The RFK Jr. Question

Is his candidacy worth investing any hope in this age of hopelessness? And what does it say about our times that some seem to be doing exactly that?

55 years ago as a pre-teenager I followed a presidential election for the first time, including in some sense placing my hopes for the nation’s future in a singular person, and that person was Sen. Robert F. Kennedy. My father, who spent his career in government and politics, was supporting Eugene McCarthy, the darling of the intellectual left who was challenging the sitting president from his own party over the war in Vietnam. But once LBJ dropped out and RFK jumped in, I had to break with my father on who should lead the country at that difficult time. I remember staying up and watching as the returns came in and RFK defeated McCarthy in the critical California primary, almost assuring that he would be the principal challenger to Vice President Humphrey at the convention, going to bed, and then being awakened by my father to tell me that RFK had been shot. It was so much like four and a half years earlier, when while sitting in my second-grade classroom we were told that JFK had been shot and killed.

Presidents and presidential elections back then seemed to really matter - it seemed like the world changed when JFK was replaced by LBJ (it did), like hope faded further when he was replaced by Nixon in ‘68 and then hope was crushed when Nixon crushed McGovern (I wasn’t particularly a fan of the candidate but supported the candidacy generally; my view of it has been redefined since then), then after Watergate an odd reprieve under Carter (who I voted against in the primary, a pattern I would repeat regarding nominees for the next 24 years) and then the long dark of Reagan-Bush. Then the world changed in another way, and a way which I wouldn’t really understand for more than two more decades.

For the next 24 years the White House would flip on schedule between the two parties (even if that had to be imposed by the Supreme Court), but it didn’t really seem to make much difference. And then in 2016 I did something I’d never done before, I voted for a Republican, and because I was appalled by the nominee of what had been my party, as loose as that affiliation had been most of the time. In 2020 I did something else I had never done before, not voting at all, after voting for the one candidate worth considering in the primary, Tulsi Gabbard, I think my first primary vote since 2008 (when I voted against the same unnamed person I voted against in the 2016 election).

So now we’re already talking about 2024, and over the last couple weeks the most intriguing candidate (at least to me) in the race has announced that candidacy, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. But the boy who was thrilled when RFK Jr.’s father announced his run in 1968 is long gone, and the world has changed dramatically over those 55 years. Senior seemed like the man for his time, but what does Junior say about our time?

I only have a few data points on the guy, who I’ve been aware of for decades but just as another bit player in the sad Kennedy story since the 1960s. The data points considered here are his announcement speech, what two alternative/independent media people apparently pushing his candidacy, the progressive-to-neoBircher shapeshifter Kim Iversen and alt-leftish Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal, have said related to this, and, perhaps most importantly… The Book.

The Book of course is The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health, published in late 2021, which I read last year. In my view it’s impossible to evaluate Kennedy and his candidacy without this book being at the center of that evaluation. Because, I believe, it says so much about him and his worldview, and how he evaluates other people and what they tell him. And that was only a year and a half ago, it’s RFK Jr. today - it’s his Profiles in Courage, his Audacity of Hope, and so much more.

I learned that Junior would be competing for the Democratic Party nomination from both Iversen and Blumenthal when they said he’d filed, and right out of the box I could see their interest in that candidacy. For Iversen it was mostly about what he’s had to say on covid and the vaccines, given that this had become her calling card, her claim to fame during the pandemic. That was also the time when she had become disenchanted with “the progressive wing of the Democratic Party”, in significant part because it is part of that party and not some revolutionary movement overthrowing that party, and so began her steady slide rightward and toward “a conspiratorial view of history”, as G. Edward Griffin not-so-famously said in his 1971 Bircher film, The Capitalist Conspiracy.

For Blumenthal it was about RFK Jr.’s position on the war in Ukraine, which dovetails with Grayzone’s main feature, opposition to war and the enforcement of “America empire” at the barrel of a gun.

But after listening to what both had to say after his formal announcement speech and then a subsequent interview of Junior by Iversen last week, it’s clear that they are both trying to file down rough edges on what RFK Jr. is and has been, and I’m not talking about his being busted on possession of heroin decades ago (which he did vaguely allude to in his address). At the other end of the spectrum, what Iversen was most critical of is his running for the Dem nomination, her hatred for her former party so visibly visceral at this point. That resulted in an almost embarrassing performance in her interview, spending much of it trying to convince Junior to reconsider that decision, even after he’d explained it. Boo - ask pointed questions and then let us listen to the answers. I wonder if he’ll be coming back…

I’ll start with the earliest of their videos on RFK Jr.’s campaign, this one from Grayzone on April 10:

In this at the start Max pans the mainstream for labeling him “an anti-vaccine crackpot” and then rolls right into the covid vaccines without saying why Junior has been labeled that, which of course is because he is the chair of an organization that can be accused of being anti-vaxx, and that means pre-covid allegations about childhood vaccinations like MMR and autism, etc. This ultimately is the elephant in the RFK Jr. room. Max then moves on to eventually settle on the war issue, saying Junior “is someone who has very strong opinions about the evils of the US war state, the CIA and the FBI” (which he previously said under J. Ed Hoover was monitoring Junior’s father). He then shows this RFK Jr. tweet:

“The collapse of U.S. influence over Saudi Arabia and the Kingdom’s new alliances with China and Iran are painful emblems of the abject failure of the Neocon strategy of maintaining U.S. global hegemony with aggressive projections of military power. China has displaced the American Empire by deftly projecting, instead, economic power. Over the past decade, our country has spent trillions bombing roads, ports, bridges, and airports. China spent the equivalent building the same across the developing world. The Ukraine war is the final collapse of the Neocon's short-lived ‘American Century.’ The Neocon projects in Iraq and Ukraine have cost $8.1 trillion, hollowed out our middle class, made a laughingstock of U.S. military power and moral authority, pushed China and Russia into an invincible alliance, destroyed the dollar as the global currency, cost millions of lives and done nothing to advance democracy or win friendships or influence.”

Although I’m not a fan of the capitalizing, his repeating of “neocon” is good stuff, especially connecting that to their “American century”, which of course is a reference to the despicable PNAC think tank. The neocon wars are and have been the core issue to me, going back to my “pre-enlightenment” self in 2008 and choosing Obama - admittedly a very low bar considering the other two realistic options were Hillary Clinton and John McCain, perhaps the two biggest warmongers in the Senate in this the neocon century. That’s also why I voted for Trump in 2016 and Gabbard in the 2020 primary.

Based on that apparent anti-war position, Max calls RFK Jr.’s entry “a welcome intervention”. He ends this saying. “It seems like RFK is taking a much better line than Bernie did over US empire.” At this point even making a comparison with Brooklyn Bernie the Zionist is playing the same subterranean bar game, but maybe that’s just me.

I was also interested in his references to Dem debates, the existence of which was news to me, but it seems that there won’t be any debates. Which is absolutely no surprise - what, would the party with the incumbent president take 80-year-old Joe Biden and put him through a series of debates with RFK Jr. and Marianne Williamson?? Give the old man a break, Uncle Joe already had to debate Sarah Palin… 😉

Iversen’s first video that addresses the candidacy, posted on Youtube on April 15, starts off with another Junior tweet:

“Of the $319 million Bill Gates gave to media outlets by November 2021, NPR received $24,663,000 and PBS got at least $4 million. In return those ‘public interest’ broadcasters aired flattering reports on Gates’s corrupt self dealing and profiteering on his global vaccine projects and his hostile takeover of WHO. Gates’s climate strategy is top down social control and geo engineering projects for which he owns the IP. While shorting Tesla,he has invested heavily in fossil fuels, rail, private jet companies and chemical pesticides and petroleum based AG. He accurately characterizes his approach as ‘philanthrocapitalism’ - a strategy of amplifying his billions by appearing to solve social problems with technologies that he controls and profits from.”

So, yeah, she goes straight to the newly-promoted all-seeing eye at the top of the Illuminati pyramid of power, thanks to covid.

The actual content of what he’s saying there is almost certainly secondary to the general subject, at least to Kimmy. She then moves on to an RFK poll number, at 10% of Dem primary voters, and she goes on:

“This doesn’t even account for all of his supporters, mostly independents, lots of Republicans supporting RFK Jr. But 10% of primary-voting Democrat this early in the game, that is a significant chunk of people, I think it’s better than even Bernie Sanders was doing at this point in his candidacy when he ran for president in 2016.”

Aside from the claims about his independent and GOP support, an unsupported claim here, we have the inevitable progressive recessive gene activated in making the do-nothing Bernie comparison - what about Trump, a guy who actually won? I’m not questioning the support outside of Dems, but one has to acknowledge that almost all of that support arises out of his vaxx positions and anti-Fauci/anti-Gates stuff from that book. Republicans aren’t likely supporting him because of decades of work opposing polluters, that has not been a core GOP issue, and I doubt the Kennedy name raises much legacy wood on that side of the aisle either.

She finishes up dealing with the same matter that Blumenthal started with in his slippery way:

”The guy backs up his data quite well, he backs up the things he says. If he says something and it’s a bit different than what you’ve heard in the past, it’s always wise - and this is true for anything and anyone - research it and find out for yourself, is it true or is it not true, don’t just take ABC or NBC or WaPo or New York Times’ word for it, do your own research on that.”

She’s absolutely right about the last part, of course, but the first part reminds me of what I had heard over and over from Bitchute viewers when I did several series of videos last summer on The Book; here is one example:

“RFK, Jr. did the homework, putting in 8-12 hours per day for months, with one research assistant; he put up tens of thousands of dollars, his own money, to procure classified documents. This is neither fiction nor fantasy. Facts. Fauci is and historically has been a vindictive, lying power broker, uninterested in public health; but really the book is not about him; it's about the alphabet agencies, Pharma, military, and MIC. Go to the library, if you can find one that carries a copy, and read the last chapter, including all the citations. Turn to the end of each chapter and simply look at the number of citations. Research.”

But one of the many things that I criticized in that book is in fact the citations, the footnoting. I found that when I came across something I considered to be highly dubious - and there was a LOT of that - the reality was almost always this: the footnoting didn’t actually cover the core matter at question, the footnote led to another anti-vaxx source with another dead end, or it wasn’t footnoted at all. If I recall correctly, there was not one single case of something both really substantial and dubious to me where a footnote made me realize my reaction was or even might be seriously wrong.

But the viewer votes on these videos were overwhelmingly thumbs-down. Which suggested to me that, given the assumed Bitchute crowd demographics, there was a belief system operating there. I also don’t think many of the book’s supporters who at least claim to have read it have actually read the footnotes and gone to their links, or perhaps if so have not looked at any of that critically. Instead perhaps they would see a number at the end of a sentence of text and then simply assume, “okay, this must be true.”

I have just completed a long series of videos (30 in all) over the last few weeks related to a general theme of Truth versus the truth, the former being the embrace of a kind of preexisting belief system or narrative and the latter being a pursuit of the actual truth no matter where it leads. A lot of that relates to the Twitter File findings being pushed by people like Taibbi, Blumenthal and even Iversen, which almost exactly parallels what I quoted above by that commenter: “…it's about the alphabet agencies, Pharma, military, and MIC.”

I’ll get back to the book and some of these belief paradigms in due course, but first I’ll look at the RFK Jr. announcement address and both Iversen’s and Blumenthal’s framing of it and reactions to it.

First, the Grayzone take, and that focused on the wars as expected. Here is the part of the long section of the speech on that topic, but with Max’s intro, which once again focuses on the anti-vaxx matter without actually, you know, addressing it:

That part includes one of the times that he used the word “neocon” in the speech, and at least he did that much. He also included the names of the two faces on the military-industrial complex of that era, Generals Lyman Lemnitzer, who proposed Operation Northwoods to McNamara and JFK, and Curtis LeMay, who wanted to nuke Hanoi like he fire-bombed Tokyo. Today in the era of neoconservatism those faces aren’t in the military, they’re shitstain billionaire Zionist Jews in the donor class:

Love that pink tie, Lindsey…

His W. story about George Tenet the holdover Clinton CIA Director is probably most amusing of all, given that he was put on the spot by the neocon controllers of that administration to sign off on WMD lies that his Company hadn’t created, and in typical politician fashion he did exactly that, praying that they were right. Sorry, George, big mistake - the door is over there. But hey, at least Bobby mentions the neocons.

[Btw, while I was watching this Grayzone clip it was interrupted at this point with an ad from StandUpToJewishHate.org - you just can’t make this shit up! 😂]

Max then says, “He goes on to describe in the same way that I did in The Management of Savagery how the destruction of Iraq led to the rise of ISIS. He said we created ISIS, RFK Jr. said we created ISIS and it led to a migration crisis with millions of migrants headed to Europe, which then led to Brexit. And those were the exact same conclusions I drew in The Management of Savagery.” The only question, Max and Bobby, is who is “we”? Well, we can’t get into that, no sir…

But let’s listen to how Kennedy started his speech bit on the war, the first six or seven minutes on that subject that Max didn’t include:

“We need to have a national conversation about Ukraine”?? We don’t need a fucking national conversation about our role in this war, we need a president who will reject neoconservatism, stop sucking its pushers and end this war quickly, and peacefully, if that is even possible at this point. If a woman finds out her new husband is molesting her young daughter and her young son, does she say, “we need to have a family conversation”?? Sorry, Bob, the time for conversation about neoconservatism, if there ever really was one, ended with the WMD lies two decades ago.

“If those are our objectives, to have regime change and exhaust the Russians, that is completely antithetical to a humanitarian mission. If we’re there for a humanitarian mission, it means reduce bloodshed and bring an end to the war quickly. If we’re there to exhaust the Russians or regime change, then… doesn’t it mean that Ukraine is just a pawn in a political battle between two great superpowers, and our strategy is to put the flower of Ukrainian youth into an avatar of death in order to exhaust Russia? And if that’s true, then we need to know about it. If it’s not true then we need to have a pretty good discussion with the President and Secretary of Defense and others to tell us exactly what are we doing there.”

Jeez, Bob, I wonder who you mean by “others”, since you only wanted to single out good soldier and black proxywarrior Lloyd Austin here. Might it be some of these blue-blooded folks?

Maybe this was just a rhetorical choice on Junior’s part, but I’ve heard this kind of tepid and/or naively simplistic anti-warism from presidential candidates before, including Nixon in 1968 and Obama in 2008, and then saw the wars go on for years. What we need, since Junior has actually used the word “neocon” (another rhetorical choice?), is a conversation about what neoconservatism actually is, who created and pushed this foreign policy philosophy of aggressive militarism, and for what purposes. What did the ‘90s pied piper of neoliberalism Jeffrey Sachs say in Tikkun last year?

“The war in Ukraine is the culmination of a 30-year project of the American neoconservative movement. The Biden Administration is packed with the same neocons who championed the US wars of choice in Serbia (1999), Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), Syria (2011), Libya (2011), and who did so much to provoke Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The neocon track record is one of unmitigated disaster, yet Biden has staffed his team with neocons. As a result, Biden is steering Ukraine, the US, and the European Union towards yet another geopolitical debacle.”

He then went on from there to name ten core neocons, including Victoria Nuland of the Obama and Biden State Departments, and every one of them was/is a Jew. So should we put Nuland, Blinken, Sullivan, Haines, Sherman, Mayorkas, Yellen, Garland, et al up on the gallows and have that fundamental last conversation, Bob, before we do some healthy rope-stretching? Didn’t you just say as president you’re going to “end the chronic disease epidemic in this country”? Wouldn’t that be a good start, to eradicate a deadly viral pandemic in government, and without resorting to vaccines?

Max doesn’t play any more of the speech, except a mildly conspiratorial suggestion in playing the point in it when someone apparently pulled a fire alarm. But he does for a minute or two touch on the critical change that took place in the Democratic Party in the 1990s, which raises the subject of campaign contributions, something Junior didn’t really talk about in his speech, at least not directly:

Iversen’s speech review video leads with the subject of money, but it’s the usual generic framework of corporations and government corruption. After that she does an extended bit which is just her personal attack on the Democratic Party, and that includes her “big criticism of him [RFK] is that he’s running as a Democrat”. She makes the claim that “he is popular even among Republicans and libertarians, libertarians love him”, again without any quantifying or evidence of that provided.

That theme of essentially selling RFK Jr. to the right continues when she includes his bit on environmentalism, making the point that environmentalism and climate-change activism are different - basically she seems to be saying, “he’s an environmentalist but don’t worry, he’s also one of us on the neoliberal climate change agenda.”

When she gets to the war she does play that part of his speech from the beginning where I linked it above, but she intro’s it by saying, “He has, I think, the best… he talks about the Ukraine war better than anyone I’ve seen. He is able to bring both sides together with his viewpoint on the Ukraine war, and I think he does it in a way that is the best I have yet to see anyone talk about this conflict between Ukraine and Russia.”

So does “bringing both sides together” mean not offending and challenging the people who were sold on Russiagate and believe that Putin really is the new Hitler who is destroying our democracy and planning on overrunning Europe, and instead of really doing that we need to have a “national conversation”… with these guys??

She finished the video with her one piece of advice to Kennedy: “My advice would be in the end DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES concede and say, I give my support to Joe Biden. That is the worst thing he could possibly do…” Which is just the beginning of her bilious rant on the Dem establishment.

…Which she continued five days later when RFK Jr. appeared on her show for an interview. To be fair to him, here is how he explained his running as a Dem:

She does follow that with a rather exasperated but still good question on when the Dem Party lost its way:

Kennedy’s response seems to be that it happened less than 15 years ago, after Obama was elected and was trying to pass what became Obamacare. Of course this is based on the Big Pharma paradigm, and since he talked about what money supported Dem candidates there, it’s worth looking at who actually floats US electoral politics, now and in the past. In a recent video I looked at donor information from opensecrets.org, including industry group donation information, from the 2022 off-cycle election and the oldest complete data they have, the 1990 off-cycle election (note: presidential election years always involve much more money). Here is 2022:

And here is 1990:

What we can see here is that the health sector which includes Big Pharma is the 6th-largest of their 13 sectors, in both 1990 and 2022. But we can see that the Dem’s cut has grown from half of that to over 60% (although this doesn’t seem to factor in the dark money enabled by Citizens United, etc.). The total health-sourced funds donated increased by more than ten times over this 32-year period.

Also, we can see that the two sectors containing the two sources Kennedy named as traditional Dem sources, labor unions and trial lawyers, dropped in relative terms, from 2nd and 4th to 7th and 8th.

But what we can also see is that the biggest donor sector then and now is the financial industry, which includes Wall St. And that total has increased by more than 20 times over this period, roughly twice as much as the health sector. The Dems’ % take of that is exactly the same at both points, but again the 2022 soft money, which is $1.0B of the $1.6B, isn’t included in calculating that.

Also unchanged is the smallest of their sectors, defense, which is of course the Industrial in MIC. In 2022 the defense industries contributed 2% of what FI contributed, and the majority went to the GOP.

Let’s look at 2022 individual organizational donors, first FI:

So there’s the top 20, led by George Soros’ Wall St. operation at nearly $180M, more than $100M greater than #2. We can see FTX in #3, Bankman-Fried’s now-gone virtual currency con, Elliott Management in #10, Paul Singer and Jesse Cohn’s Wall St. operation that bought into Twitter and to my knowledge remains unmentioned by the Twitter Filers, and down in 20th Jane Street Capital, where both Bankman-Fried and Renee DiResta got their starts.

So let’s look at the Big Pharma big donors:

So we can see #1 among the Big Pharma donors is #2 and it’s the notorious Pfizer; we can see other notorious covid vaxx makers J&J and AstraZeneca on the list as well. But look at the money - Pfizer donated a whopping $1.73M (the majority to Dems). That’s chicken feed. J&J was barely over $1M. So let’s look at the MIC donors list:

We see Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman and Raytheon up at the top of the list as expected, but look at the dollars again - #1 is only $3.1M. And these three also seem to split their giving equally between Dems and the GOP, again as one might expect.

So the top donors from the Big Pharma and military contractor sectors combined gave less than $5M, while Wall St. leader Soros gave more than 35 times that much, and all to the Dems. Huh.

And if you look at the 2022 #2 Other category, you’ll find Wall St. money there as well - for example, #8 on that list is the Simons Foundation, which is James Simons of Renaissance Technology fame. And just ahead in #7 is the Heising-Simons Foundation, which is Jim’s daughter and her Silicon Valley techie husband. Here’s Jim on the 2016 Killary donor list, #3 in the lower right, next to Soros:

There are eight people from the Wall St./banking sector on that list, all Jews and 7 of the top 11 donors, 9 of whom are Jews. There is no one from Big Pharma or the MIC. Double Huh.

But, no, we’re supposed to believe that Big Pharma and the MIC own the Dem party, which is part of RFK Jr.’s quasi-alternative worldview. At one point in his address he rather strangely says, “We’re in constant wars because the military-industrial complex, the big military contractors, own CIA”, and that’s apparently a line from his standard stump speech. This was in a list of regulatory capture instances he was reciting. Elsewhere he says his uncle Jack figured out after the Bay of Pigs fiasco that the CIA was pimping wars for the industrial contractors, which sounds like projection to me.

His only mention of Wall St. here was that Liz Warren doesn’t take their money. Here’s another cut that shows the extent of Wall St. donations, the top six donor organizations overall:

Five of these are Wall St. firms as you can see from that list, and four of them are headed by Jews. This list includes 51 organizations and none come from the Health or Defense lists, because #51 gave $11.8M, two and a half times Pfizer and Lockheed Martin combined.

There is also a lot of Jewish money that isn’t Wall St. and isn’t Dem-supporting; for instance, the Marcus Foundation is #2 on the Other list and #41 on the overall list, and the Adelson Clinic for Drug Abuse Treatment and Research is #20 on the overall list. That’s Bernie Marcus of Home Depot and the late Shelly Adelson of Las Vegas casino fame, and when you add Elliott’s (overall #25) Paul Singer you get this:

But I guess we can’t talk about Wall St. just like we can’t talk about Soros (Newt 🤨), and “we” includes semi-alternative presidential candidates. Presumedly because it’s now antisemitic to talk about Wall St. And we sure as fack can’t talk about Jews; Open Secrets doesn’t even give us those numbers, of course, although it does have racial group numbers. But the Jerusalem Post did back in 2016:

Enough about funding campaigns, except to point out that Kennedy said nothing there regarding what money he’ll accept and what money he won’t. Which maybe isn’t so important, given that no one can talk about the shekels specifically and there’s a lot of ways for that currency to infect a campaign - I have calculated and shown in the past that the majority of the mountains of money Sanders collected in 2020 could have come from a relatively small number of Jewish donors networked by J Street (the “good” AIPAC) and making donations at or close to the $2800 individual limit, without violating his claims about sourcing of donations (no corporate or superPAC money) or changing the average donation size claimed by the campaign. What is certainly true is that you don’t get to half of all donations just through billionaire oligarch megadonors utilizing superPACs to make seven-, eight- and nine-figure donations, it also takes tens of thousands of doctors, lawyers, professors, stock brokers, realtors, etc. making four-figure donations.

Btw, AIPAC is only #44 on that overall list, which suggests their huge network of bundlers isn’t included in that, and that makes sense given those are direct individual donations. But hey, they still gave almost three times as much as Pfizer and Lockheed Martin combined, and 60% of that to Democrats…

Anyway, circling back to where I started, in my view the big change in the Democratic Party occured in the 1990s in two steps, the first being money-related in 1992 - from Rahm Emanuel’s wiki:

“At the start of then-Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton's presidential primary campaign, Emanuel was appointed to direct the campaign's finance committee. Emanuel insisted that Clinton schedule time for fund-raising and delay campaigning in New Hampshire. Clinton embarked on an aggressive national fund-raising campaign… Emanuel's knowledge of the top donors in the country, and his rapport with ‘heavily Jewish’ donors helped Clinton amass a then-unheard-of sum of $72 million. While working on the Clinton campaign Emanuel was a paid retainer of the investment bank Goldman Sachs.”

Rahm would be back in 2008 to do much the same for Obama, as the story goes. Clinton became the first Dem candidate to outraise/outspend the GOP candidate since money really mattered in elections, and by 2008 Obama was able to outraise/outspend McCain nearly two to one.

The second step was after the disastrous 1994 midterm election which resulted in Clinton bringing in GOP political strategist and Brooklynite Jew Dick Morris, who was the architect of his triangulation strategy that was the core of the “Clinton Sellout” and the Dem embrace of neoliberalism and neoconservatism.

But Kennedy’s fixation on Big Pharma and vaccines has him focused at least 15 years too late in the process, and he’s looking at the wrong devil in the deal that the Democrats made. This devil wears blue.

Another deep concern of mine came up later in this interview (which, again, was repeatedly plagued by Kim’s obsession with Kennedy running as a Democrat, unfortunately) when he’s talking about environmental and climate issues:

Now he’s absolutely right about globalist neoliberalism being crony capitalism, but the solution is even more extreme free-market capitalism?? What are we talking about here, Bob, the closely-related Austrian School capitalism that is the philosophical beating heart of American anarcho-libertarianism?

The most obvious flaw in this thinking is that free-market capitalism cannot deal with an externality like pollution, that is a cost that drops out of the Darwinian math of capitalism because it’s paid by other people in other places and/or at a later time.

Another problem is that, as much as the thinking of Democrats has been so infected with neoliberalism, back to the “socially liberal and fiscally conservative” Clinton Dem of the ‘90s, I really don’t think unregulated capitalism is a sell with that party’s base. Which I guess justifies what Kim gets to here:

So I guess her visceral hatred for the Dems, for Hillary Clinton who stole the 2016 nomination from her beloved Brooklyn Bernie, for Mama Bear Nancy Pelosi who corrupted her beloved Sephardic-identified NYC AOC, has turned her into a GOP-adjacent radicalized right-winger of sorts. Wrong answer Kim, even if it is a reborn identification with your black helicopter Idaho roots.

So back to the subject - is RFK, Jr. the right answer? I think we have to look at him from the fundamentals of the bedrock of American socio-politics in the 21st century:

We can trim off the top and the bottom from the start - he’s simply not going to address the level of Jewish influence/power today or the foundation of their invulnerability to any form of criticism that is rooted in the Holocaust. Grade: incomplete

Then we can look at the three basic socio-political philosophies that are the legs on this stool:

Neoconservatism - he at least seems to be genuinely opposed to the war in Ukraine and to the other wars in this century, and at least utters the word “neocon”. But his understanding of what that is, his conspiratorial use of the MIC, and the softness of his rhetoric has me concerned. Grade: B

Neoliberalism - that free-market capitalism solution comment is really all I have to go on here, and it suggests his solution to the very real regulatory capture problem is to get rid of the regulators. His assessment of the general economic problem is correct, crony capitalism, but his apparent solution, more capitalism, is 180 degrees off the mark. The only thing which avoids a complete fail judgment is the lack of detail in this limited sample of information. Grade: D

Cultural Marxism: Not a lot to go on here either, but when he talked about the human costs of the lockdowns in his address he focused almost exclusively on the black community, as if hated white people didn’t really suffer that much. A similar focus at one point in his book jumped out at me as well. I don’t know if this is the legacy of his father and his times, but it makes me wonder if he really has the populist instinct, or if he’s just a rich kid do-gooder type based on family tradition. Grade: C

Finally, the money that has bought our government, and I have gone into that in detail here. There’s the MIC thing, there’s his personal fixation on Big Pharma, and also that he has almost pushed Wall St. off the table. If he doesn’t even know the realities of campaign contributions, ethnic or otherwise, how can he possibly fix or even counter the problem? Grade: D

Overall I’ll somewhat-generously give him a C on this basis. That’s not great but better than the D I’d now give Trump, whose strongest suit is his rhetoric on the “culture wars” stuff. Biden, he’d have to work a lot harder to earn even an F - aside from his Jew-packing of the cabinet and this proxywar, when you temporarily suspend the 30-year Dem project of Jew-packing of the SCOTUS to fulfill a campaign promise to nominate specifically a justice with black skin and no nutsack to the Court, that says something. It echoes of Obama nominating a Hispanic woman, the only other Dem exception from Jewish nominees in over 50 years - the last time the Dems placed a Euro-Christian male on the Court was more than 60 years ago, and they have never nominated a Euro-Christian woman; these two groups make up over 60% of the US population. Boo.

But I still have to address the elephant in the room, The Book. As I said, I read it last summer, and that resulted from a series of exposé videos I did on neo-Bircher alt “journalist” James Corbett, which turned into my first series on Kennedy’s book - you can see my early impression of it in the cover photo for one of the videos:

That series of videos kept growing and growing as I slowly and painfully worked through the book, and the final part of that was a series of videos I did on the mythological history of eugenics, as expressed in three sources - Ashkenocracy Now’s Amy Goodman and guest Adam Cohen (re his book on Carrie Buck and eugenics), JQ-denier Corbett from his Why Big Oil Conquered the World documentary (which includes bits from that ANow show), and Kennedy’s book. Later on last year I would again tackle this use of eugenics in Ken Burn’s grand Holocaust in America documentary, including in a review of it here at substack. I guess Kennedy as a Catholic is okay with aligning with the Jews to engage in some healthy historical WASP-bashing.

This was in a part of the book that revealed to me a central aspect of its creation, where the book goes deep into the past to frame Bill Gates, based on this Quigley/Bircher history of the Rockefellers and parallels to Gates’ own family history. What that confirmed to me was that this isn’t really Kennedy’s book, rather it was a group project including people tied to his Children’s Health Defense anti-vaxx organization, and some of those people must be conspiracy theorists and/or neo-Birchers, and quite possibly even fanboys of neo-Bircher Corbett, or at least followers of that school.

Btw, coincidentally, I am publishing this on May 1, the 247th anniversary of the founding of the Illuminati; it’s also the 3rd anniversary of Corbett’s release of his documentary promoting Gates into the pyramid penthouse, that surely not coincidentally.

There are also a couple places in the book where he makes a personal statement that runs contrary to the general narrative of the book, as if someone else wrote it and he insisted on being able to make it clear he didn’t quite agree. That doesn’t happen when someone writes their own stuff - did he take after his Uncle Jack and ghosted Profiles in Courage in this regard as well?

I have to say there really needs to be an honest, comprehensive book written about the covid pandemic and the American healthcare industry, but, simply put, this ain’t it. And I am not a Fauci apologist - in tech terms, I view him as a bug and not a feature.

And we can clearly see both Blumenthal and Iversen running away from the stinky stuff in this book - assuming that they’ve actually read it. But that won’t happen in a campaign and juicy quotes from it will be used against him if he actually gets any traction in this race. Give me that book and a week and I could make Kennedy look like an absolute lunatic to the normie world of the Dem left. We saw what Mehdi Hasan did with just a few minor errors in Matt Taibbi’s Twitter Filing; what could he and his squad of minions do with Junior’s hugely over-the-top book?

Beyond all the problems I addressed at the beginning with the credibility of claims in the book, this gets to the issue of RFK Jr.’s judgment and vulnerability to dubious influences. It also makes me question his honesty, although I guess that’s a secondary concern - a contradiction in terms, an honest politician.

There are places in his announcement speech which reflect this behavior, for example when he’s talking about the lockdown and the damage it caused, saying things like US children gained an average of 29 pounds (I think I know where that number comes from, a study which reported that a 42% minority of adults claimed an average weight gain of 29 pounds) and that the US led the world on lockdowns, which it didn’t do in either timing or intensity (here in Colombia the lockdown was definitely harsher than in the Bay Area of California, the two places where I rode it out).

I can’t help but to believe that Kennedy is someone who got sucked into all of this anti-vaxx stuff, in part because of intellectual vulnerability based on his religious beliefs, and still hasn’t seen the error of his ways. This process is something that I see Iversen going through publicly in this decade, having become disenchanted with the progressive movement on the left (in large part because of her naive cluelessness on the realities of our world) and then swinging back to her Idaho roots and toward a prix fixe menu of alternative beliefs so rooted in neo-Bircherism. But go back four or five years and I think even she might have said RFK Jr. is a conspiracy nut.

I disagree with Iversen on Kennedy’s running as a Democrat, that is simply what he is genetically, right or wrong, and that’s where what remains of the Kennedy magic surely resides. My main concern though is that this is a party owned by the Jews in this century, and given his apparent inability to see that and what it means, combined with this kind of vulnerability to influencers, that could mean he’d end up in the same general place as Clinton and Obama and Biden. I mean, what’s going to happen after he has that “national conversation”? Would he decide that Ukraine is a humanitarian war after all? Christ, that he even talks about that rhetorically is a scary thing.

Now, this was an intentionally harsh look at his candidacy - I am actually quite happy to see him in the running, and on the Dem side as I just said. We need alternative voices in the “national conversation” or national debate, and particularly anti-war voices, and no one needs them more than the Dems. And I can see him getting real traction among independents and on the GOP right, the latter even if largely because he’s challenging the hated Biden internally - a lot of Dems loved Trump in the 2016 primaries.

But there’s another aspect of this which I’ve been thinking about lately. My view of the history of the Dem-GOP American two-party divide is that it became a left-right divide during the ‘60s and ‘70s largely because of New Leftism, meaning the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement and 2nd-wave feminism, and those things resulting in the flip of the white deep south from Dem to GOP and also the end of GOP liberalism in the northeast.

More recently the evolution has been becoming a divide between Euro-Christian traditionalists (nativists?) on the GOP right and Jewish-led cultural Marxism-based minority victim groups on the Dem left, a real change in what right and left actually mean, that largely created by the parallel Dem embrace of neoliberalism and neoconservatism.

But now I’m wondering if another evolutionary process is taking place, the divide being based on versions of unreality - the increasingly unreal establishment worldview on the Dem side, that post-Russiagate and post-covid lockdowns and mandates with the left media all in on enforcement of those unrealities, against the “conspiratorial view of history” rooted in anti-collectivist neo-Bircherism that has been blooming since 9/11 and even earlier on the GOP right, the NWO crowd, particularly since the rise of Trump - but not because of that, he’s a symptom and not the cause. (In this sense, Kim would be right about Kennedy belonging in the GOP race.)

If this is becoming so, I cannot conclude anything but that this increasing unreality in worldview overall is the result of covert, subversive Jewish power in this century, that being something that anyone even attempting to join the “national conversation” simply cannot address - “did you say ‘Jew’, you fucking antisemite??” This is bad, real king with no clothes stuff, people unable to see and process what is right in front of them. And what happens when people are prohibited from talking about reality? They just make shit up. Once a boat becomes untethered to its moorings in a storm it can go anywhere unrestrained - but its end is also certain, whether that’s stuck high and dry on the beach, smashed to pieces against the rocks, or sitting on the bottom of the ocean.

We do need a national conversation, but it’s not the one promoted by RFK, Jr. In the final analysis, like Trump, he’s a symptom and not the cure.