I have written many articles unfavorable to Kamala Harris as America’s next President, and documenting that she is a neoconservative and believes that wealthy people (especially billionaires, who benefit enormously from neoconservative U.S. policies) are superior to poor people, and that therefore she is willing to increase military and coup spending to expand yet further the U.S. Government’s empire — add new colonies (‘allies’) — even if this will require spending less on health, education, and welfare, for the American public. So, on that basis, she might be an even worse President than Donald Trump was and will be. However, I now have found stunning evidence that I had not previously been aware of, which suggests that — very much unlike all of America’s Presidents since at least 1980 — she believes that a U.S. President has a higher obligation to that person’s voters than to that person’s political donors: that she favors democracy (one-person-one-vote Government) over aristocracy (one-dollar-one-vote Government). In other words: though she does believe that rich people are superior to poor people, she also believes that the people who donate to her political career have no right to be served by her as a public official more than a poor person who votes for her does. She believes that she represents the voters, not the donors (other than a donor’s being also a voter). That is shocking, because extremely few successful U.S. politicians believe that way today — they favor aristocracy over democracy.

Here is the passage, from a discussion that she had with supportive male black small-businessmen in a South Carolina barbershop, on 19 November 2019, before she terminated her 2020 Presidential candidacy:

28:15: She corrected one of the discussants who said that donors “own” a candidate; she immediately broke in, there, to say, “not own a candidate, but” and then all of the men broke out in laughter, after which she said (so as not to make the man who had said it dislike her for her having corrected him on this), “I knew that’s not what he meant.” Here is the transcript of that crucial value-revealing passage:

The Problem with Socia... Thomas DiLorenzo Best Price: $9.49 Buy New $11.93 (as of 06:45 UTC - Details) 28:05: MAN: We need to get involved in the political process. And back to what you’re saying, we need to own our candidates. HARRIS (with a worried look on her face, and placing a concerned hand on his): Well, you don’t mean own your candidates. MAN: Not own a candidate, but —  [EVERY MAN LAUGHS, and Harris clasps her hands together and displays on her face an apparent sense of relief] [And then she too breaks out laughing.]

She was really listening to her conversants in this video, not lecturing but discussing. This entirely unscripted, spontaneous, discussion of the top priorities that these men were concerned about, which was for Blacks to stand together for Black candidates who want policies that will give Blacks a fairer chance to achieve economic success, showed that they and she really did hold this objective (democracy, NOT aristocracy) in common (despite her record of actual decisions to the contrary — favoring aristocracy — in public office).

How can one interpret her in a consistent way? My hypothesis is: She’s not especially intelligent, but rather weak on logic (and therefore ignorant of her self-contradictions); and this enables her to believe that the situation in the U.S. isn’t as bad as it actually is, and that the ‘solutions’ which are supported by the Democratic Party’s billionaires would work, if only the politicians who are funded by the Republican Party’s billionaires will be voted out of office and replaced by Democrats. She really believes that ONLY the Republican billionaires are bad.

If you want to know how corrupt the U.S. Government actually is, look at the fact that health care in the U.S. is the world’s costliest and is worse than that of all other industrialized countries; and, as a result, America has the lowest life-expectancy of all of the wealthy countries. And, also consider that the most respected governmental institution in America is the military, which is the most corrupt part if the health-related parts of the Government aren’t the most corrupt part.

Here is a video interview of two highly expert guests explaining why and how America’s health-statistics are bad and are rapidly getting worse and worse over time. These highly intelligent and well-informed people document that the reason for this is the profound corruptness of the billionaires — the roughly a thousand individuals who collectively control our Government.

Kamala Harris, through her entire record in public office, has proven herself to be oblivious to this tragic fact, entirely unequipped to address it. She seems sincerely to want to become the President of “Joy!” in this country that is actually falling apart and getting worse and worse (for virtually everyone BUT its billionaires) as the decades go by. She’s not at all prepared for the reality she will face if she becomes the President.

Whereas I previously thought that she would be just as dangerous a President as Biden — who is thoroughly corrupt — is and would be, I now think that if she becomes the President, then she might possibly learn on the job — unless she is closed-minded and therefore unable to learn from on-the-job experiences (in which latter case she will be a disaster). Un-Cancel Robert E. Le... Kerr, Gib Buy New $18.99 (as of 11:46 UTC - Details)

If that hypothesis is true, then she won’t be as psychopathic and harmful a President as Obama and Biden have been, and, so, maybe a Third World War will be avoided — maybe her neoconservatism won’t end up destroying the world.

This isn’t to say that she would be better than Trump (who contradicts himself routinely in order to appeal to different types of prejudices). His only motivation seems to be to be President again. He’s less dangerous than Obama and Biden (who are plain evil), but not necessarily less dangerous than Harris. And, so, I no longer have a clear preference between Harris and Trump. They both seem equally bad, on balance, though in different ways; and either would probably be an improvement over the first four Presidents this Century — Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden — who were horrible. (Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, and John McCain would have been even worse, the all-time worst President after Truman, who was the very worst. They would have been even worse than the ones we got in this Century.)

America is in extremis, and will now choose between Harris and Trump. Are we, at this late stage, heading inexorably toward a Second American Revolution? (Perhaps the sooner the better, if it can prevent a WW3.)

Reprinted with permission from Eric’s Substack.