of anything new were I to expose her failings.
And then it struck me: It is not about Kamala Harris.
In fact, this is about the entire global political system. Kamala Harris is a tabula rasa, a cipher, a 100% substance-free soy figure. She actually represents the pinnacle of Western political evolution: a woke “liberal” who is neither woke nor liberal; a black woman who is not an African-American; a political chameleon ready to change her positions, her beliefs, her priorities, even her voice literally on command.
Her history is perfect: Harris “slept her way to the top” in the morass that is California’s sclerotic single-party system, where patronage means all, and voting means nothing. Good for her. That’s how the game is played.
As Attorney General, Harris called herself a “top cop” but was actually a dutiful steward of California’s slave labour economy and an enthusiastic pawn for Western financial interests.
Kamala Harris is the perfect evolution of the Obama model: an “empty vessel” (to quote Obama biographer David Garrow), ready to be filled up with whatever swill the globalist financial elites want to sell us.
Why Harris really is Obama 2.0
It is no secret that Harris and Obama share a special bond, and have had a strong friendship since at least 2008. And well they should. They are, after all, alike in almost every way except gender. When they see each other, it must be like looking into some sort of gender-bending mirror.
Their deep affection for each other is thus self-reinforcing — and the ultimate expression of narcissism.
A mixed-race, mixed background shape-shifter
Like Obama, Harris is of mixed race with a foreign born father. Her father was Jamaican and her mother was Indian; Obama’s father was Kenyan and his mother American.
Unlike Obama, Harris’s father did become a naturalised US citizen. Whereas Obama’s father remained a Kenyan all his life and never accepted US citizenship, Donald J. Harris became an American citizen “sometime prior to 2015”, according to Wikipedia.
And yet, like Obama, Harris can present as “black” or “African-American” when she wants to. In fact, many people have noted that Harris adopts a “black Obama voice” when speaking to audiences of colour, using the specialised cadence, tone, phrasing and accent that the former President deployed for such occasions.
“Educated” abroad
Both Harris and Obama spent many of their formative early years outside the United States. For Hawaiian-born Obama, it was Indonesia — an extremely ethnically diverse country where he no doubt felt at ease racially, and where he lived from age 6 to 10, before moving back to Hawaii, where his mixed-race heritage was also not a problem.
Kamala Harris was born in Oakland, CA but lived in Montreal, Canada from age 12 to 18, attending Westmount High School, a prestigious and multiracial school located in one of Montreal’s most affluent districts. She then moved back to the States to go to Howard University, a “historically black university” in Washington DC.
Harris’s Freshman year at Howard was probably the first time that she encountered African-Americans as an adult.
Not “African-American”
Many black activists argue that Harris, like Obama, is not technically an “African-American” because she is not an American Descendant of Slavery (ADOS) and so her family — like Obama’s — was not brought to America against their will from Africa, and they did not grow up with generational trauma from the “Jim Crowe” experience.
In fact, Kamala Harris is actually descended from an Irish slave holder named Hamilton Brown, which further extenuates any sort of link or connection she might have with the African-American descendants of slaves.
The fact that Obama and Harris do not identify with the ADOS community has several important ramifications.
Rebelling against their “absent” socialist fathers?
Obama has always made a big deal of the fact that his Kenyan father was not around when he was growing up. He even uses that fact as a cudgel with which to attack the Black community.
Kamala Harris is actually estranged from her Jamaican father, who lost all contact after he divorced Kamala’s mother. Since then he has spoken little about his daughter, except to distance himself from her when she joked in an interview that, growing up in a Jamaican family, it was natural that she had smoked marijuana.
"Speaking for myself and my immediate Jamaican family, we wish to categorically dissociate ourselves from this travesty," Kamala Harris' father wrote in the letter, according to a report in The New York Times.
But Barack Obama and Kamala Harris have much more in common than just having an “absent” father who was foreign. In fact, it is an odd “coincidence” that both those absent fathers were communist/socialist intellectuals.
Obama’s father, Barak Hussein Obama Senior, was “a senior governmental economist” for the newly independent Kenyan government. He is widely considered to have been a socialist who was best known for publishing a paper entitled “Problems Facing Our Socialism”, which offered a critique of the socialistic central economic planning of the new Kenyan government. Obama Sr.’s treatise focussed on “land reform”, or “the distribution of real estate to farmers” with a plan that “should defer to tribal traditions instead of hastening individual land ownership”.
Donald Jasper Harris, Kamala’s father, was also an economist, but focussed more on teaching. He has been described as a “combative Marxist” by The Economist, and was influenced by many other “leftist” economists aside from Karl Marx, according to his Wikipedia profile.
Disconnected from Black America
Both Obama and Harris are, because of their particular family history, disconnected from and even disdainful of the “lived experience” of America’s back community.
Firstly, their fathers never identified as “Black” because they never really were “African-American” in the traditional sense. Second, both fathers were non-Americans, foreigners. Third, both fathers were Marxist/socialist intellectuals. And thirdly, both fathers had a deeply negative impact on their children’s lives.
For Harris and Obama, socialism, redistribution, “Gig Government” liberal economics are inextricably associated with a towering figure in their life whose impact and importance were marked by their absence, their lack of responsibility, their lack of commitment to bourgeois normality, or what American politicians call “values”.
This direct, personal and highly negative association of their absent parents with what passed for “woke” culture in the 1960’s has no doubt had an impact in how both Barack Obama and Kamala Harris regard |”Black Lives Matter” campaigns, as well as “bleeding heart” liberal causes and progressive movements in general.
And, based on their own pronouncements, that impact has been — not surprisingly — negative.
“No sympathy” for communities of colour
Perhaps partly because they are not part of the ADOS community, both Obama and Harris have demonstrated a remarkably consistent lack of sympathy and even irritation with many “liberal” causes, as well as a dismissive contempt for modern black social memes, and an apparent disdain for longstanding African-American complaints regarding injustice and inequality.
We all remember how Barack Obama, while running in 2008, famously opined that “Brothers Should Pull Up Their Pants”, and lamented the collapse of the black nuclear family, the disrespect for women, and so on.
Obama was often taken to task for his harsh, “non-sympathetic” treatment of black communities and particularly black men.
Speaking at the Catholic-Evangelical Leadership Summit on Overcoming Poverty at Georgetown University in 2015, the then-President
“made no apology for the tough-love message he sometimes delivers to African-American audiences, in which he stresses personal responsibility as one road out of poverty.”
Obama told an interviewer:
“I make no apologies for that. And this reason is because I am a black man who grew up without a father and I know the cost that I paid for that.”
So Obama is playing his own “mixed race card”. His father was Kenyan, he was raised thousands of miles from any “hood”, and yet he feels entitled to criticise African-American males because he is a “black” male himself.
During the violence that erupted in the wake of the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, MO, Obama had nothing but harsh words for the black rioters:
“Nothing of significance, nothing of benefit results from destructive acts…I have no sympathy at all for destroying your own communities.”
Harris was also tough on the Black community
When Harris ran for Attorney General of California, she faced off against a relatively progressive, “RINO” California Republican named Terence Hallinan, who was actually proposing the legalisation of marijuana.
Harris, for he rpart, was having none of it. She went to her go-to spot at the time, the stance of the tough on crime, get-it-done “progressive”. According to Mother Jones, Jamilah King, Harris’s debates and speeches were “old-school”:
“There was this sort of old-school rhetoric, like the Black folks in the neighborhood who are like, well, if they would just go to school and pull up their pants. I mean, Harris never said “pull up their pants.” But we know that rhetoric, right?”
Harris prosecuted poor black parents for truancy
Kamala Harris made being a “tough on crime” prosecutor her calling card.
And like Obama, she was not letting black families off the hook just because they were poor and …. well, black. In 2010, Harris decided to start prosecuting parents of truant children (see video):
“I believe a child going without an education is tantamount to a crime. So, I decided I was going to start prosecuting parents for truancy. Well, this was a little controversial in San Francisco! (laughs) Frankly, my staff went bananas.”
Although she says she regrets that law now, this was something Harris felt very strongly about at the time — enough to “spend political capital” on what was clearly an unpopular initiative, and one that disproportionately affected black families and poor families:
“I said, look I’m done. This is a serious issue, and I’ve got a little political capital, and I’m going to spend some of it.”
Kamala locked up marijuana smokers
Those of us who know the history of drug enforcement in America know that the reason that marijuana is a “Schedule 1” drug on the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency listing for very specific political and socioeconomic reasons.
President Richard M. Nixon created the Drug Enforcement Agency in 1973 with the very express goal of “criminalising black people and hippies”. Marijuana use was most prevalent among these two groups, that is why it made the top of the DEA’s hit list.
The DEA, however, was just carrying on the racist marijuana prohibition policy that had plagued America since the 1930’s, when Harry J. Anslinger, Director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, stated:
“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use.”
That racial disparity survives to this day. An ACLU research report, A Tale of Two Countries: Racially Targeted Arrests in the Era of Marijuana Reform, details marijuana arrests from 2010 to 2018 and finds that Black people are still more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession.
In short, enforcing the nation’s racist, outdated laws against marijuana is one of the worst things to do to America’s black communities.
But Kamala Harris did exactly that.
When she was running for Attorney General for California, her Republican opponent supported legalising marijuana. When the press asked Harris her stance on that issue, she laughed (yes, THAT laugh).
As District Attorney for the City of San Francisco, Harris had specifically opposed every move to legalise marijuana. While she was in that post, she oversaw more than 1,900 marijuana convictions, according to the San Jose Mercury News. Moreover, Harris apparently made marijuana busts a priority:
“Her prosecutors appear to have convicted people on marijuana charges at a higher rate than under her predecessor, based on data about marijuana arrests in the city.”
Top cop, indeed.
But hey — you know, “brothers needed to pull their pants up”.
“Build prisons, not schools”
Another area in which Kamala Harris has gone against the liberal grain — and laughed about it — is the area of prison reform.
As I mentioned in my earlier article, Kamala was more than willing to keep thousands of non-violent prisoners locked up beyond their release dates in order to maintain California’s prison labour pool.
But there is a darker side to that story. The Prospect reported:
“As California attorney general, [Harris] spent years subverting a 2011 Supreme Court ruling requiring the state to reduce its prison population. The overseeing judicial panel nearly found the state in contempt of court.”
For Kamala, the solution was not to release those pot-smokers she had locked up by the thousands as the San Francisco DA. Rather, it was to build more prisons and increase the capacity to lock up non-violent offenders.
In 2013, Harris gave a presentation at the Chicago Ideas Week conference in which she mocked “progressive thinking” and “liberal minded” people who wanted to “build more schools, less jails”.
Making a reference to her liberal parents and friends, she then proceeded to castigate them for being naive, saying there was a “fundamental problem with that approach”.
Harris indicated that we should, in fact, build more prisons, because “there should be serious, severe, and swift consequences for crime,” she said.
Such a solution offered two benefits to Kamal: first, building more prisons instead of wasting money on schools would burnish her reputation as a “tough prosecutor” and a “top cop”.
Tough on “some” crime
Of course, she was neither of those things. She had at best a conflicting record as a prosecutor, revealing her to be the quintessential political chameleon.
“[Harris] pushed for programs that helped people find jobs instead of putting them in prison, but also fought to keep people in prison even after they were proved innocent. She refused to pursue the death penalty against a man who killed a police officer, but also defended California’s death penalty system in court. She implemented training programs to address police officers’ racial biases, but also resisted calls to get her office to investigate certain police shootings.”
Harris’s record, like Obama’s, is one of an exquisitely facile shape-shifter, a political pawn looking to be moved by the invisible hand of the global corporate elite.
Carrying water for corporations
Both Harris and Obama have proven themselves to be perfect “vessels” for corporate interests. For his part, Obama has always courted corporate funding, and has always been happy to do what his corporate masters demand.
This was evident when he collected more campaign donations from the Pharma and health insurance industries than any candidate in history, in return for a sweetheart deal in his Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”).
In 2008, when Citigroup sent Obama a letter with 31 names for cabinet posts in his new Administration, all 31 of those hand-picked corporate operatives ended up in the Obama White House.
That’s right — ALL of those names got a position. It tells you just how “committed” Obama was to his campaign platform.
“La plateforme, c’est moi”
But the real point of the Citigroup story is that Obama was ready to do whatever they wanted because he knew he would not be called out on it. He knew that he would not be betraying a campaign promise — because there were so precious few of those anyway.
In fact, the most memorable of Obama’s campaign promises was his pledge to close Guantanamo Bay. That never happened, of course, and it was easy enough to shift blame to a GOP led Congress who “wouldn’t let him”.
But Obama’s real campaign was all about “Hope” — it was, in fact, all about HIM and what HE represented. It was about electing the country’s first black President. In other words, Obama himself was the promise.
And once he slid into office, that promise was kept. No matter what else he did, he could not be condemned. He was the first black President, and no one could ever take that away.
Kamala Harris is following the same campaign strategy. No one is sure of what she is going to do in office, and she herself has given us precious little to go on. We can assume that she will be surrounded by the same people who advised Biden, so it is not unreasonable to also assume a consistency in policy. But no one really knows.
What IS sure is that, if elected, Harris will be the “first woman President”. AND she will be a “woman of colour” at that. These two “promises” are immutable.
If you are voting for Kamala in hopes of a Public Option on health care, or an end to the genocide in Gaza, you can have no idea whether your issue will be addressed if she wins the election.
But if you are voting for Kamala in order to give the nation its first female POTUS, then there is no way you can be disappointed if she wins.
But as far as what she actually DOES is concerned? Well, that is a question best left to your betters — the corporate elite that run the USA.
The “empty vessels”
At he beginning of this article I referred to the Obama biography by David J. Garrow. Entitled Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama, the book gives a new account of the “making” of Barack Obama. It is a formidable tome, clocking in at 1,460 pages. It is truly exhaustive, and seeks to find the “truth” about Obama. Unfortunately, Garrow is forced to conclude the massive book with a damning summation about the former President:
“While the crucible of self-creation had produced an ironclad will, the vessel was hollow at its core.”
What Garrow probably does not realise is that “empty” is how the American and global Elite like their nation-state leaders. In fact, the argument can be made that American and Western leaders have become increasingly vacuous, insipid, incapable, inexperienced and ill-equipped to handle the purported responsibilities of their positions.
In the case of America I would argue that the quality of Presidential candidates that are produced by The System has steadily deteriorated since 1968, and the quality of actual Presidents has dropped since JFK’s assassination in 1963. I would also say that this is by design, but that is a story for another day.
Suffice it to say that for now, the Western political leadership has degenerated into a clown show to the point where the UK and the US are dominated by a “Uniparty” with two factions working in concert to fulfill the agenda of the global elite; where the European Union is run by incompetent and criminal politicians hounded by scandal in their own nation and running for cover, failing upwards into the completely corrupt supranational creaking edifice in Brussels.
I have written an article about this phenomenon entitled, “NATO is a Farce, Part 7: Europe’s New Authoritarianism”. In it, I describe how the recently “selected” top officials in the European Commission, namely Ursula von der Leyen, Antonio Costa and Kaja Kallas are all massive failures, hounded out of office by scandal and beleaguered with legal troubles.
For its part, America elected a narcissistic game show host in 2016, only to select a desiccated, demented septuagenarian in 2020, and one who could not serve his entire term due to a steep cognitive decline that was (to any person with eyes that work) in full evidence long before he took office.
I do believe Trump was the result of a glitch in The System. It was supposed to be Hillary — but the Elites were caught on the back foot because they had no idea that Hillary Clinton the most hated woman in America.
A similar glitch happened in 2020. It was always supposed to be Kamala Harris. Touted as the Democrats’ “rising star” years before the race, she had been groomed, prepped and provided with every advantage in the media and political society. The preparation for her eventual coronation actually started in 2017, under the watchful eyes of the Clintons.
But again, the Elites were out of touch: Harris proved so shockingly unpopular that she was forced to drop out before Iowa, in fact she was so unpopular that she was polling in fifth place even in her “native” California.
And that was how the Presidency got tossed to Biden, who was to serve as a placeholder until Kamala could be “slotted in” — as she is now.
Because the Elites want her. They want their Obama 2.0.
They want a President with no firm ideology, no steadfast rules, no scruples, no preconceived notions of right and wrong, and above all, no core beliefs — indeed, they want a Presidential “vessel” that is “hollow at its core”, so that they can fill that core with their own agenda, their own priorities and their own ideology.
That was Barack Obama. That would also be Kamala Harris.
#End
If you liked this post, please consider leaving me a tip! Donations support my independent, ad-free writing.
===========================================================================
Remember Obama’s presidency! He deliberately bombed countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and so on. He also deliberately defended the Israeli apartheid, and liked him because he’s black? All these Zionists are the same!
"Hollow at its core" pretty much says it all about Kamala Harris. It's why she doesn't give a sh*t about the suffering of innocents in Gaza. It's why she can sleep nights locking up innocent people and working class parents who can't afford to keep an eye on their truant kids. "Hollow at its core" describes the soul of the USA, too, if it thinks she's a better choice for the White House than Dr. Jill Stein.