Implications of Kamala Lookalike: Bet it all on Blue!


Implications are a funny thing. Sometimes you can notice one small detail and derive a whole long string of implications from that one simple observation.

Yesterday, I published a post about the Kamala Harris lookalike that appeared on network television on July 18th. Viewers immediately recognized that this was not Kamala Harris. Features did not align perfectly, she looked like she was made of plastic, her teeth were different, and her mannerisms and voice were slightly different.

You want some implications? Well I’ve got some for ya…

In every way, this felt like a person who had practiced very hard at being Kamala Harris, but was not actually Kamala Harris. There were the tell-tale hesitations of a person who was trying to get their performance exactly right. This is not something that you would see out of the real, natural Kamala Harris. When regaling a story about a personal conversation with John Lewis, she nervously looked up and to the right, a classic signature of a person who is making up a story or remembering details…not a natural memory. Put simply, it was the body language that really gave her away.

As for implication$, what are the implication$ of this? In short…the Democrats are going to sweep the upcoming elections. Count on it.

The major media outlets would not be testing Kamala Harris lookalikes unless it were nearly certain that she were going to be the Democrat VP candidate (and probably much more!). This was a test run for the top Kamala lookalike. We can leave aside the question of cloning for now. The simpler implication is that this means the Democrats are going to win the 2020 Presidential Election, and Kamala Harris will be part of the ticket.

There are numerous places nowadays where you can bet on the party who will win the upcoming election. You can even bet on who the Democrat VP candidate will be. Now I don’t condone betting…it’s a nasty vice…but boy is it tempting to lay down a bet on the Democrats in 2020!

Kamala Harris is currently the favorite to be VP, but she is not so prohibitive of a favorite that you could not make a bundle on it. The safer bet would just be Democrats to win the Presidency in 2020. I cannot fathom why major media outlets would be testing out Kamala Harris lookalikes unless she were certain to be a major political figure in the near future.

I am not actually going to place such a bet, and I do not actually encourage you to do so either, but it is an interesting thought. We can end up feeling so powerless against those at the top, that when a little slip like this happens it can be tempting to try and profit from it any way you can. If these elections are all predetermined, and we are the select few who realize that all major media is just a charade, then it can help us to see future possibilities before others in the herd. This can ultimately be a profitable skill, in certain cases.

On a deeper level, the question of where these lookalikes come from is a good one, and one we should continue exploring here at PoM. This lookalike process still very likely involves cloning or some kind of advanced genetic modification beyond just plastic surgery. We may never exactly know the specifics. I will be very curious to see more recent photos of Kamala Harris to see if she has been replaced, or if this person is just a generic lookalike.

A commenter raised other “replacements”, and for me Dave Chappelle and Vladimir Putin immediately come to mind. Can any readers think of any others? The fake Melania Trump also comes to mind. This is certainly not a new phenomenon. When you see it happen before a person officially becomes a candidate for the Presidency…it feels like an accidental slip of insider information that everyone else fails to grasp. Take from that what you will.

25 thoughts on “Implications of Kamala Lookalike: Bet it all on Blue!

  1. Clearly was the application of real-time deep-fake rendering. The “real” character couldn’t be bothered or was otherwise unavailable for that light-weight interview.


    1. I had dismissed that possibility as I believe the Deepfake would have been of a much higher quality and closer accuracy. This was a lookalike and had all the nervousness of a person auditioning for a role. I don’t think it was a Deepfake. Use of Deepfake technology would have more closely resembled her.

      [Edit: I am totally walking back my position here because I was thinking 100% artificial Deepfake. If we’re talking about a real human actor/impersonator with a Kamala Harris facial overlay, then I am definitely on board with that concept. I think it is plausible. The question is whether the voice gets modified too or whether the impersonator just needs to practice the voice. Apologies to all, I was thrown off by thinking you meant totally artificial Deepfake.]


    2. My initial reaction was also a deep-fake due to the undefined features and fuzzy quality of the pictures…a far cry from high definition.


      1. I’m still not understanding this position. My experience with deepfakes has never been that they are low definition and act nervous. Deepfake technology would be utilized much more commonly in pre-recorded interviews and in those cases they are able to get it looking perfectly. In this interview, mannerisms of the lookalike seemed to totally eliminate deepfake as a possibility. I just don’t follow why deepfake would be the logical answer for this particular case.

        Does anyone have precedent for deepfakes appearing to be more blurry then a real person? I attribute the blurriness of this particular set of images to the fact that most people took photographs of their TV to get the information out. There was still an immediate recognition by the public that it was not Harris. With deepfakes, they take great pains to make sure that image is a perfect representation. I just don’t understand why I keep hearing deepfake here.


        1. I’m not an expert and have no opinion about Harris being deepfaked or impersonator… but that Tom Hank’s deepfake was far from being a perfect representation. On a smallish computer monitor, details of his face look somewhat pixelated. Watch that footage on a large screen television and it becomes so obvious that even my half-blind mother who believes mainstream news noticed it. The technology isn’t error_proof, so poor video quality could be used to hide or obscure those errors. I dunno.


          1. The Tom Hanks SNL appearance showed his face to be washed out and undefined…what you would expect when trying to digitally manipulate something and NOT what you would expect from a look-a-like.

            As for the nervousness…either way, it’s someone other than Harris…and perhaps that person was tight and uncomfortable in trying to act like someone else with the deep-fake technology providing the facial overlay.

            That second Harris looks like Clayface (for those of you old enough to remember him).


          2. If you guys are talking about the Tom Hanks SNL appearance, I completely disagree with you. Not a soul saw that appearance and immediately said “That’s not Hanks”, which is what we saw here with Harris. And I don’t really recall the resolution of Hanks on SNL being noticeably low.

            Look, it’s fine to agree to disagree…I just don’t see it for Deepfake here. At all. Watch the actual video. It was a distinct person with distinct mannerisms and a completely different looking face. That points firmly to a lookalike. It reminded me most of the fake Melania, which I don’t think could be suggested was just a Deepfake walking on the White House lawn.

            Agree to disagree.


    3. OK, I have come around to this position. Not totally artificial Deepfake, but an actor with a Kamala artificial overlay over their face. I agree. Very plausible, if not probable.


  2. I’m as confident as you are that Sharpton interviewed a Harris impersonator, but not as confident that it means Dems will take the White House.

    When Breaking Bad was on the air, I was constantly thinking I’d picked up clues most people missed that helped me predict where various plot threads were going. I was always wrong. What I saw in each episode only showed fragments of pieces of the much more complex jigsaw puzzle of themes and plot ideas the writers were playing with in the writers’ room.

    You say you can’t fathom why they would go to the trouble of floating a fake Harris if Dems aren’t destined to win… But, really, how much of what the technocrats behind the curtain are doing can any of us fathom? Unfathomability is hardly a reason to make bets on where any strands of this show might be going.

    The presidential campaigns, as we all know, are reality TV like all the other events on the news. Maybe they need a fake Harris to play the role of a loser as spectacularly as Hillary did (with assistance from her own impersonators).

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I hear you, and somewhat agree. Still think it’s a VERY strong indicator that she will be the VP candidate, and still feel pretty strong that such shenanigans would only be played if it was known that she was going to be a major political figure. We shall see!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Plot twist: Michelle Obama

        Regardless the real battle, will be for the House and Senate, that’s the positions we should be looking at. Ask someone who your local representatives are, who are your State Senators are, heck ask someone if they know the name of your town Mayor…..crickets!


  3. I think Trump will be installed…they will have a much harder time getting their agenda through without controlling the trump supporters…trump supporters are going to go wild if he is not installed


  4. Republicans and Democrats — the two faces of the current “duopoly” — continue to deliver truckloads of money to failing mega-banks and the military industrial complex (MIC). The global economy in free fall. WWIII intensifies on multiple fronts, including the streets of major U.S. cities. A plethora of distractions roll out like machine-gun fire, daily, weekly, monthly, annually, well, you get the picture.

    Roughly, since the Fall of 2019, Neo-liberalism is failing to produce financial or economic growth. A new society — the “reset” (“button-pusher” speak for mass destruction) will mean the end of fake democracy, fake elections and pathetically inadequate social programs. What the globalists (Crown) have planned the “Great Reset” for decades. It is operational and coming to a community near you.

    The psyop(s) aren’t the action, but the distraction, for the greatest magic trick ever. Who, or what, becomes the Democratic Party’s VP candidate means what, exactly, in the context of this new reality? Politics is dead! Medical Marshall Law (psyop) is cover to global reset planning. Vaccines, death and destruction are not abstractions.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Isn’t the “Fall of 2019” totally self-induced though? We would be fine if there weren’t this artificial panic. And of course I agree that the distinction between Democrat and Republican politicians is virtually nil and pointless.

      Not sure I see WW3 out there.

      And as for the Democrat VP nominee, I’m just interested if it seems like the script writers and major media are tipping their hand. These things interest me, and as I said you could theoretically make a bundle if you really catch them getting ahead of themselves.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. We were never “fine,” unless military occupation, voluntary slavery, mass mind control, ecological destruction, genocide, generational debt and systemic economic casts all sound like anything but a living hell. For my way of thinking, and that in no way is meant to belittle others’ way of thinking, WWIII began when human evolution ended, somewhere in Vietnam with chemicals, biologicals, psy-ops, drugs for guns, and most of what continues today in the never-ending, full-spectrum, asymmetrical, war of today. This war in 2020 is a war for the souls of individuals and nation-states, and for all life on earth. Plenty of observers, not enough willing to fight for survival. What’s up with that?


  6. Nothing to see here. No implications because the premise is faulty. Kamala Harris has not been replaced. Check out her official YouTube channel and you can watch the original video. She sounds the same as ever. If it seems her look has changed, it’s just different make up or camera lens distortion. The evidence for a fake Kamala is fake. The video Fauxlex linked to re-processed the audio and video to make her look and sound more different. Reminds me of the video showing Pelosi slowed down making her sound drunk.


      1. That’s her. She’s pretty distinctive looking. And that neck! Fugly! She’s like Kathleen Turner on her descent from sexy ingenue to middle-aged wreck.

        She seems quite fluent in her topics to me. She’s spewing a lot of BS to link herself to John Lewis. She doesn’t appeal to the African-American community, so she’s working hard to sell it. To the extent it seems halting or hesitant, it’s because she doesn’t really care about the things she’s talking about.

        What truly gives this away as “The Real Kamala” is her terrible acting. She’s a rich elitist who tries to shuck and jive to seem “blacker” and it’s cringe-inducing. Barack did it too, annoyingly but more smoothly, and Hillary did it too, but even more clumsily and embarrassingly.

        Kamala at 1:30: “As we like to say, ‘I’m too busy watchin’ watcha doin’ ta hear whatcha sayin’…” LOL

        Or Hillary here: “I ain’t noways tired…” LOL LOL.


  7. I agree the Kamala Harris being interviewed regarding John Lewis looked and sounded like a different Kamala Harris than the one in other clips where she’s on the Senate floor. But so what. She has different speaking styles and mannerisms depending on who she’s talking to. Watch other videos and you’ll see what her typical “interview” persona is like. All other differences can be chalked up to her camera and mic quality, lighting, network connection, or different makeup.


  8. Off topic: has anyone read “Disciplined Minds” by Jeff Schmidt? I’ve seen it mentioned for years and finally happened on a copy by chance. It gives me some new perspective and insight on the sociology of science, and the professions generally. If you’re interested in a summary, search “Disciplined Minds review Stern” for a great assessment with valid praise and criticism.

    Schmidt doesn’t seem to be entirely on the level though (or maybe a little too on the level.) His last chapter has 33 activist actions one can take to incrementally improve conditions. Naturally. (Then just yesterday I was reading a short discussion of Jerry Mander’s “4 Arguments for the Elimination of TV” and apparently he has his own list of 33 in there as well. Must every scathing critique of a cultural institution include 33 bullet points somewhere in its pages?)

    Very hard to find biographical details on Shmidt. His birthdate from one source was 01/01/46. Family hard to come by. Maybe if you have a membership to a genealogy site, but I don’t. He has a PhD in physics from UC Irvine. Worked at “Physics Today” magazine for “19 years” before being fired on release of his book. Then ensued a legal fight, with voices like Chomsky and Zinn fighting for him. Maybe a bit of PR for the book?

    YouTube mostly just has one video, where he reads directly from his book rather than speaking extemporaneously. Then it has a video from years later, where he appeared at a DC city council type meeting, speaking against the possibility of minorities being held to lower academic standards (though he is a proponent of affirmative action.)

    The funny thing is in both these public appearances, he wears the same somewhat distinctive shirt. Is this his go-to shirt for speechifying? Just curious that he has almost no videos of public appearances, but when he does appear, he dresses in the exact same clothes, years apart?


    1. What scares me, really, is not the one flubbed Deepfake-esque video that stands out. It’s the hundreds that blend in, unnoticed.

      I do genuinely feel that they are trying to blur the lines between real and fake to the point that the average person cannot tell the difference.

      I don’t know what they did here. I don’t know if the Pence video I linked after this is fake or not. What bothers me is that they all COULD BE fake. Easily. This is why you’ve just got to turn off mainstream media in all forms. It is poison for your mind.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s