Why would you frame the RFK candidacy as controversial? I had to read it twice to make sure it was coming from Matt Taibbi? How about 'refreshing' ... 'honest' ... etc., I can think of many more apt ways to frame it.
I totally agree with refreshing and honest, etc., but controversial is also true. It’s the first campaign I think I’ve been genuinely excited about since my very first vote, at 18, for Reagan’s second term (which I now view with a more jaundiced eye, tbh).
The powers that be will paint anyone not named Biden, Obama, Clinton or Cheney that runs for president as some sort of insane-anti-christ-heretic-danger-to-democracy, in the most extreme, paranoid ways possible. Count on it.
But Kennedy is certainly controversial! Very much so. That's one of his selling points. He's a dyed-in-the-wood legacy Democrat with a lot '70s-'90s Democrat Party ideas and talking points, but points out that they've become a divisive, mean, uber-corporate, war-mongering party, which is absolutely true. He was censored all over tech for some of his ideas, loudly and proudly, and shamelessly, and it's still happening.
That Kennedy is very popular with a lot of registered democrats that agree with him and are sick of the party establishment, and also a surprising number of independents and even anti-establishment Republicans is making people crazy. David Frum (yes, that David Frum) fumed that "Kennedy is not a real democrat." The irony!
Nobody likes a truth teller, and people certainly don't like someone that appeals to everyone in politics now. Can you even imagine? Someone with cross-party appeal and basic humanity in politics? In this country, at this point in time?
(I have my issues with Kennedy, like how he threw Roger Waters under the bus last week, as western governments are deciding in unison that performing a 40-year-old album that's sold 30 million copies might actually be illegal. I get that Kennedy can't afford to anger the Israel lobby, and nor does he want to, but can't "I think Roger Waters should be allowed to perform his work, and should be allowed his own political opinions, even if I don't agree with them" be enough?)
His loyalty to the Dems is what worries me. He needs to be prepared to break with the party and run as an Independent. Or start a new party. Bernie was hugely popular, more so than RFK Jr., and the Dems--Obama specifically--shut it down to consolidate Biden support. Bernie took the knee and it was over. Now look where we are. I'm not even registered as a Dem anymore, as is true of many others, I would guess.
I've always thought that. But there are more Independents now than people who belong to the two parties. How long can a system continue when the majority of people don't want anything to do with the political forces running the country? Maybe it can go on forever. I don't know.
Starting a new party is never a good idea. It would be better if he could get the Dems to realize that they need to address and "own" the Covid mess, thereby depriving the Republicans of an excellent talking point. Quite possibly, he could draw the "vaccine hesitant" Republicans to his side, which could, in turn, serve the Dems. The resistance to addressing legitimate criticism on either side will serve no purpose at all and just benefit the powers in charge (big pharma) to divide the American people even more.
I don't believe they will ever own it. They haven't even owned the whole Russiagate thing yet. I have lost almost all faith in the Dems. I voted for Biden and told myself, "How bad can he be?" Well, he's been worse than I could have imagined. I will not vote for him again, under any circumstances. There are a lot of smart people on this site and I wonder - has there ever been a primary where the sitting president is not the party candidate?
RFK had tweeted about Roger Waters being a "hero" in the face of censorship, and Waters responded thanking him. In fairly short order, Kennedy followed up saying he was unaware of Waters' feelings on Israel, which he disagrees with, and meant he agreed with Waters' stances on Covid and Ukraine, but not Israel. Shortly afterwards, Kennedy deleted the chain altogether.
I think the initial statement, defending Waters against attempted censorship was great, and I get why he put out the CYA follow-ups and then deleted, I guess. But to add insult to injury, he appeared with the famous Rabbi Shmuley in photos and marched with him, and Shmuley tweeted "Bobby told me he had no idea that Waters was a vicious antisemite."
I personally find Waters' politics more than a few touches on the juvenile/simplistic side and Waters' (and Brian Eno's) attempts to shame artists like Nick Cave, Radiohead and Lana Del Rey out of playing shows in Israel miserable in its own right. (I also firmly believe Syd Barrett was the only "genius" in Pink Floyd; I'm 100% a Barrett truther.) Rock artists used to relish the chance to play for the youth of governments they didn't agree with, and I'll always oppose those trying to stop artists from performing or displaying their art. I'd hope Waters has a change of face on this after seeing western governments trying to cancel his performances for his politics, but he I doubt he will.
But for Kennedy to move to the "Waters is simply antisemitic" camp after defending his right to perform his 40 year old show, in the face of governments worldwide trying to cancel Waters' performance, or even saying it's illegal or even "hate speech" is just disgusting to me. (Especially considering the lies they're freely, collectively, printing about the performance, in that inimitable "evil game of telephone" way.) If Obama was the first politician to successfully harness the internet, and Trump the first politician to successfully harness Twitter, I see Kennedy as the first to potentially harness the massive "new indie media" and podcast sphere, but this episode is a big, big fail on civil liberties, and everyone should see that.
I'd hope the governments of the west (and Roger Waters, when he's shaming Nick Cave for performing in Israel) would remember that Waters famously performed the Wall (faux-Nazi regalia and all) at the site of the fall of the Berlin Wall, right after the Wall came down. It was universally celebrated. Music is for everyone, especially those living under autocratic rule.
(As an aside: another political figure that I liked for being outside the partisan doom loop, Andrew Yang, failed big on civil liberties in a similar way in the last couple of weeks. After a young lady graduating from SUNY law gave a politicized, but wildly simplistic, speech firmly in the "youthful activist" mold (which I'd say is a cross-section of Howard Zinn, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Ronald McDonald, and a rock), with some very harsh words about Israel, the hardcore Israel lobby types all said that her speech was "hate speech," and Yang quickly retweeted someone saying just that. "Hate speech" is a concept that our laws don't recognize, and that's good. Can't someone just say "this young lady is really dumb, and I can't believe she has a law degree" without implying her words and ideas are actually illegal?)
He probably feels like he can't do that, if he wants to be a legit candidate. That's probably what led to this entire episode. Max Blumenthal talked about it on Hill Rising and said he knows RFK and that it doesn't sound like him talking.
Greenwald did an interview on Breaking Points with Grim and Jahinsky yesterday, mostly about this issue, that's quite interesting which points towards RFK maybe changing his feelings, in real time even.
I’m in Iowa. Bernie won the popular vote in the first three primary states, plus California on Super Tuesday, so the DNC changed the state order! The media like longer, more expensive campaigns and the status quo on the health industry for the advertising dollars, so they report on Bernie as little as possible, and instead of telling the truth, they quote the lies others tell about him and his supporters.
.... and Roosevelt took us off the Gold Standard, Bush took us into the Gulf War, Clinton sent our manufacturing overseas with the North American Free Trade Agreement, Bush took us to the Afghanistan war, Obama let the Big Bank executives off after having caused the financial crisis, Trump took advise from Fauci and Gates in handling Covid, Biden instigated the Ukraine/Russia conflict and has successful increased racial tensions in US. They are all guilty of getting us to where we are.
At least he's different, but we'll see. Movements can easily get subverted and co-opted. I like that he's raising EMF awareness. Curious...what are you most excited about?
Agree with Johnny-O on the Dane Wiggington interview, which I talked about on https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/hazy-daze-and-tinfoil-skies. But I also talked about what I think his platform should be--decentralization. His uncle had it right that the CIA couldn't be reformed but had to be broken up and scattered to the wind so it could never be put back together. The same is true for the NIH, DoD, IRS and especially the so-called Fed that's neither federal nor a reserve. Here's that episode from Mathew Crawford's interview of me: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/what-do-i-want-from-a-president?
Great question. I'm most excited about the fact that he's deeply awake to the level of corruption in our system, but also seems to be a spiritually awake human being—his own private (and successful) struggle against addiction in his early life, and his path out via the 12 step practice (which he told Jordan Peterson he continues to this day) says to me that he profoundly understands human nature, our relationship to our Maker, and what it means to live in integrity.
That's what I see in him, in my years of following his work and efforts: he is a person of true integrity. It shows in his willingness to use up all his political clout as a Kennedy—become a pariah on Capitol Hill—in the thankless cause of exposing corporate corruption and pushing for safer vaccines and transparent oversight of Pharma. If we want to elect a grown up for the position, we can't do better than someone who has faced and defeated his own demons, and selflessly sacrificed in the cause of facing down one of the dragons of our times.
I highly recommend his interview on the Jordan Peterson podcast. If you can watch on the DailyWire website (behind a paywall) you can catch the final segment of it in which he goes into his personal history and what has motivated and shaped his life's work. It's worth watching to get a clear sense of who he is and what he's about.
Hi Leah, thanks so much for your thoughtful reply. I didn't know he was on the JP podcast! I will take a look. We all have our demons for sure but at least he's out in the open with so much, more than we can say for others. The only thing that concerns me is the notion of safer vaccines. I'm not sure how much we can trust pharma at this point. It's like when any big company gets caught putting nasty chemicals like benzene in sunscreen for instance, then they switched to "safer" titanium dioxide, which wasn't safe. Or BPA-free, which contains BPS instead, and is more toxic. I hope you get where I'm coming from on that?
I hear your concern and share it. I think it is a reason to vote for RFK—he is the only candidate who has, for the last two decades, been spending—sacrificing—his own political capital trying to hold Pharma to account and demand health and safety over profits. No candidate has shown the degree of courage and devotion to the cause not just of truth, but of holding accountable the most planet's most powerful corporate juggernaut. I share RFK's conviction that the deteriorating physical and mental health of our children is primarily attributable to the chemically toxic environment they are immersed in, ingesting, being injected with. I want him in the WH because I want someone at the top who really gets the predicament we're facing and has the track record of integrity and tenacity in the fight that will be required to withstand the pressure to sell out.
I like the fact that he interviewed Dane Wiggington about geoengineering - one of the biggest problems we face that not a single other politician even acknowledges (to my knowledge).
Sadly, as a supporter of much of what he says, he seems thoroughly captured by climate change grift -- even to the left of John Kerry and Al Gore because he means it and for them it is just a shtick. I am all for local, focused environmental moves -- they are often needed. But the "shut the world down for CO2" (that actually is almost always just a model failure) motif will lose RFK Jr a lot of voters who just do not want to change the covid grift for the climate grift which will be worse. Hope he sees the light. But it is more than just MSM money spigots. Some of us take all of the issues seriously.
I don't know where you are getting your impression of his views on climate, but he is explicitly against top-down solutions and the shut-the-world-down-to-save-the-planet strategy. I like him specifically because he is not a climate alarmist. His biggest concern is with pollution and has spent his career battling corporate polluters, but he is concerned (more than I am) about carbon emissions and believes the solution is to end carbon subsidies and let a FREE market (not a crony capitalist one like we currently have) pull us towards renewable energy.
I recommend watching his interview with Jordan Peterson; there's a segment in the middle where they really get into the climate, because they disagree on it.
Here's actually the link; I think it will start at the beginning of their climate convo (57:45):
I have never been convinced that there is or will be such a thing as renewable energy, especially those that don't required use of rare minerals or huge plots of land that destroy the ecosystem and can't be renovated like they do around old coal mines. A Stanford study put out in 2008 or 9 said that solar panels take as must energy to make as they can give back in electricity and that the batteries required to store their energy also use massive amounts of raw materials, rare minerals and never last long enough to replace their costs. Electric vehicles have proven to be fire hazards. Dams and nuclear are the only clear choices. There are large swaths on land being used as windmill graveyards. Small solar panel are needed for residences that live in areas known for fires that only have a well for water in case their electricity shuts down. Biomass requires burning I understand so there is that. Natural gas would be my choice for cooking and heating if it ever can out my way. I used to have it in Oregon and loved it.
I'm more in your camp, but then the free market won't take us there. The point is he does not believe in government imposed solutions, he believes in letting the free market decide. That's huge in this age. I really encourage you to listen to the conversation I've queued above. I think you'd be surprised by what he says because his views are being misrepresented by the Left and Right and he has a pretty deep understanding of the environment and climate, and he's not an authoritarian. He has a very positive vision and he's against using fear as a motivator. That's also huge in this age.
It's been nothing but market solutions for 40 years. That's what neoliberalism is. It explains your perception that government is useless, because in the 80s and 90s they liberalised the economy, so now we're in our present situation with over powered private corporate interests and the crony politicians which are endorsed and paid by those powerful interests. Any politicians representing everyday people get smeared for their trouble.
We are all desperately putting our hope on some person. I try never to take someone else's opinion or word about what somebody else has said or not said. I've seen many RFK interviews. Tucker interviewed him during Covid. I signup to watch that interview, the only one of Tucker's I've watch. I watched the one with Dana Wigington (I been getting his emails for years), the one done one Epoch Times and another one and his speech at the capitol on vaccinations. What I heard him say - close the nasty coal plants now! This is regardless of the fact that at least 22% of our electricity would be gone forever with nothing replacing it. Obama already shut down many coal mines and coal power plants. The whole climate change is a ruse to get to the NOW.
In 2021 coal generated 22% of our electricity, nuclear about 19%, natural gas 39%, hydro 6.3%, solar 2.8%, wind 12%. Biden’s blocked natural gas extracts from gov land (as if there should be such a thing) and now China is making batteries in the US, Michigan I believe.
Can you post the a link to this Stanford Study. I do believe current Solar Panels are net positive for generation. But the lack of storage makes them difficult to accurately compared to Nuclear, NG, Hydro, and Oil. The storage problem has not been solved. The world won't be able to produce enough traditional batteries to effectively store a weeks worth of electrical demand. So until we find a storage mechanism that works at scale, it's nothing but hopes and wishes. Realistically solar and wind probably max out at about 20-30% of total usage, before your start to run into the "storage problem" So what we see now is claims of running 100% on solar for the first time. Then you read the details and find out it was for a single hour in the middle of the day. Most countries and states that are using lots of Solar are importing energy at night. That energy mostly comes from Fossil fuels, but they can avoid claiming fossil fuel usage. That doesn't work at scale, if all the states were relying on Solar, their wouldn't be another state to import from, or pay to take (When solar generation is too high) to make up the differences.
I spent a lot of time analyzing California's electric production, consumption, import and exports. Even after all the subsidies they're maxed out @ 20% solar generation per year. Yet can easily hit 80% in the middle of a summer day. However all night they are generating 0-10% for 8 hours straight, + 4 hours of 40% generation = 40% total. And that is in the summer. Longer nights in the winter eat away at that.
Because of the lack of the dispatch-able nature of so much of the solar generation, CASIO often has to pay other states to take solar generation from them in the middle of the day.
Finally Wind has a flat curve 24x7 but can have curves over longer periods of time. Both need storage mechanism, that currently would cost 4-10x that of the generation cost itself.
Because grid operators are not allowed to price reliable generation above the cost of non-reliable generation, its creates a market only for the low cost generators. (solar and wind) Meanwhile the NG/Oil generation costs increase because they are forced to run as supply on demand, making it much more expensive.
This makes it easy for headlines that say Solar generation costs less than NG generation. Implying there is no reason not to invest 100% in solar. If Solar was priced with enough storage to reliably power a grid 24x7 the generation cost would be much higher than NG/Nuclear/Oil.
This is why Renewable generation results in higher prices overall, even though renewable generation is less expensive per KWH when generated.
In closing 20-30% Max (Aggregate Per year) on Renewables before things hit the wall. From their costs explode and reliability gets worse.
At least until we prove out some type of storage systems. (Which I do believe is possible, but are easily 20 years from large scale deployment.)
Sorry no link. I read it so long ago and did not even think to see if it could be down loaded. I doubt Stanford kept public access to it when the big Obama drive with taxpayer funds was afoot. It would have been much worse than saying cost prohibitive without subsides.
Human overpopulation is the root of all the environmental problems. Pretending that they aren’t serious problems is not helpful. Farmers here in Iowa see the difference! Islands in the ocean have had to be abandoned (through no fault of the people who were forced to leave their homes). Increased rates of droughts, floods, and wildfires are real, as were predicted y the climate models.
The Report of The Commission on Population Growth and the American Future
One of the most serious challenges to human destiny in the last third of this century will be the growth of the population. Whether man’s response to that challenge will be a cause for pride or for despair in the year 2000 will depend very much on what we do today. If we now begin our work in an appropriate manner, and if we continue to devote a considerable amount of attention and energy to this problem, then mankind will be able to surmount this challenge as it has surmounted so many during the long march of civilization.
Richard Nixon
July 18, 1969
How many ways can they nudge, regulate, control the population. Many have offered suggestions and most, ultimately, have been acted upon. They have been very successful.
Recommendations to Bernard Berelson (President, Population Council) found in “Activities Relevant to the Study of Population Policy for the U.S.” March 11, 1969 by Frederick S. Jaffe (at the time Executive Director of Planned Parenthood’s Center for Family Planning Program Development). Note that Gates Sr. was a board member of Planned Parenthood for years and even funded its Seattle facility decades ago.
Here is just one subset of ideas:
Table 1. Proposed measures to Reduce U.S. Fertility, by Universality or Selectivity of Impact in the U.S.
Universal Impact
Social Constraints
RESTRUCTURE FAMILY:
a) Postpone or avoid marriage
b) Alter image of ideal family size
Compulsory education of children
Encourage Increased homosexuality
Educate for family limitation
Fertility control agents in water supply
Encourage women to work
There is much more. They were very serious. There was a national crisis on the horizon (hardly) and the unscrupulous UN was pushing such nonsense just like it is pushing climate change.
There’s a lot to unpack with his candidacy. And there is virtually no one in the “alternative” camp that can poll even close to him.
All one has to do is drive through Desert Palm CA to see that wind farming is a losing proposition. Routinely, there are 20-30% plus of the turbines in non-working order. And the cost to fix/replace is questionable when measured against overall carbon cost. Similarly with solar, it takes 30-32 high grade panels in ARIZONA, to power an average 2400 sq ft house. Battery storage will change the narrative at some point, but how do you reconcile the carbon cost again when measuring both the manufacturing of the solar panel itself, AND the batteries. It’s truly an inconvenient truth that the rare element cost is completely prohibitive.
Ultimately, clean energy will have to be truly clean, which means probably cold fusion. And further still, there are $30 trillion in known “old energy” assets still in the ground. And these assets are owned, mostly by the existing oil companies. These assets will not be written down (to off) easily.
I thought Musks endorsement of nuclear power to RFK might move his needle. How he sees nuclear history as catastrophic on the evidence of 4-5 early disasters is weird. The Japanese event was caused by a sanami. Don’t build in vulnerable locations. The waste issue has been put to bed by the French and Swedes. Feelings are trumping facts. I like most of his positions but that one is a deal killer
Agreed. I haven’t heard or read his stances on AGW, but if he’s as rational as he’s been on other issues, and he happens to view it as the crisis it’s purported to be, surely his approach is nuclear, right?
I mean, at least society could keep reliable energy that way.
I don't know where he stands on it today, but in the past RFK Jr has been vehemently against nuclear as a clean energy source. The only thing that concerns me about him as a candidate.
All of those things, and more! I've never had a political candidate speak so clearly about the issues I hold dear; not even Wellstone when I was a first-time voter, or even Tulsi Gabbard.
I love him and am volunteering for his campaign. Do I own a t-shirt as well? Yes, yes I do.
He also was the leader of the bogus conspiracy theory that the 2004 election results in Ohio were fixed with Diebold voting machines. Same crap as what was said about Dominion last election.
How about a candidate that is not pro war? In an imperial empire that feasts on war, sanctions, coups, false flags and surveillance, he may appear fringe to some. If you define fringe as not mainstream, it's because his voice is not invited or welcome on MSM, along with any other person who has a dissenting opinion.
I haven't watched this one (just found it), but I trust Kim Iversen to treat the topic fairly, so I'll drop it here, too, as it directly addresses the topic of his past statements: [EDIT: Nevermind—watched it and it was Kim interviewing someone else in which they discussed the interviewee's opinion on RFK; it's not a real examination of his past statements.]
Dominion Voting System Corp., was founded in Canada in 2002-2003 with an openly progressive mission – to develop electronic voting software which would not just process ballots, but also “mobilize voters” – a popular slogan of the Left.
It is not clear what products or services the company has developed. It found almost no buyers, until Obama was elected in 2008. In 2009, New York ordered a few dozens of systems from it. In 2010, Obama’s DOJ (Holder – Mueller) took the EVS unit, purchased from Diebold, away from the market leader ES&S, and gave it to Dominion. This gift included the installed base of about 30% of the US electronic voting systems (EVS) market. Within two weeks, Dominion also acquired Sequoia, which was formally spun from Smartmatic, but ties between these two companies remained. Smartmatic is a UK based EVS vendor, whose software was used by Chavez to “win” the Venezuelan referendum in 2004. Smartmatic’s unit Sequoia faced troubles in the US. Those troubles quickly ended when its assets were purchased by Dominion.
Thus, the new Democratic party created a pocket pet corporation, gave it the lion share of the US electronic voting systems market. Dominion is ideologically aligned with the Democratic Party, owes it everything it has, dependent on it for most of its business, and needs it in power to avoid prosecution for corruption. Sounds like a conflict of interest.
The original post was questioning why RFK Jr. is "controversial." I said it's because he holds fringe positions.
You are free to believe whatever you want about Dominion, but the claim that the election was stolen is certainly controversial and fringe. This is a descriptive point, not a normative one.
Controversial - yes. Fringe - not by a long shot. Tens of millions of people believe the 2020 election results are severely tainted. By definition, that is not fringe.
I want to believe a significant segment of the population will understand his political stances. I'm highly skeptical that they won't. Okay I'm certain of it. Why?
The Twitter Files are proof that a significant portion of our country experiences a total blackout. I've written this message previously. I live in the most blue (and perhaps wealthiest) counties in the country. Marin (bordering on SF). This weekend I was at a dinner party with six good friends. In the group there are 3 successful attorneys, an MD (Head of Nutrition for a top 10 HMO) and a couple highly successful business leaders. They are all democrats. They are all "willing" to listen to other viewpoints. They are not vitriolic - if that makes sense? I mentioned that I was somewhat unhealthily obsessed by the Twitter Files. All six asked the same questions "what are the Twitter Files"? All were 100% oblivious. Their primary new sources are The NY Times, SF Chron, The Marin IJ (our local publication), and NBC/ABC/CBS nightly news. Some watch Bill Maher. They've never heard of the Twitter Files? They were split 50/50 on liking Elon Musk or thinking he's a right wing tool.
My point? When I said I'm thinking of vote Dem (ish) and RFK Jr. most didn't know he was running. A couple thought he was controversial...."the vax or something?". Six months from now, if Bobby is still hanging at 20% (or more) I predict he will have been successfully tarnished as that "wacko anti-vax guy who's basically a Trump surrogate". These are people who have the ability - and virtues - to absorb Bobby's political views, but I'm nearly willing to guarantee they'll never hear them, because the media they follow will have successfully portrayed Bobby as a whacko, non-entity.
That is exactly why the bulk of society complaining about the lockdowns, masks, and gene jabs where not those people but those already cautious or outright dubious of our government and media. They know who everyone is and what they are up to. I'm one of them.
This sounds familiar. Some people are so busy being "successful" that they are forced to rely on fast food news sources and are oblivious of (and often dismissive of) many important people/stories.
I am a registered Republican but I am in the process of changing to independent. RFK Jr in the general election has my vote for sure.
It's going to get increasingly frustrating to read hit pieces on him over his evidence based opposition to vaccines. He's well researched and the truth is on his side. Already reading hit pieces on him about his anti-vaccine stance, which is highly merited. It's not popular to go against the norms, but that doesn't make it incorrect. You would think after the past 3 years and how many people have died suddenly and so many injured that we are not allowed to speak about, people would be clamoring for more on this topic. I believe that more people are vaccine skeptical now and open to the idea that things need to change. But most are too afraid to speak up.
The article that Taibbi referenced that RFK JR message was "largely incoherent". Really? I don't know how anyone could say that. His message is about straight forward and concise as possible. Then went on to say that he won't be anything more than a gnat to Biden.
I think these hit pieces tell us what they want us to believe/think and not what is actually true. If the democrats don't allow for debates in the primaries than you should assume they are going to steal it again.
The hit pieces have been going on for some decades. When the party heads pick their candidate other are either ignored, laughed at, dispensed with or all three. We would be a different country today if Ron Paul overcame this rigging in 2008 or 2012.
His vaccine stance should be more nuanced. The serious adverse effects data aren't yet in on the Covid mRNA vaccines, but many countries have stopped vaccinating those under 50 years old. Israel claims they had no Covid deaths in healthy 50 year olds or younger.
The MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccines have (deservedly) a bad rap. Since the vaccines were introduced in 1963, measles which killed about 2.6 million per year (if you believe the WHO), now only kill about 200,000 or so, a major success. At one time 1 in 5 African children died from measles.
VAERS, originally set up to track vaccine injuries, has reported about 300-500 US deaths from the MMR vaccine over the last 30 years or so, out of >100 million vaccinated children. Another great success. However, in the US measles had a low fatality rate (about 1 in 500,000; measles was "accepted as a childhood disease that all children caught and then had lifelong immunity). While it seemed strange before Covid, doctors pushed the vaccines, and many likely refused to report measles/ MMR vaccine deaths. An FDA official personally told me that VAERS under-reports serious adverse effects by 90 to 99%. So 300-5000 MMR vaccine deaths could be as high as 30,000 to 50,000 if the vast majority were not reported. Moreover, with an IFR of only 1 in 500,000, even if 100 million US kids were exposed rather than vaccinated that would be only about 200 deaths from measles. And of course the CDC declared measles eradicated in 2000, and children have died from the vaccine since then. However there have been outbreaks from travelers and immigrants, mostly affected those who have never been exposed or vaccinated.
Possibly measles can return as a more deadly virus (part of the low fatality rate in the US was due to being endemic in the US, with both previously infected and vaccinated people supplying herd immunity).
This is an oversimplification. For certain the MMR vaccine is "good enough" globally, and the benefit outweighs the risk. Not so clear for measles in the US.
We can always improve vaccines and "good enough" depends on the situation.
Vaccines are not needed. You are regurgitating years old propaganda. Everything you've wrote has been disputed and proven false. Watch Candace Owen's Shot in The Dark series. If the info comes from any mainstream source and that includes all their paid for think tanks and research arms it's corrupted. They own all the journals and all the scientists. They can literally make up anything and have it backed by thousands of experts. Even though it causes illness and death. People still eat it, drink it, and inject it. Crazy people are possessed by Satan or something.
While I agree with you that most vaccines are over- utilized/ advocated by the government and medical Establishment (the Covid vaccine mandate was insane!), there are some situations where certain vaccines are very helpful to some populations. (For the US in 1960, measles was an endemic childhood disease, killing 1 in 500,000 infected, an IFR of only 0.005%; in Africa, 1 in 5 infected children under age 6 died, an IFR of 20%! Scientifically, the obvious question is: why such a difference? Clearly the African children benefitted from the measles vaccine, the US did not need it. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6410476/)
The CDC admits there were more US Covid deaths after the mRNA vaccines than before : 385,676 in 2020, 463,266 in 2021, and 245,946 in 2022. An effective vaccine decreases deaths. That didn't happen until Omicron (known to many scientists as the milder "Jesus virus") strain saved us. Natural infection immunity even before Omicron likely saved many more than the mRNA vaccines. The uptake of the vaccines by those over age 65 was excellent from the start of the vaccine campaign (although doses were initially limited and jumping of the queue by low-risk individuals lowered the supply).
The top down mismanagement of Covid and the secrecy of those in control of the data (particularly the adverse effect data) seems to be the model that the WHO wants to build on. The US did not follow the WHO's masking advice for kids nor their dismissal of remdesivir. The WHO was wrong about glucocorticoids which would have saved many early on.
Candace Owens may be correct, but i don't follow political activists (I have enough angst in my life from science.) The Covid scientific literature, while heavily censured, is often enlightening, particularly pre-prints from Qatar and Israel and other foreign countries (strangely not so much from the US?) There are several YouTube channels that focus on explaining scientific papers. None are perfect, but most do a decent job. I particularly liked Prof. Norman Fenton's explanation of why the "epidemic of the unvaccinated" was fake, which never would have occurred to me.
Candace Owens being a new mom and faced with the question whether to vaccinate her babies decided to look into each vaccine on the childhood schedule, dug in deep and she was shocked to find out that none were needed. (Seriously what new born baby needs a HepB vaccine. Unless the mother was a prostitute or crack addict) She even schooled Robert Malone on a few. She turned into a series to help other new moms navigate the schedule. Lots of babies saved from harm due to her efforts. I applaud her for her efforts to help others. More should do that.
My concern is two-fold. First it looks like the WHO will be advocating for all sorts of vaccines, needed or not. Different populations are exposed to different diseases and there's no point in vaccinations unless needed. Each nation should control its own public health (most did much better than the US with Covid). The WHO should remain, like the CDC, as an advisory body only.
Second, all vaccines should be voluntary. Recommendations are fine, but mandates from schools and particularly the Government are counterproductive (unvaccinated who survived Covid pre-vaccine have much better immunity than the mRNA vaccinated. There are very few Covid-naive people left.)
The US did away with the tuberculosis vaccine (BCG) as a school "requirement" in 2012(?) In special cases, traveling frequently to TB countries or interacting with relatives who may have TB, the vaccine is advised. Some countries REQUIRE certain vaccines for entry. Veterinarians get rabies vaccinations since they know they'll die or require worse treatments if bitten by a rabid animal, but it's not required. The US was probably in better shape in 1960 with measles pre-vaccine than we are today.
“The Democratic Party in all its florid and mendacious lunacy is pretending to not notice him, especially their praetorian news media that is the vector for America’s mass mental illness. Mr. Kennedy put it so simply in April when he announced a run to preside over the stupendous mess that is our government. He said his mission is an experiment to see what happens when you tell Americans the truth. Hold that thought. How long has it been since you thought anything like that was possible?”
I believe the controversial tag comes from his recent work challenging the vaccine mandates and specifically taking aim at Anthony Fauci in a book he released in 2021. I suspect this is precisely the angle the mainstream media will take in order to hamstring him, especially if his bipartisan popularity continues to grow.
He has been a major voice in the anti vaccination movement and not just Covid but polio measles etc. that is the main controversy that I know he has been associated with, In addition, to the fact that he is convinced the CIA killed his father, and of course this quote “Do I think the Koch brothers are treasonous? Yes, I do.” He added, “I think they should be enjoying three hots and a cot at The Hague with all the other war criminals.”
RFK Jr. is a breath of fresh air. I have never agreed with any candidate on all issues and he is no exception; however, he's the first one to inspire me to finally get US citizenship so I can vote. If he can't win, I want him to at least put a good scare into the DNC.
He's only controversial because the Overton window has been pushed so far out of whack. Everything, EVERYTHING he says sounds perfectly reasonable to me. But then I have had to accept that the world is a far nastier place right now than most people realize.
Yes, yes--exactly! It's an old-school Kennedy Democrat and doesn't even really diverge from many of the main talking points of the Old Left. But since a portion of the "left" has gone mad and mad with corporate greed as well, he is a total outsider now. It's really sad.
My 80 year old mother, a die-hard Democrat, believes he is a kook and conspiracy theorist despite never having listened to him. That is the message she is getting from mainstream news and her democrat youtube channels. She also reads and listens to every anti-Trump source. She completely believes he is stupid, illiterate and a racist.....this what we are up against.
Wow. Disheartening. I have relatives like this also. MSM is pure propaganda. Talk about gardening, recipes and travel with these people. They are not going to entertain another perspective.
Except there are many Democrats whose experience of our Covid-induced dystopia woke them up to the Uniparty game that is delivering our freedom and economy to the globalists. And more people are waking up every day.
I was completely redpilled by Covid. Not in the sense that I became a Republican, more in the sense that I see ALL monolithic state institutions as inherently corrupt and possibly not having the best interest of anyone but the elites in mind.
S Smith, to be "red-pilled" is not necessarily to become a Republican--it just means that the scales have fallen from your eyes, and mind, and that you no longer lap up the BS narratives you had believed in so fervently for decades. From that point, many political destinations are possible. RFK is one of them.
Yeah, that's exactly what happened to me. After what happened during Covid, I can't say that I will ever see gov't or people the same way again. Within an instant family members and whole communities turned against the skeptics. We became enemy #1--even those of us with the most robust progressive bona-fides. We were the g'ma killers and the racists, because we even dared to question the narrative. It was such an alienating experience for me.
It is also apparent to me that we are in a feudal system in the U.S. where we actually work for these bloated gov't entities, which also prop up giant corporations--they do not work for us. This goes across the board, both parties, and deep into even professional sports, the entertainment industry, but most especially the medical and military industrial complexes. What's remarkable is the the left, the legit and not synthetic left, used to rail against all of these things. That was why I initially was "left."
Well said! Accountability is the hallmark of a functioning democratic republic and a functioning free market. We no longer see either, which is a big clue we've lost both, or are very close to that tipping point.
It absolutely amazes me that the political leaders didn’t rally the people to join together to combat the common coronavirus enemy! Trump’s lies about it (admitted by Trump to Bob Woodward, preserved on tape) split the nation even further, allowing the virus to spread and mutate. The disrespect for virologists and immunologists is disheartening. About half the babies born didn’t live to be adults before a vaccines.
My Dad, who is 78 and also, now a diehard Dem, said the exact same thing to me on Saturday: "He's a lunatic." People just don't even look into things anymore. . . .
The 70 years of TV and then cable plus the bought-off media and we know what we are supposed to think. I was never a TV watcher and did not even have one between 1986 and 2009. Ditched it about a year ago. No newspapers either. My two sons kept me abreast of things from their perspective. That has been invaluable in seeing reality.
I cut the cable cord a few decades ago, had withdrawal symptoms for a month or two that were ameliorated by a nice Cabernet, and never looked back. That said, we need to end the censorship of the net.
(I love to hear all the opinions expressed in the comments...really gives hope!)
I have never owned a television. It became impossible to completely avoid. There was a television in the locker room of my health club, in the bank, in the doctor's waiting room, and even on the pumps at the gas station. I got out of the USA in 2018.
Pervasive for a reason. And CNN live at the airports! Did you know that in the early days of TV England required all of its citizens to own a TV. If you did not get one, it provided you with one and collected money from you every month.
No undue criticism of your mother particularly, but, anyone who is still a “die hard democrat” has surrendered any original thought - it’s simply a disqualification for staying attached to the party. They’re simply repeaters, like Wi-Fi repeaters. They ravenously receive the message, and rabidly spread it forward without any consideration as to logic, veracity, common sense, etc.
I have these types of people in my life as well. Its a nice idea to collaborate to come up with some good responses to these folks. Ask them exactly what it is about his platform that makes him a kook, maybe. When they parrot the MSNBC talking points, clarify his position. It may not be effective but can't hurt, right?
I'm so excited for his candidacy. Got a bumper sticker. Everything appears to be that he's the real deal. If it turns out he's not, which is possible, at minimum, he's going to shake up the orthodoxy -- if the MSM ever recognizes him -- and that's a good thing.
I used to like Bernie, too. In 2016, I canvassed, in 2020 I contributed near the maximum until billionaire Lloyd Blankfein decided enough is enough & Bernie was out. Good ol’ Lloyd. I think Bernie’s victories were all to advance socialism - and while the people’s well-being were not his primary motive they would be well served. Now Bernie drinks the Biden koolaid with abandon. Authoritarianism plus socialism is communism. RFK Jr will not sell out.
I was much like you. I have no respect for Bernie, now.
I'm not sure if the Biden Dems more resemble a sort of weird fascism-lite, or if they seem more Maoist-comic-opera to me. It's all bound up with corporate America as well--it's a socialist/corporate hybrid, where all the regulatory agencies are bought and sold on a dime, that is immensely unpalatable.
I'd be a lot more convinced if he ran as an Indy instead of a Dem. Granted, Bernie is still nominally an Indy. But he ran as a Dem. If RFK ran as an Indy, he'd show that he plans to be in the race until November. If he loses the primary, he's out for the count.
West, just by running as third party, is showing more comittment. Apparently he learned from Bernie's fuckup (both times).
Yes!! Agree 100%. The Establishment is scared shitless. Pray he stays out of the crosshairs. He's brave after what they did to his dad and uncle and that is not a conspiracy theory. Anytime someone takes them on, especially pharma something happens.
We need to have a conversation about what is considered “controversial” by mainstream media/politicos, and why. When I was a teenager, my favorite topics were UFOs, psychedelics, spirituality/metaphysics, and conspiracies. Fast forward 30 years and these long-derided topics are all being hauled out of the shame basement and reconsidered. My message from this is: be careful what you label “kooky” -- it might come back to ontologically slap you in the face one day.
RFK is a humble truth teller in a miasmic cesspool of psychopathic liars and gaslighters. His candidacy is a paradigm shift not just for US politics but for “establishment” dogmatism writ large. A growing multitude of people know we have been systematically deceived and exploited by elites for three generations at least. He is the honest and authentic foil to Trump’s narcissistic opportunism, but they are channeling resonant energies in the public consciousness.
The only real controversy left worth denouncing is the pervasive psyop of a global elite establishment class who relentlessly lie, conspire, divide, and destroy.
I didn't think it was possible to be excited about a politician anymore (seems to always come down to choosing the least-bad option). Listening to RFK, Jr speak to Musk et al on Twitter spaces last week was riveting. His historical and political domain knowledge is vast, and he wields this knowledge with intelligence and mastery. His perspicacity, honesty, and fearlessness are so refreshing. Anyone who really gives him a fair hearing will know his opinions are well supported by evidence, and when more data is needed, he acknowledges that and calls for studies (e.g. his proposal to run a proper study evaluating the potential relationship between psychiatric drugs and violence, as suicidal and homicidal ideation are known side effects of these drugs [read the inserts]). He is fully committed to the Constitution and protecting civil liberties, which is what this jaded ex-Democrat needs to hear. This doesn't mean I agree on everything, but that's a good thing. I would never expect to, with any politician (or friend or spouse, for that matter!) But I agree with his principles, broadly speaking.
The thing is, though, he is just too threatening to establishment power and establishment interests (on so many levels!). This is why they need to paint him as so beyond the pale (kook/conspiracy theorist) that no one will bother to even listen to him speak. If his candidacy really gains steam, I fear for his safety. I don't want him following in his father's and uncle's footsteps.
Biden is the controversial candidate. RFK, while not my guy, is a solid pick for the Dems. Hopefully he isn't beat down by the machine like Bernie the last couple cycles. I'd love to see the rise of third party candidates and not the uniparty supported stiffs.
I say this on every substack I read, so pardon me if it’s repetitive. But as a parent of special needs kids (as in, pharma injured), I and innumerable others know that if you care about kids and want to save the next generation (assuming there is one), we need RFK. He knows that the kids aren’t ok, and not just from a social perspective - from a biological and physiological perspective. I’ve never voted democrat before, but I would this time. Without hesitation.
Looking forward to your interview with RFK later on the trail. And to Greenwald's interview with him on his show tonight. Glenn looks like he has some genuinely hardball questions in store.
The Dems look like they're getting kind of desperate.
There was NYT's higher profile piece on RFK's wife, which was just so lazy, but not as lazy and embarassing as this earlier piece, which disappeared pretty quickly, with no comments.
Robert Kennedy Jr., With Musk, Pushes Right-Wing Ideas and Misinformation
Then this piece on Cornel West from Politico - (I'm assuming / hoping West is a Friend of Racket as he was a Friend of Show on UI, looking forward to that interview too.)
Why some Dems fear Cornel West presents a unique challenge for Joe Biden
Jeebus, Politico. Jeebus, Ro. I used to like Ro Khanna, but he's officially been absorbed into the blob now.
But at least i have people to vote for now. RFK in the primaries, West as 3rd party (or write in if they manage to keep him off the ballot) in November.
"Asked during the discussion by David Sacks, a top DeSantis donor who is also close to Mr. Musk, “what happened to the Democratic Party,” Mr. Kennedy spent nine uninterrupted minutes attacking Mr. Biden as a warmonger and claimed that their party was under the control of the pharmaceutical industry.
“I think the Democratic Party became the party of war,” Mr. Kennedy said. “I attribute that directly to President Biden.” He added, “He has always been in favor of very bellicose, pugnacious and aggressive foreign policy, and he believes that violence is a legitimate political tool for achieving America’s objectives abroad.”"
Exactly what is incorrect about this?
From the second Politico piece on West -
"He (Khanna) went on to stress that he believed the West bid could “ultimately help” President Joe Biden, whom Khanna is supporting. He added that it is his job to help persuade liberal voters to back Biden."
Gfl with that. If he's running 3rd party, you have no say whatsoever as to what his "job" is.
The liberal-left has gone back to their old, familiar position, which is absolutely loving war. The Rs aren't much better--in the 20th century--but it was always the party where the more isolationist tendencies resided. Both parties are the parties of war--and the fact the even the progressive-left has become incredibly war-like has caused me no end of heartache.
Putin has turned Russia into a fascist state, taking over the media, ruling Russia as a despot, murdering and jailing the opposition, and seizing territory. Crimea was his Sudetenland, and thus encouraged he's now attempting to seize all of the Ukraine. We have the same responsibility to protect the Ukraine democracy as we did Great Britain in 1939.
Such ahistorical nonsense. I hope you are draftable age. Let me know how it's going when you eventually get drafted into this European border war, fighting in a autumn quagmire that will make the 3rd Battle of Ypres feel like Candyland and your face melts off after getting hit by a tactical nuke. War isn't like your precious video games.
I pondered Syria but thought it more a NATO thing. The arms T gave Ukraine were defense missiles and in hindsight a mistake because it meant we agreed they were being invaded when they weren't. Ukraine was fighting against its Donbas region where the Russian speaking people lived.
First the UN directs global affairs (the financial founding families always direct when and where there will be skirmishes and wars). Then with the birth of NATO it is not quite so clear, but its existence is tied to the UN. When Samantha Powers was nominated by O to be the US ambassador to the UN she was supported by McCain and Graham. She thinks the US should be everywhere fighting everything. She wanted Libya taken down, Syria taken down all of them. She wanted more power and under Biden she is the Head of USAID. Tax payer $$$$ flow steadily to undermine numerous countries readying them ‘spontaneous’ revolutions, head topplings, human rights are LGBT right, and military interventions. It even pays its NGO to move migrants to the US border for illegal entry.
Ukraine was set up by Dept of State starting in 2014. It removed the existing officials and installed their own with much assistance from Soros.
>You forgot Syria, and maybe Clinton's strike on Sudan.
...not to mention all the color revolutions, starting at least as far back as Iran in the early 1950s. Don't know who gets "credit" for that, Eisenhower or Truman.
>arming of Ukraine under Trump
Heartily agree that the arming of Ukraine was dumb, politically motivated, and a huge factor in starting the Ukraine war.
But goading Russia until it attacked was certainly the long-term plan of many powerful neocons of the perservering deep state, including the Sullivan-Blinken-Nuland constellation currently in charge of our country's outward posture to the world (yikes). Many of those nutjobs wanted and continue to want this war, viewing the loss of human life as a simple accounting problem.
The Dept of State has been the instigator in every undertaking since post Wilson using its benevolent facade to provoke change as needed by the financial founding fathers. It is easier to do when the Pres is a D.
Why would you frame the RFK candidacy as controversial? I had to read it twice to make sure it was coming from Matt Taibbi? How about 'refreshing' ... 'honest' ... etc., I can think of many more apt ways to frame it.
I totally agree with refreshing and honest, etc., but controversial is also true. It’s the first campaign I think I’ve been genuinely excited about since my very first vote, at 18, for Reagan’s second term (which I now view with a more jaundiced eye, tbh).
Controversial -- I suppose that is anyone not endorsed by the DNC or the RNC or all 3rd party candidates.
The powers that be will paint anyone not named Biden, Obama, Clinton or Cheney that runs for president as some sort of insane-anti-christ-heretic-danger-to-democracy, in the most extreme, paranoid ways possible. Count on it.
But Kennedy is certainly controversial! Very much so. That's one of his selling points. He's a dyed-in-the-wood legacy Democrat with a lot '70s-'90s Democrat Party ideas and talking points, but points out that they've become a divisive, mean, uber-corporate, war-mongering party, which is absolutely true. He was censored all over tech for some of his ideas, loudly and proudly, and shamelessly, and it's still happening.
That Kennedy is very popular with a lot of registered democrats that agree with him and are sick of the party establishment, and also a surprising number of independents and even anti-establishment Republicans is making people crazy. David Frum (yes, that David Frum) fumed that "Kennedy is not a real democrat." The irony!
Nobody likes a truth teller, and people certainly don't like someone that appeals to everyone in politics now. Can you even imagine? Someone with cross-party appeal and basic humanity in politics? In this country, at this point in time?
(I have my issues with Kennedy, like how he threw Roger Waters under the bus last week, as western governments are deciding in unison that performing a 40-year-old album that's sold 30 million copies might actually be illegal. I get that Kennedy can't afford to anger the Israel lobby, and nor does he want to, but can't "I think Roger Waters should be allowed to perform his work, and should be allowed his own political opinions, even if I don't agree with them" be enough?)
He reminds me why I was a Democrat for so many years.
His loyalty to the Dems is what worries me. He needs to be prepared to break with the party and run as an Independent. Or start a new party. Bernie was hugely popular, more so than RFK Jr., and the Dems--Obama specifically--shut it down to consolidate Biden support. Bernie took the knee and it was over. Now look where we are. I'm not even registered as a Dem anymore, as is true of many others, I would guess.
I agree, but there is no third party in Ameristan and there never will be.
It's Frick, or Frack - those are your 'choices'.
I've always thought that. But there are more Independents now than people who belong to the two parties. How long can a system continue when the majority of people don't want anything to do with the political forces running the country? Maybe it can go on forever. I don't know.
Starting a new party is never a good idea. It would be better if he could get the Dems to realize that they need to address and "own" the Covid mess, thereby depriving the Republicans of an excellent talking point. Quite possibly, he could draw the "vaccine hesitant" Republicans to his side, which could, in turn, serve the Dems. The resistance to addressing legitimate criticism on either side will serve no purpose at all and just benefit the powers in charge (big pharma) to divide the American people even more.
I don't believe they will ever own it. They haven't even owned the whole Russiagate thing yet. I have lost almost all faith in the Dems. I voted for Biden and told myself, "How bad can he be?" Well, he's been worse than I could have imagined. I will not vote for him again, under any circumstances. There are a lot of smart people on this site and I wonder - has there ever been a primary where the sitting president is not the party candidate?
What did RFK say?
RFK had tweeted about Roger Waters being a "hero" in the face of censorship, and Waters responded thanking him. In fairly short order, Kennedy followed up saying he was unaware of Waters' feelings on Israel, which he disagrees with, and meant he agreed with Waters' stances on Covid and Ukraine, but not Israel. Shortly afterwards, Kennedy deleted the chain altogether.
You can see the whole deleted tweet thread here: https://twitter.com/MarkGolden16/status/1666168199682068480?s=20
I think the initial statement, defending Waters against attempted censorship was great, and I get why he put out the CYA follow-ups and then deleted, I guess. But to add insult to injury, he appeared with the famous Rabbi Shmuley in photos and marched with him, and Shmuley tweeted "Bobby told me he had no idea that Waters was a vicious antisemite."
See the whole tweet here:
https://twitter.com/RabbiShmuley/status/1665222140201713665?s=20
I personally find Waters' politics more than a few touches on the juvenile/simplistic side and Waters' (and Brian Eno's) attempts to shame artists like Nick Cave, Radiohead and Lana Del Rey out of playing shows in Israel miserable in its own right. (I also firmly believe Syd Barrett was the only "genius" in Pink Floyd; I'm 100% a Barrett truther.) Rock artists used to relish the chance to play for the youth of governments they didn't agree with, and I'll always oppose those trying to stop artists from performing or displaying their art. I'd hope Waters has a change of face on this after seeing western governments trying to cancel his performances for his politics, but he I doubt he will.
But for Kennedy to move to the "Waters is simply antisemitic" camp after defending his right to perform his 40 year old show, in the face of governments worldwide trying to cancel Waters' performance, or even saying it's illegal or even "hate speech" is just disgusting to me. (Especially considering the lies they're freely, collectively, printing about the performance, in that inimitable "evil game of telephone" way.) If Obama was the first politician to successfully harness the internet, and Trump the first politician to successfully harness Twitter, I see Kennedy as the first to potentially harness the massive "new indie media" and podcast sphere, but this episode is a big, big fail on civil liberties, and everyone should see that.
I'd hope the governments of the west (and Roger Waters, when he's shaming Nick Cave for performing in Israel) would remember that Waters famously performed the Wall (faux-Nazi regalia and all) at the site of the fall of the Berlin Wall, right after the Wall came down. It was universally celebrated. Music is for everyone, especially those living under autocratic rule.
(As an aside: another political figure that I liked for being outside the partisan doom loop, Andrew Yang, failed big on civil liberties in a similar way in the last couple of weeks. After a young lady graduating from SUNY law gave a politicized, but wildly simplistic, speech firmly in the "youthful activist" mold (which I'd say is a cross-section of Howard Zinn, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Ronald McDonald, and a rock), with some very harsh words about Israel, the hardcore Israel lobby types all said that her speech was "hate speech," and Yang quickly retweeted someone saying just that. "Hate speech" is a concept that our laws don't recognize, and that's good. Can't someone just say "this young lady is really dumb, and I can't believe she has a law degree" without implying her words and ideas are actually illegal?)
Greenwald asked him about that.
His 'defence' is weak. Very weak.
The reality is that if you do not love Israel, with all your heart, soul and wallet, then you cannot be the President of the World.
https://rumble.com/v2trjzi-system-update-97.html
David Frum is human scum!
RFKJr did himself no favors when he answered Greenwald’s questions about that tweet. He should just have admitted that he acted in a cowardly manner.”
He probably feels like he can't do that, if he wants to be a legit candidate. That's probably what led to this entire episode. Max Blumenthal talked about it on Hill Rising and said he knows RFK and that it doesn't sound like him talking.
Greenwald did an interview on Breaking Points with Grim and Jahinsky yesterday, mostly about this issue, that's quite interesting which points towards RFK maybe changing his feelings, in real time even.
Yeah the uniparty where they select from the same group of people. We don't really get a say. It's all an illusion.
No debates equal selected president.
Obvious much.
I’m in Iowa. Bernie won the popular vote in the first three primary states, plus California on Super Tuesday, so the DNC changed the state order! The media like longer, more expensive campaigns and the status quo on the health industry for the advertising dollars, so they report on Bernie as little as possible, and instead of telling the truth, they quote the lies others tell about him and his supporters.
He may well have won more states on Super Tuesday, but a couple of candidates had magically disappeared from the ballot just beforehand.
Funny how that happened, huh?
Love Reagan and am SHOCKED that I would vote RFK over any corporate Republican
Reagan got us into this mess! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SbL2Nch-Q8
.... and Roosevelt took us off the Gold Standard, Bush took us into the Gulf War, Clinton sent our manufacturing overseas with the North American Free Trade Agreement, Bush took us to the Afghanistan war, Obama let the Big Bank executives off after having caused the financial crisis, Trump took advise from Fauci and Gates in handling Covid, Biden instigated the Ukraine/Russia conflict and has successful increased racial tensions in US. They are all guilty of getting us to where we are.
I like Jimmy's take on trumph. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFL9y1NzvBI
At least he's different, but we'll see. Movements can easily get subverted and co-opted. I like that he's raising EMF awareness. Curious...what are you most excited about?
Agree with Johnny-O on the Dane Wiggington interview, which I talked about on https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/hazy-daze-and-tinfoil-skies. But I also talked about what I think his platform should be--decentralization. His uncle had it right that the CIA couldn't be reformed but had to be broken up and scattered to the wind so it could never be put back together. The same is true for the NIH, DoD, IRS and especially the so-called Fed that's neither federal nor a reserve. Here's that episode from Mathew Crawford's interview of me: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/what-do-i-want-from-a-president?
Amen sister!! Preach!!
Great question. I'm most excited about the fact that he's deeply awake to the level of corruption in our system, but also seems to be a spiritually awake human being—his own private (and successful) struggle against addiction in his early life, and his path out via the 12 step practice (which he told Jordan Peterson he continues to this day) says to me that he profoundly understands human nature, our relationship to our Maker, and what it means to live in integrity.
That's what I see in him, in my years of following his work and efforts: he is a person of true integrity. It shows in his willingness to use up all his political clout as a Kennedy—become a pariah on Capitol Hill—in the thankless cause of exposing corporate corruption and pushing for safer vaccines and transparent oversight of Pharma. If we want to elect a grown up for the position, we can't do better than someone who has faced and defeated his own demons, and selflessly sacrificed in the cause of facing down one of the dragons of our times.
I highly recommend his interview on the Jordan Peterson podcast. If you can watch on the DailyWire website (behind a paywall) you can catch the final segment of it in which he goes into his personal history and what has motivated and shaped his life's work. It's worth watching to get a clear sense of who he is and what he's about.
Hi Leah, thanks so much for your thoughtful reply. I didn't know he was on the JP podcast! I will take a look. We all have our demons for sure but at least he's out in the open with so much, more than we can say for others. The only thing that concerns me is the notion of safer vaccines. I'm not sure how much we can trust pharma at this point. It's like when any big company gets caught putting nasty chemicals like benzene in sunscreen for instance, then they switched to "safer" titanium dioxide, which wasn't safe. Or BPA-free, which contains BPS instead, and is more toxic. I hope you get where I'm coming from on that?
I hear your concern and share it. I think it is a reason to vote for RFK—he is the only candidate who has, for the last two decades, been spending—sacrificing—his own political capital trying to hold Pharma to account and demand health and safety over profits. No candidate has shown the degree of courage and devotion to the cause not just of truth, but of holding accountable the most planet's most powerful corporate juggernaut. I share RFK's conviction that the deteriorating physical and mental health of our children is primarily attributable to the chemically toxic environment they are immersed in, ingesting, being injected with. I want him in the WH because I want someone at the top who really gets the predicament we're facing and has the track record of integrity and tenacity in the fight that will be required to withstand the pressure to sell out.
I like the fact that he interviewed Dane Wiggington about geoengineering - one of the biggest problems we face that not a single other politician even acknowledges (to my knowledge).
Indeed considering he’s been proven correct on many of his stances. He’s only controversial because he threatens MSM money spigots.
Sadly, as a supporter of much of what he says, he seems thoroughly captured by climate change grift -- even to the left of John Kerry and Al Gore because he means it and for them it is just a shtick. I am all for local, focused environmental moves -- they are often needed. But the "shut the world down for CO2" (that actually is almost always just a model failure) motif will lose RFK Jr a lot of voters who just do not want to change the covid grift for the climate grift which will be worse. Hope he sees the light. But it is more than just MSM money spigots. Some of us take all of the issues seriously.
I don't know where you are getting your impression of his views on climate, but he is explicitly against top-down solutions and the shut-the-world-down-to-save-the-planet strategy. I like him specifically because he is not a climate alarmist. His biggest concern is with pollution and has spent his career battling corporate polluters, but he is concerned (more than I am) about carbon emissions and believes the solution is to end carbon subsidies and let a FREE market (not a crony capitalist one like we currently have) pull us towards renewable energy.
I recommend watching his interview with Jordan Peterson; there's a segment in the middle where they really get into the climate, because they disagree on it.
Here's actually the link; I think it will start at the beginning of their climate convo (57:45):
https://odysee.com/@JordanBPeterson:c/rekindling-the-spirit-of-the-classic:0?t=3465
I have never been convinced that there is or will be such a thing as renewable energy, especially those that don't required use of rare minerals or huge plots of land that destroy the ecosystem and can't be renovated like they do around old coal mines. A Stanford study put out in 2008 or 9 said that solar panels take as must energy to make as they can give back in electricity and that the batteries required to store their energy also use massive amounts of raw materials, rare minerals and never last long enough to replace their costs. Electric vehicles have proven to be fire hazards. Dams and nuclear are the only clear choices. There are large swaths on land being used as windmill graveyards. Small solar panel are needed for residences that live in areas known for fires that only have a well for water in case their electricity shuts down. Biomass requires burning I understand so there is that. Natural gas would be my choice for cooking and heating if it ever can out my way. I used to have it in Oregon and loved it.
I'm more in your camp, but then the free market won't take us there. The point is he does not believe in government imposed solutions, he believes in letting the free market decide. That's huge in this age. I really encourage you to listen to the conversation I've queued above. I think you'd be surprised by what he says because his views are being misrepresented by the Left and Right and he has a pretty deep understanding of the environment and climate, and he's not an authoritarian. He has a very positive vision and he's against using fear as a motivator. That's also huge in this age.
It's been nothing but market solutions for 40 years. That's what neoliberalism is. It explains your perception that government is useless, because in the 80s and 90s they liberalised the economy, so now we're in our present situation with over powered private corporate interests and the crony politicians which are endorsed and paid by those powerful interests. Any politicians representing everyday people get smeared for their trouble.
We are all desperately putting our hope on some person. I try never to take someone else's opinion or word about what somebody else has said or not said. I've seen many RFK interviews. Tucker interviewed him during Covid. I signup to watch that interview, the only one of Tucker's I've watch. I watched the one with Dana Wigington (I been getting his emails for years), the one done one Epoch Times and another one and his speech at the capitol on vaccinations. What I heard him say - close the nasty coal plants now! This is regardless of the fact that at least 22% of our electricity would be gone forever with nothing replacing it. Obama already shut down many coal mines and coal power plants. The whole climate change is a ruse to get to the NOW.
In 2021 coal generated 22% of our electricity, nuclear about 19%, natural gas 39%, hydro 6.3%, solar 2.8%, wind 12%. Biden’s blocked natural gas extracts from gov land (as if there should be such a thing) and now China is making batteries in the US, Michigan I believe.
Can you post the a link to this Stanford Study. I do believe current Solar Panels are net positive for generation. But the lack of storage makes them difficult to accurately compared to Nuclear, NG, Hydro, and Oil. The storage problem has not been solved. The world won't be able to produce enough traditional batteries to effectively store a weeks worth of electrical demand. So until we find a storage mechanism that works at scale, it's nothing but hopes and wishes. Realistically solar and wind probably max out at about 20-30% of total usage, before your start to run into the "storage problem" So what we see now is claims of running 100% on solar for the first time. Then you read the details and find out it was for a single hour in the middle of the day. Most countries and states that are using lots of Solar are importing energy at night. That energy mostly comes from Fossil fuels, but they can avoid claiming fossil fuel usage. That doesn't work at scale, if all the states were relying on Solar, their wouldn't be another state to import from, or pay to take (When solar generation is too high) to make up the differences.
I spent a lot of time analyzing California's electric production, consumption, import and exports. Even after all the subsidies they're maxed out @ 20% solar generation per year. Yet can easily hit 80% in the middle of a summer day. However all night they are generating 0-10% for 8 hours straight, + 4 hours of 40% generation = 40% total. And that is in the summer. Longer nights in the winter eat away at that.
Because of the lack of the dispatch-able nature of so much of the solar generation, CASIO often has to pay other states to take solar generation from them in the middle of the day.
Finally Wind has a flat curve 24x7 but can have curves over longer periods of time. Both need storage mechanism, that currently would cost 4-10x that of the generation cost itself.
Because grid operators are not allowed to price reliable generation above the cost of non-reliable generation, its creates a market only for the low cost generators. (solar and wind) Meanwhile the NG/Oil generation costs increase because they are forced to run as supply on demand, making it much more expensive.
This makes it easy for headlines that say Solar generation costs less than NG generation. Implying there is no reason not to invest 100% in solar. If Solar was priced with enough storage to reliably power a grid 24x7 the generation cost would be much higher than NG/Nuclear/Oil.
This is why Renewable generation results in higher prices overall, even though renewable generation is less expensive per KWH when generated.
In closing 20-30% Max (Aggregate Per year) on Renewables before things hit the wall. From their costs explode and reliability gets worse.
At least until we prove out some type of storage systems. (Which I do believe is possible, but are easily 20 years from large scale deployment.)
Sorry no link. I read it so long ago and did not even think to see if it could be down loaded. I doubt Stanford kept public access to it when the big Obama drive with taxpayer funds was afoot. It would have been much worse than saying cost prohibitive without subsides.
BTW, great info in your post!
Human overpopulation is the root of all the environmental problems. Pretending that they aren’t serious problems is not helpful. Farmers here in Iowa see the difference! Islands in the ocean have had to be abandoned (through no fault of the people who were forced to leave their homes). Increased rates of droughts, floods, and wildfires are real, as were predicted y the climate models.
Relentless age-old hyperbole.
Population and the American Future
The Report of The Commission on Population Growth and the American Future
One of the most serious challenges to human destiny in the last third of this century will be the growth of the population. Whether man’s response to that challenge will be a cause for pride or for despair in the year 2000 will depend very much on what we do today. If we now begin our work in an appropriate manner, and if we continue to devote a considerable amount of attention and energy to this problem, then mankind will be able to surmount this challenge as it has surmounted so many during the long march of civilization.
Richard Nixon
July 18, 1969
How many ways can they nudge, regulate, control the population. Many have offered suggestions and most, ultimately, have been acted upon. They have been very successful.
Recommendations to Bernard Berelson (President, Population Council) found in “Activities Relevant to the Study of Population Policy for the U.S.” March 11, 1969 by Frederick S. Jaffe (at the time Executive Director of Planned Parenthood’s Center for Family Planning Program Development). Note that Gates Sr. was a board member of Planned Parenthood for years and even funded its Seattle facility decades ago.
Here is just one subset of ideas:
Table 1. Proposed measures to Reduce U.S. Fertility, by Universality or Selectivity of Impact in the U.S.
Universal Impact
Social Constraints
RESTRUCTURE FAMILY:
a) Postpone or avoid marriage
b) Alter image of ideal family size
Compulsory education of children
Encourage Increased homosexuality
Educate for family limitation
Fertility control agents in water supply
Encourage women to work
There is much more. They were very serious. There was a national crisis on the horizon (hardly) and the unscrupulous UN was pushing such nonsense just like it is pushing climate change.
There’s a lot to unpack with his candidacy. And there is virtually no one in the “alternative” camp that can poll even close to him.
All one has to do is drive through Desert Palm CA to see that wind farming is a losing proposition. Routinely, there are 20-30% plus of the turbines in non-working order. And the cost to fix/replace is questionable when measured against overall carbon cost. Similarly with solar, it takes 30-32 high grade panels in ARIZONA, to power an average 2400 sq ft house. Battery storage will change the narrative at some point, but how do you reconcile the carbon cost again when measuring both the manufacturing of the solar panel itself, AND the batteries. It’s truly an inconvenient truth that the rare element cost is completely prohibitive.
Ultimately, clean energy will have to be truly clean, which means probably cold fusion. And further still, there are $30 trillion in known “old energy” assets still in the ground. And these assets are owned, mostly by the existing oil companies. These assets will not be written down (to off) easily.
I thought Musks endorsement of nuclear power to RFK might move his needle. How he sees nuclear history as catastrophic on the evidence of 4-5 early disasters is weird. The Japanese event was caused by a sanami. Don’t build in vulnerable locations. The waste issue has been put to bed by the French and Swedes. Feelings are trumping facts. I like most of his positions but that one is a deal killer
What is the current strategy toward managing the waste? Just curious.
Agreed. I haven’t heard or read his stances on AGW, but if he’s as rational as he’s been on other issues, and he happens to view it as the crisis it’s purported to be, surely his approach is nuclear, right?
I mean, at least society could keep reliable energy that way.
I don't know where he stands on it today, but in the past RFK Jr has been vehemently against nuclear as a clean energy source. The only thing that concerns me about him as a candidate.
Anti-nuclear is huge drawback for me. (Not as big an issue as full blown dementia and wild international corruption that may lead to WWIII, though… )
He was interviewed by Dane Wiggington of Geoengineeringwatch.com...
He is against nuclear, of course, as he should be.
"...as he should be".
Do tell.
His approach is using the free market. And not using fear to manipulate.
Maybe it’s time for someone to send him Michael Schellenberger’s book Apocalypse Never...it will be good to have RFK Jr in the mix!
"who just do not want to change the covid grift for the climate grift which will be worse"..will be worse in what context..capitalism or
potential death rate? Need some serious money to break loose for a study of disinformation to get the right answer.
The TV and Cable channels get most of its revenue from BigPharma commercials. They would die a slow death otherwise. RFK might twerk the system.
All of those things, and more! I've never had a political candidate speak so clearly about the issues I hold dear; not even Wellstone when I was a first-time voter, or even Tulsi Gabbard.
I love him and am volunteering for his campaign. Do I own a t-shirt as well? Yes, yes I do.
Because he's fringe. Forget all the vaccine stuff, but go read any of the stuff he was saying just a few years ago about climate change deniers.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/flashback-robert-f-kennedy-jr-once-called-for-koch-industries-and-exxonmobil-to-be-put-to-corporate-death
He also was the leader of the bogus conspiracy theory that the 2004 election results in Ohio were fixed with Diebold voting machines. Same crap as what was said about Dominion last election.
I'd still vote for him over Biden though, lol.
How about a candidate that is not pro war? In an imperial empire that feasts on war, sanctions, coups, false flags and surveillance, he may appear fringe to some. If you define fringe as not mainstream, it's because his voice is not invited or welcome on MSM, along with any other person who has a dissenting opinion.
One of those candidates was elected in 2016. One could have been elected in 2008 and 2012 - Ron Paul.
I believe it is a fringe position to claim that those who are skeptical of climate change should be executed, yes.
Thats not what he said. He was speaking of specifically people like the Koch brothers and said the should be in jail.
He has since modified his position and recognizes the climate crisis as being, at least in part, a scam.
I also think he is more malleable to new information than other candidates have shown.
Lets just keep the facts straight.
Could you share a link where he's modified his opinion on the issue? Thank you!
Watch his interviews with Kim Iversen and Jordan Peterson—he addresses his climate views in both.
https://rumble.com/v2kgm3o-the-establishment-wants-these-men-silenced.-rfk-jr-explains-how-he-plans-to.html
https://odysee.com/@JordanBPeterson:c/rekindling-the-spirit-of-the-classic:0
I haven't watched this one (just found it), but I trust Kim Iversen to treat the topic fairly, so I'll drop it here, too, as it directly addresses the topic of his past statements: [EDIT: Nevermind—watched it and it was Kim interviewing someone else in which they discussed the interviewee's opinion on RFK; it's not a real examination of his past statements.]
https://rumble.com/v2r9qiy-new-research-claims-all-vaccines-are-unsafe-dissecting-rfk-jrs-past-authori.html
💥
Dominion Voting System Corp., was founded in Canada in 2002-2003 with an openly progressive mission – to develop electronic voting software which would not just process ballots, but also “mobilize voters” – a popular slogan of the Left.
It is not clear what products or services the company has developed. It found almost no buyers, until Obama was elected in 2008. In 2009, New York ordered a few dozens of systems from it. In 2010, Obama’s DOJ (Holder – Mueller) took the EVS unit, purchased from Diebold, away from the market leader ES&S, and gave it to Dominion. This gift included the installed base of about 30% of the US electronic voting systems (EVS) market. Within two weeks, Dominion also acquired Sequoia, which was formally spun from Smartmatic, but ties between these two companies remained. Smartmatic is a UK based EVS vendor, whose software was used by Chavez to “win” the Venezuelan referendum in 2004. Smartmatic’s unit Sequoia faced troubles in the US. Those troubles quickly ended when its assets were purchased by Dominion.
Thus, the new Democratic party created a pocket pet corporation, gave it the lion share of the US electronic voting systems market. Dominion is ideologically aligned with the Democratic Party, owes it everything it has, dependent on it for most of its business, and needs it in power to avoid prosecution for corruption. Sounds like a conflict of interest.
Much more here with references: https://iowaclimate.org/2020/11/10/shocking-history-of-dominion-vot...
That is just the highlights. For a thorough understand read the entire article.
Thanks for this, Shelley--very interesting, and important.
Hey, the joke's on us--they are called "Dominion." As in, dominate.
Dominion keeps the ones that can't get elected on their records in charge leaving the US as their dominion.
The original post was questioning why RFK Jr. is "controversial." I said it's because he holds fringe positions.
You are free to believe whatever you want about Dominion, but the claim that the election was stolen is certainly controversial and fringe. This is a descriptive point, not a normative one.
Is something determined to be fringe because it is controversial? Or is it fringe because only certain people think it?
What happened to your "bogus conspiracy theory"? The article mentioned your pointing to Diebold. It includes the entire history of voting machines.
Controversial - yes. Fringe - not by a long shot. Tens of millions of people believe the 2020 election results are severely tainted. By definition, that is not fringe.
I guess we need to know how you define "fringe".
If you think our electronic voting systems are secure, you need to think again.
See my reply to Gil.
I’m open to reviewing any election after 2020
I want to believe a significant segment of the population will understand his political stances. I'm highly skeptical that they won't. Okay I'm certain of it. Why?
The Twitter Files are proof that a significant portion of our country experiences a total blackout. I've written this message previously. I live in the most blue (and perhaps wealthiest) counties in the country. Marin (bordering on SF). This weekend I was at a dinner party with six good friends. In the group there are 3 successful attorneys, an MD (Head of Nutrition for a top 10 HMO) and a couple highly successful business leaders. They are all democrats. They are all "willing" to listen to other viewpoints. They are not vitriolic - if that makes sense? I mentioned that I was somewhat unhealthily obsessed by the Twitter Files. All six asked the same questions "what are the Twitter Files"? All were 100% oblivious. Their primary new sources are The NY Times, SF Chron, The Marin IJ (our local publication), and NBC/ABC/CBS nightly news. Some watch Bill Maher. They've never heard of the Twitter Files? They were split 50/50 on liking Elon Musk or thinking he's a right wing tool.
My point? When I said I'm thinking of vote Dem (ish) and RFK Jr. most didn't know he was running. A couple thought he was controversial...."the vax or something?". Six months from now, if Bobby is still hanging at 20% (or more) I predict he will have been successfully tarnished as that "wacko anti-vax guy who's basically a Trump surrogate". These are people who have the ability - and virtues - to absorb Bobby's political views, but I'm nearly willing to guarantee they'll never hear them, because the media they follow will have successfully portrayed Bobby as a whacko, non-entity.
It's sad.
That is exactly why the bulk of society complaining about the lockdowns, masks, and gene jabs where not those people but those already cautious or outright dubious of our government and media. They know who everyone is and what they are up to. I'm one of them.
This sounds familiar. Some people are so busy being "successful" that they are forced to rely on fast food news sources and are oblivious of (and often dismissive of) many important people/stories.
I am a registered Republican but I am in the process of changing to independent. RFK Jr in the general election has my vote for sure.
It's going to get increasingly frustrating to read hit pieces on him over his evidence based opposition to vaccines. He's well researched and the truth is on his side. Already reading hit pieces on him about his anti-vaccine stance, which is highly merited. It's not popular to go against the norms, but that doesn't make it incorrect. You would think after the past 3 years and how many people have died suddenly and so many injured that we are not allowed to speak about, people would be clamoring for more on this topic. I believe that more people are vaccine skeptical now and open to the idea that things need to change. But most are too afraid to speak up.
The article that Taibbi referenced that RFK JR message was "largely incoherent". Really? I don't know how anyone could say that. His message is about straight forward and concise as possible. Then went on to say that he won't be anything more than a gnat to Biden.
I think these hit pieces tell us what they want us to believe/think and not what is actually true. If the democrats don't allow for debates in the primaries than you should assume they are going to steal it again.
They select presidents now. Don't you know.
The hit pieces have been going on for some decades. When the party heads pick their candidate other are either ignored, laughed at, dispensed with or all three. We would be a different country today if Ron Paul overcame this rigging in 2008 or 2012.
RON PAUL 2024!!!!!!!!
His vaccine stance should be more nuanced. The serious adverse effects data aren't yet in on the Covid mRNA vaccines, but many countries have stopped vaccinating those under 50 years old. Israel claims they had no Covid deaths in healthy 50 year olds or younger.
The MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccines have (deservedly) a bad rap. Since the vaccines were introduced in 1963, measles which killed about 2.6 million per year (if you believe the WHO), now only kill about 200,000 or so, a major success. At one time 1 in 5 African children died from measles.
VAERS, originally set up to track vaccine injuries, has reported about 300-500 US deaths from the MMR vaccine over the last 30 years or so, out of >100 million vaccinated children. Another great success. However, in the US measles had a low fatality rate (about 1 in 500,000; measles was "accepted as a childhood disease that all children caught and then had lifelong immunity). While it seemed strange before Covid, doctors pushed the vaccines, and many likely refused to report measles/ MMR vaccine deaths. An FDA official personally told me that VAERS under-reports serious adverse effects by 90 to 99%. So 300-5000 MMR vaccine deaths could be as high as 30,000 to 50,000 if the vast majority were not reported. Moreover, with an IFR of only 1 in 500,000, even if 100 million US kids were exposed rather than vaccinated that would be only about 200 deaths from measles. And of course the CDC declared measles eradicated in 2000, and children have died from the vaccine since then. However there have been outbreaks from travelers and immigrants, mostly affected those who have never been exposed or vaccinated.
Possibly measles can return as a more deadly virus (part of the low fatality rate in the US was due to being endemic in the US, with both previously infected and vaccinated people supplying herd immunity).
This is an oversimplification. For certain the MMR vaccine is "good enough" globally, and the benefit outweighs the risk. Not so clear for measles in the US.
We can always improve vaccines and "good enough" depends on the situation.
Vaccines are not needed. You are regurgitating years old propaganda. Everything you've wrote has been disputed and proven false. Watch Candace Owen's Shot in The Dark series. If the info comes from any mainstream source and that includes all their paid for think tanks and research arms it's corrupted. They own all the journals and all the scientists. They can literally make up anything and have it backed by thousands of experts. Even though it causes illness and death. People still eat it, drink it, and inject it. Crazy people are possessed by Satan or something.
While I agree with you that most vaccines are over- utilized/ advocated by the government and medical Establishment (the Covid vaccine mandate was insane!), there are some situations where certain vaccines are very helpful to some populations. (For the US in 1960, measles was an endemic childhood disease, killing 1 in 500,000 infected, an IFR of only 0.005%; in Africa, 1 in 5 infected children under age 6 died, an IFR of 20%! Scientifically, the obvious question is: why such a difference? Clearly the African children benefitted from the measles vaccine, the US did not need it. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6410476/)
Initially I thought the Covid mRNA vaccines would be beneficial to the most vulnerable (the Elderly and Seriously Ill), now I am skeptical. After a successful universal vaccination program in Iceland, their chief epidemiologist committed heresy and was forced to present his views in a backwater: riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/modern-day-censorship/herd-immunity-must-be-achieved-by-transmission-of-the-virus-says-icelands-epidemiologist/ After the mRNA vaccinations, Covid deaths in Iceland increased 7-fold.
The CDC admits there were more US Covid deaths after the mRNA vaccines than before : 385,676 in 2020, 463,266 in 2021, and 245,946 in 2022. An effective vaccine decreases deaths. That didn't happen until Omicron (known to many scientists as the milder "Jesus virus") strain saved us. Natural infection immunity even before Omicron likely saved many more than the mRNA vaccines. The uptake of the vaccines by those over age 65 was excellent from the start of the vaccine campaign (although doses were initially limited and jumping of the queue by low-risk individuals lowered the supply).
The top down mismanagement of Covid and the secrecy of those in control of the data (particularly the adverse effect data) seems to be the model that the WHO wants to build on. The US did not follow the WHO's masking advice for kids nor their dismissal of remdesivir. The WHO was wrong about glucocorticoids which would have saved many early on.
Candace Owens may be correct, but i don't follow political activists (I have enough angst in my life from science.) The Covid scientific literature, while heavily censured, is often enlightening, particularly pre-prints from Qatar and Israel and other foreign countries (strangely not so much from the US?) There are several YouTube channels that focus on explaining scientific papers. None are perfect, but most do a decent job. I particularly liked Prof. Norman Fenton's explanation of why the "epidemic of the unvaccinated" was fake, which never would have occurred to me.
Candace Owens being a new mom and faced with the question whether to vaccinate her babies decided to look into each vaccine on the childhood schedule, dug in deep and she was shocked to find out that none were needed. (Seriously what new born baby needs a HepB vaccine. Unless the mother was a prostitute or crack addict) She even schooled Robert Malone on a few. She turned into a series to help other new moms navigate the schedule. Lots of babies saved from harm due to her efforts. I applaud her for her efforts to help others. More should do that.
My concern is two-fold. First it looks like the WHO will be advocating for all sorts of vaccines, needed or not. Different populations are exposed to different diseases and there's no point in vaccinations unless needed. Each nation should control its own public health (most did much better than the US with Covid). The WHO should remain, like the CDC, as an advisory body only.
Second, all vaccines should be voluntary. Recommendations are fine, but mandates from schools and particularly the Government are counterproductive (unvaccinated who survived Covid pre-vaccine have much better immunity than the mRNA vaccinated. There are very few Covid-naive people left.)
The US did away with the tuberculosis vaccine (BCG) as a school "requirement" in 2012(?) In special cases, traveling frequently to TB countries or interacting with relatives who may have TB, the vaccine is advised. Some countries REQUIRE certain vaccines for entry. Veterinarians get rabies vaccinations since they know they'll die or require worse treatments if bitten by a rabid animal, but it's not required. The US was probably in better shape in 1960 with measles pre-vaccine than we are today.
Here is a mom-based overview of the vaccine schedule:
Making A Decision About Vaccines : Part 1- Risks, Benefits, and Responsibility
https://www.anticancermom.com/vaccine-choice/
Well, due to his speech problem he can be very difficult to understand.
Biden and Harris both have speech problems
I understand that, but that is not what I gathered the author meant.
I know...they don't have a sarcasm font...
Controversial candidates are our only hope.
“Controversial” means “he won’t lie to America.”
Hat tip J.H. Kunstler for that one.
From Kunstler.com
“The Democratic Party in all its florid and mendacious lunacy is pretending to not notice him, especially their praetorian news media that is the vector for America’s mass mental illness. Mr. Kennedy put it so simply in April when he announced a run to preside over the stupendous mess that is our government. He said his mission is an experiment to see what happens when you tell Americans the truth. Hold that thought. How long has it been since you thought anything like that was possible?”
Thank you -- I was also surprised about “controversial” comment.
One never hears corrupt, criminal or banditry description for Biden, St. Obama or Hillary and Bill Clinton...
I believe the controversial tag comes from his recent work challenging the vaccine mandates and specifically taking aim at Anthony Fauci in a book he released in 2021. I suspect this is precisely the angle the mainstream media will take in order to hamstring him, especially if his bipartisan popularity continues to grow.
He has been a major voice in the anti vaccination movement and not just Covid but polio measles etc. that is the main controversy that I know he has been associated with, In addition, to the fact that he is convinced the CIA killed his father, and of course this quote “Do I think the Koch brothers are treasonous? Yes, I do.” He added, “I think they should be enjoying three hots and a cot at The Hague with all the other war criminals.”
So frame it then.
Is he wrong?
No.
Look the word up.
He’s victim blaming the Palestinians so if that’s refreshing and honest to you maybe but this dude is rat piss
Maybe bc he had been largely ignored initially?
RFK Jr. is a breath of fresh air. I have never agreed with any candidate on all issues and he is no exception; however, he's the first one to inspire me to finally get US citizenship so I can vote. If he can't win, I want him to at least put a good scare into the DNC.
I wish the DNC could be scared. As long as they can point to the Republican crazes, they'll think they're safe.
He's only controversial because the Overton window has been pushed so far out of whack. Everything, EVERYTHING he says sounds perfectly reasonable to me. But then I have had to accept that the world is a far nastier place right now than most people realize.
Yes, yes--exactly! It's an old-school Kennedy Democrat and doesn't even really diverge from many of the main talking points of the Old Left. But since a portion of the "left" has gone mad and mad with corporate greed as well, he is a total outsider now. It's really sad.
These days Dwight Eisenhower would be considered a radical leftist.
Ike would be condemned as a tool of Putin.
My 80 year old mother, a die-hard Democrat, believes he is a kook and conspiracy theorist despite never having listened to him. That is the message she is getting from mainstream news and her democrat youtube channels. She also reads and listens to every anti-Trump source. She completely believes he is stupid, illiterate and a racist.....this what we are up against.
Wow. Disheartening. I have relatives like this also. MSM is pure propaganda. Talk about gardening, recipes and travel with these people. They are not going to entertain another perspective.
Never underestimate the loyalty of the zombie dwarfs.
Except there are many Democrats whose experience of our Covid-induced dystopia woke them up to the Uniparty game that is delivering our freedom and economy to the globalists. And more people are waking up every day.
I was completely redpilled by Covid. Not in the sense that I became a Republican, more in the sense that I see ALL monolithic state institutions as inherently corrupt and possibly not having the best interest of anyone but the elites in mind.
S Smith, to be "red-pilled" is not necessarily to become a Republican--it just means that the scales have fallen from your eyes, and mind, and that you no longer lap up the BS narratives you had believed in so fervently for decades. From that point, many political destinations are possible. RFK is one of them.
Yeah, that's exactly what happened to me. After what happened during Covid, I can't say that I will ever see gov't or people the same way again. Within an instant family members and whole communities turned against the skeptics. We became enemy #1--even those of us with the most robust progressive bona-fides. We were the g'ma killers and the racists, because we even dared to question the narrative. It was such an alienating experience for me.
It is also apparent to me that we are in a feudal system in the U.S. where we actually work for these bloated gov't entities, which also prop up giant corporations--they do not work for us. This goes across the board, both parties, and deep into even professional sports, the entertainment industry, but most especially the medical and military industrial complexes. What's remarkable is the the left, the legit and not synthetic left, used to rail against all of these things. That was why I initially was "left."
Well said! Accountability is the hallmark of a functioning democratic republic and a functioning free market. We no longer see either, which is a big clue we've lost both, or are very close to that tipping point.
Well said, S Smith!
It absolutely amazes me that the political leaders didn’t rally the people to join together to combat the common coronavirus enemy! Trump’s lies about it (admitted by Trump to Bob Woodward, preserved on tape) split the nation even further, allowing the virus to spread and mutate. The disrespect for virologists and immunologists is disheartening. About half the babies born didn’t live to be adults before a vaccines.
Not fast enough.
My Dad, who is 78 and also, now a diehard Dem, said the exact same thing to me on Saturday: "He's a lunatic." People just don't even look into things anymore. . . .
The 70 years of TV and then cable plus the bought-off media and we know what we are supposed to think. I was never a TV watcher and did not even have one between 1986 and 2009. Ditched it about a year ago. No newspapers either. My two sons kept me abreast of things from their perspective. That has been invaluable in seeing reality.
I cut the cable cord a few decades ago, had withdrawal symptoms for a month or two that were ameliorated by a nice Cabernet, and never looked back. That said, we need to end the censorship of the net.
(I love to hear all the opinions expressed in the comments...really gives hope!)
It is a taste of freedom that probably goes well with Cabernet. In my case it's Dr. Pepper.
The comments also show how formidable the enemy is mind control.
I have never owned a television. It became impossible to completely avoid. There was a television in the locker room of my health club, in the bank, in the doctor's waiting room, and even on the pumps at the gas station. I got out of the USA in 2018.
Pervasive for a reason. And CNN live at the airports! Did you know that in the early days of TV England required all of its citizens to own a TV. If you did not get one, it provided you with one and collected money from you every month.
!
No undue criticism of your mother particularly, but, anyone who is still a “die hard democrat” has surrendered any original thought - it’s simply a disqualification for staying attached to the party. They’re simply repeaters, like Wi-Fi repeaters. They ravenously receive the message, and rabidly spread it forward without any consideration as to logic, veracity, common sense, etc.
My 80-year-old Mom is of the exact same ilk. Are we unknown siblings, you and I? :) You have my deepest sympathies.....
I have these types of people in my life as well. Its a nice idea to collaborate to come up with some good responses to these folks. Ask them exactly what it is about his platform that makes him a kook, maybe. When they parrot the MSNBC talking points, clarify his position. It may not be effective but can't hurt, right?
I'm so excited for his candidacy. Got a bumper sticker. Everything appears to be that he's the real deal. If it turns out he's not, which is possible, at minimum, he's going to shake up the orthodoxy -- if the MSM ever recognizes him -- and that's a good thing.
Me too, man. I've got a t-shirt! It's really nice.
Even Bernie didn't inspire me like this, and I've ended up realizing that Bernie was pretty much just establishment, in the end.
I used to like Bernie, too. In 2016, I canvassed, in 2020 I contributed near the maximum until billionaire Lloyd Blankfein decided enough is enough & Bernie was out. Good ol’ Lloyd. I think Bernie’s victories were all to advance socialism - and while the people’s well-being were not his primary motive they would be well served. Now Bernie drinks the Biden koolaid with abandon. Authoritarianism plus socialism is communism. RFK Jr will not sell out.
I was much like you. I have no respect for Bernie, now.
I'm not sure if the Biden Dems more resemble a sort of weird fascism-lite, or if they seem more Maoist-comic-opera to me. It's all bound up with corporate America as well--it's a socialist/corporate hybrid, where all the regulatory agencies are bought and sold on a dime, that is immensely unpalatable.
"RFK Jr will not sell out. "
I'd be a lot more convinced if he ran as an Indy instead of a Dem. Granted, Bernie is still nominally an Indy. But he ran as a Dem. If RFK ran as an Indy, he'd show that he plans to be in the race until November. If he loses the primary, he's out for the count.
West, just by running as third party, is showing more comittment. Apparently he learned from Bernie's fuckup (both times).
I had a similar thought, but realized as a “Kennedy” he has to run as a democrat. And, it’s where he has all name recognition.
But he’s running as a libertarian and conservative on so many litmus test issues.
What if….if he makes the Dem primary a horse race and loses. That he runs as a 3rd party in the general - he calls it a movement!
Yeah, Bobbie J. is definitely running more in the "classical liberal" vein than Bernie was, for sure. But the goalposts have all changed so much.
Which was my thought too. However, it's a lot harder to get on the November ballots that late in the game. Or even to become eligible as a write in.
Thrilled to hear RFK Jr. interviewed you, and I'm looking forward to the other-way-around installation!
RFK is the most exciting, revolutionary and authentic thing to happen in US politics in my 44 years of life. Please cover him more.
Yes!! Agree 100%. The Establishment is scared shitless. Pray he stays out of the crosshairs. He's brave after what they did to his dad and uncle and that is not a conspiracy theory. Anytime someone takes them on, especially pharma something happens.
I would love to see Lex Fridman interview RFK Jr. Kindred spirits, though I imagine Lex doesn't know it yet. Anybody know how to put a bug in his ear?
And I'd love to see Lex interview Matt Taibbi as well.
We need to have a conversation about what is considered “controversial” by mainstream media/politicos, and why. When I was a teenager, my favorite topics were UFOs, psychedelics, spirituality/metaphysics, and conspiracies. Fast forward 30 years and these long-derided topics are all being hauled out of the shame basement and reconsidered. My message from this is: be careful what you label “kooky” -- it might come back to ontologically slap you in the face one day.
RFK is a humble truth teller in a miasmic cesspool of psychopathic liars and gaslighters. His candidacy is a paradigm shift not just for US politics but for “establishment” dogmatism writ large. A growing multitude of people know we have been systematically deceived and exploited by elites for three generations at least. He is the honest and authentic foil to Trump’s narcissistic opportunism, but they are channeling resonant energies in the public consciousness.
The only real controversy left worth denouncing is the pervasive psyop of a global elite establishment class who relentlessly lie, conspire, divide, and destroy.
Wow--those last two paragraphs are fire!! (as my kids would say). Can’t ❤️ them enough--perfectly stated. 💯
We are not afraid of differing opinions here at the Racket! 😁 looking forward to Real News!
I didn't think it was possible to be excited about a politician anymore (seems to always come down to choosing the least-bad option). Listening to RFK, Jr speak to Musk et al on Twitter spaces last week was riveting. His historical and political domain knowledge is vast, and he wields this knowledge with intelligence and mastery. His perspicacity, honesty, and fearlessness are so refreshing. Anyone who really gives him a fair hearing will know his opinions are well supported by evidence, and when more data is needed, he acknowledges that and calls for studies (e.g. his proposal to run a proper study evaluating the potential relationship between psychiatric drugs and violence, as suicidal and homicidal ideation are known side effects of these drugs [read the inserts]). He is fully committed to the Constitution and protecting civil liberties, which is what this jaded ex-Democrat needs to hear. This doesn't mean I agree on everything, but that's a good thing. I would never expect to, with any politician (or friend or spouse, for that matter!) But I agree with his principles, broadly speaking.
The thing is, though, he is just too threatening to establishment power and establishment interests (on so many levels!). This is why they need to paint him as so beyond the pale (kook/conspiracy theorist) that no one will bother to even listen to him speak. If his candidacy really gains steam, I fear for his safety. I don't want him following in his father's and uncle's footsteps.
Your comment about his safety...💯
Yes. Hope they don't kill him.
Huey Long the second ??u
Biden is the controversial candidate. RFK, while not my guy, is a solid pick for the Dems. Hopefully he isn't beat down by the machine like Bernie the last couple cycles. I'd love to see the rise of third party candidates and not the uniparty supported stiffs.
I say this on every substack I read, so pardon me if it’s repetitive. But as a parent of special needs kids (as in, pharma injured), I and innumerable others know that if you care about kids and want to save the next generation (assuming there is one), we need RFK. He knows that the kids aren’t ok, and not just from a social perspective - from a biological and physiological perspective. I’ve never voted democrat before, but I would this time. Without hesitation.
Kennedy has courage and intelligence—already puts him ahead of the pack.
Fear and loathing on the campaign trail 2024, looking forward!
Looking forward to your return to the campaign trail, which is shaping up to be a truly weird one!
(I should also state that I appreciate when you share your media appearances with the subscribers here.)
Looking forward to your interview with RFK later on the trail. And to Greenwald's interview with him on his show tonight. Glenn looks like he has some genuinely hardball questions in store.
The Dems look like they're getting kind of desperate.
There was NYT's higher profile piece on RFK's wife, which was just so lazy, but not as lazy and embarassing as this earlier piece, which disappeared pretty quickly, with no comments.
Robert Kennedy Jr., With Musk, Pushes Right-Wing Ideas and Misinformation
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/05/us/politics/robert-f-kennedy-jr-twitter-2024.html
Then this piece on Cornel West from Politico - (I'm assuming / hoping West is a Friend of Racket as he was a Friend of Show on UI, looking forward to that interview too.)
Why some Dems fear Cornel West presents a unique challenge for Joe Biden
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/10/cornel-west-against-joe-biden-00101246
Jeebus, Politico. Jeebus, Ro. I used to like Ro Khanna, but he's officially been absorbed into the blob now.
But at least i have people to vote for now. RFK in the primaries, West as 3rd party (or write in if they manage to keep him off the ballot) in November.
Money quotes from those pieces -
From the NYT piece on RFK -
"Asked during the discussion by David Sacks, a top DeSantis donor who is also close to Mr. Musk, “what happened to the Democratic Party,” Mr. Kennedy spent nine uninterrupted minutes attacking Mr. Biden as a warmonger and claimed that their party was under the control of the pharmaceutical industry.
“I think the Democratic Party became the party of war,” Mr. Kennedy said. “I attribute that directly to President Biden.” He added, “He has always been in favor of very bellicose, pugnacious and aggressive foreign policy, and he believes that violence is a legitimate political tool for achieving America’s objectives abroad.”"
Exactly what is incorrect about this?
From the second Politico piece on West -
"He (Khanna) went on to stress that he believed the West bid could “ultimately help” President Joe Biden, whom Khanna is supporting. He added that it is his job to help persuade liberal voters to back Biden."
Gfl with that. If he's running 3rd party, you have no say whatsoever as to what his "job" is.
Biden, led the party to war? Include nation building and toppling.
D Wilson WWI
D FDR WWII
D Truman / UN S. Korea
D Kennedy: Cuba, Vietnam
D Johnson: Dominican Republic, Vietnam
R Nixon: Vietnam, Cambodia, Loas - holder from Johnson
R Reagan: Grenada, Nicaragua
R Bush41: Panama and Desert Storm - not wars
D Clinton: Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, Serbia,
R Bush: Afghanistan, Iraq
D Obama: Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya
R Trump,
D Biden, Ukraine
The liberal-left has gone back to their old, familiar position, which is absolutely loving war. The Rs aren't much better--in the 20th century--but it was always the party where the more isolationist tendencies resided. Both parties are the parties of war--and the fact the even the progressive-left has become incredibly war-like has caused me no end of heartache.
Putin has turned Russia into a fascist state, taking over the media, ruling Russia as a despot, murdering and jailing the opposition, and seizing territory. Crimea was his Sudetenland, and thus encouraged he's now attempting to seize all of the Ukraine. We have the same responsibility to protect the Ukraine democracy as we did Great Britain in 1939.
Ok, buddy, whatever you say.
Such ahistorical nonsense. I hope you are draftable age. Let me know how it's going when you eventually get drafted into this European border war, fighting in a autumn quagmire that will make the 3rd Battle of Ypres feel like Candyland and your face melts off after getting hit by a tactical nuke. War isn't like your precious video games.
I'm a Vietnam war veteran. I do know about war.
You forgot Syria, and maybe Clinton's strike on Sudan.
It is my opinion that arming of Ukraine under Trump led directly to the war. Though he at least tried to make peace in some other areas.
I pondered Syria but thought it more a NATO thing. The arms T gave Ukraine were defense missiles and in hindsight a mistake because it meant we agreed they were being invaded when they weren't. Ukraine was fighting against its Donbas region where the Russian speaking people lived.
I guess it depends on whether you find NATO to be essentially an arm of the US :)
First the UN directs global affairs (the financial founding families always direct when and where there will be skirmishes and wars). Then with the birth of NATO it is not quite so clear, but its existence is tied to the UN. When Samantha Powers was nominated by O to be the US ambassador to the UN she was supported by McCain and Graham. She thinks the US should be everywhere fighting everything. She wanted Libya taken down, Syria taken down all of them. She wanted more power and under Biden she is the Head of USAID. Tax payer $$$$ flow steadily to undermine numerous countries readying them ‘spontaneous’ revolutions, head topplings, human rights are LGBT right, and military interventions. It even pays its NGO to move migrants to the US border for illegal entry.
Ukraine was set up by Dept of State starting in 2014. It removed the existing officials and installed their own with much assistance from Soros.
>You forgot Syria, and maybe Clinton's strike on Sudan.
...not to mention all the color revolutions, starting at least as far back as Iran in the early 1950s. Don't know who gets "credit" for that, Eisenhower or Truman.
>arming of Ukraine under Trump
Heartily agree that the arming of Ukraine was dumb, politically motivated, and a huge factor in starting the Ukraine war.
But goading Russia until it attacked was certainly the long-term plan of many powerful neocons of the perservering deep state, including the Sullivan-Blinken-Nuland constellation currently in charge of our country's outward posture to the world (yikes). Many of those nutjobs wanted and continue to want this war, viewing the loss of human life as a simple accounting problem.
Glenn Beck did a well-documented program on this in 2019 he called the Hydra. Glenn Beck Presents: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si-vMj-FB88 and provided access to his receipts: https://www.glennbeck.com/research/the-documents-for-the-democrats-hydra
The Dept of State has been the instigator in every undertaking since post Wilson using its benevolent facade to provoke change as needed by the financial founding fathers. It is easier to do when the Pres is a D.