- RFK Jr. welcomes Donald Trump’s support despite their political disagreements.
- CNN refuses to give RFK Jr. a town hall, raising questions about his potential threat to the establishment.
- RFK Jr. advocates for ending forever wars, healing cultural scars, and controlling the pharmaceutical industry.
- The Democratic Party may not allow RFK Jr. to ascend due to their preference for losing to Trump rather than supporting Bernie Sanders.
- Social media platforms like Twitter control the spread of information, raising concerns about censorship and authoritarianism.
RFK says he’s glad that Donald Trump likes him, yet CNN says they would never do a town hall with RFK like they did with Trump. So, is RFK officially more dangerous to The Establishment even than Donald Trump?
Hello there, you 6.4 million Awakening wonders. Thanks for joining us on this Voyage to truth and freedom. What a glory it is to be alive with you in this exact moment, a moment when we can see the movement to more censorship, more authoritarianism, attempts to close down free speech and new discourse. And yeah, in the other direction, new Independence through media, new alliances forming, politically baffling relationships being discussed.
Donald Trump likes RFK. RFK welcomes his endorsement, even though he disagrees with Trump. And of course, these are two figures from different political perspectives, different political parties. Certainly, CNN is not willing to host RFK. And my personal experience of RFK, just to be plain, is that I believe he’s the very kind of figure we need inside the establishment, the very kind of candidate the Democrat Party should be endorsing. But if they shut down Bernie, making the decision they’d rather lose against Trump than win with Bernie, how are they going to treat a figure like RFK?
Who says he wants to end the forever Wars, heal the cultural scars of America, bring people together from across all of the accepted political divides, control the pharmaceutical industry in ways we’ve never seen before? What chance is there really that the Democratic party is going to allow him to ascend? But are they going to be able to stop him?
We interviewed him recently on our show. There’s a link in the description if you want to watch it, and we posted it on Twitter. A pretty innocuous clip of his wife, the actor Cheryl Hines, just talking about spirituality and being married. Nothing controversial, nothing weird. And yet, when it was reposted by another source, this graphic appeared. Like, look at the graph itself. Extreme left, left, center, least biased, right, center, right, extreme. Who in the world has the right to tell you how that graph works? Hello, I’m God. Here is the absolute graph of where extreme is on both sides and where the middle is. And to control that, it’s Twitter and social media. So, I think it’s a good sign.
You have a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat figure from the Democratic aristocracy, a man who confessed in our interview with him that he is part of the establishment elite by the virtue of his Kennedy surname. But he doesn’t share the values of elitism. He believes in a new form of populism. The fact that he welcomes Trump’s support or at least goodwill is interesting, and I think something we should investigate.
You say that you’re a Democrat, but you’re getting a lot of support from a lot of leading voices on the right, like Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, former president Donald Trump. Many Democrats fear that you’re a spoiler in the race, that you will damage President Biden in the primary and grease the skids for former president Trump to return to the Oval Office.
Even that aspect of the question is strange, like the assumption that the best thing to happen is for Biden to have an uninterrupted path back to the presidency. He’s the kind of president that deserves to face a challenge from a man with integrity, who’s authentic, who has some views like anyone. I agree with some views, I don’t agree with. Welcome to the opportunity to bring people together from across the divide. This is what politics is crying out for: radical change, not more of the same radical change.
This week, former President Trump said about you, ‘Kennedy is smart and he’s a common sense guy.’ What kind of man do you think Donald Trump is? Well, you know, here’s what I’m not going to do in this race. I’m not going to attack other people personally. I don’t think it’s good for our country. And I think, you know, what I’m trying to do in this race is bring people together, is to try to bridge the divide between Americans. And so, I’m proud that President Trump likes me, even though I don’t agree with him on most of his issues. Because I don’t want to alienate people, I want to bring people together. Let me know in the comments if that’s exactly the kind of political conversation you think your country needs.
Open-heartedness, a willingness to talk to people you disagree with, good faith conversations. I mean, what’s the alternative? Just flinging mud at one another from across the aisles? Where is that gonna get any of us? The complication comes when the establishment wants to harness the views that a divisive, polarizing figure like Trump brings, but still wants to condemn him as an outlier and a maniac. If Trump is dangerous but can be platformed in order to get views, what is the reason for not giving RFK his own town hall? Are they saying that RFK is more of a threat to the establishment than even Donald Trump, who I thought was the worst human being that ever existed? He should be killed, put in prison. Hangings too good for him. And yeah, oh, game on the television. He’s quite a bravo, bravo. Whoa, look at the revenue. It’s flying, baby. We’re relevant again. Thank you, Trump.
So, what do they think about RFK? My suspicion is they know that he’s more difficult to delegitimize because he’s done things like win court cases against Monsanto. The condemnation of RFK requires all sorts of contortions of thought. And it amounts to, ‘We just don’t like this guy because he’s not the establishment.’ Do you think on the Democratic side, you would do a town hall with someone like Robert F. Kennedy Jr.? I would not. Okay, why? Because he spreads dangerous misinformation.
In 2005 was when he began, in earnest, his anti-childhood vaccine campaign. He wrote a story for salon.com that was jointly published with Rolling Stone, both of which have since rescinded, retracted the articles. And Rolling Stone just completely disappeared. It was like it never happened. That’s always a good sign when media start disappearing information. How about people are allowed to have opinions and views and share them and discuss them and decide for ourselves? Wasn’t one of the things that troubled us during the pandemic the fact that legitimate voices were shut down? And debatable and even true information was censored?
And I’m quoting their Mark Zuckerberg, asking for a bunch of things to be censored that in retrospect ended up being more debatable or true. Anyway, I just dealt with him, and he was so dishonest in that experience. And since then, he lies about the experience frequently as an example. Establishment journalist, what I mean by that is he tells the truth. And if you tell the truth, that will be antithetical to establishment interest because the world has become centralized and authoritarian, has gone out of control.
Here he describes what the virality project is. The virality project was a cross-platform information sharing program led by Stanford University, through which companies like Google, Twitter, and Facebook shared information about COVID-19. They compared notes on how to censor or de… Hing that’s not positive. We’re starting to move closer to propaganda, aren’t we? As well as worrisome jokes. Well, now it’s actually gone beyond propaganda into mind control. Like a worrisome joke, I don’t even know how to define a virus. Or any joke could be worrisome because it’s sort of disruptive. Hey, what bees make milk? Boobies. Hey, that’s a bit worrisome. What are you saying? That boobs and bees? Like, there’s nothing that’s not worrisome if you investigate it for long enough.
Or post about things like, I feel like you said a bunch of stuff about Russia, gay, and I feel you didn’t report on the Hunter Biden laptop story. And isn’t there something about Ivermectin being horse paste? Or vaccinated individuals contracting COVID-19 anyway? But vaccinated individuals did contract COVID-19 anyway. That’s just true.
This is straight out of Orwell’s “1984.” Instead of having ambiguities and shades of meaning on COVID-19, they reduced everything to a binary: vax and anti-vax. That’s dangerous. We don’t all need the outline of an ideology. By tracking these factors, they eliminated ambiguities by looking into the minds of users in the virality project. If a person told a true story about someone developing myocarditis after getting vaccinated, even if that person was just telling a story, even if they weren’t saying the shot caused the myocarditis, the virality project just saw a post that may promote hesitancy. So, this content was true but politically categorized as anti-vaxx and therefore misinformation.
Concerns about vaccine passports were driving a larger anti-vaccination narrative. So, in this way, a pro-vaccine person may be anti-vaxx. They also wrote that such concerns inspired broader discussions about the loss of rights and freedoms. Also problematic. We don’t want to be inspiring conversation about the loss of freedom. Why is that? Because we’re taking away people’s freedom, and if they discuss that, they’re going to be pissed off. That’s what led us to the ridiculous situation where people who were pro-vaccine, but questioned the efficacy of natural immunity or suggested the virus came from a lab, it might all be factual, but it was politically inconvenient. Something they called “mal information.”
In the end, out of all these possible beliefs, they derived a 1984 binary: good and ungood. They also applied the binary to people. This was new. Old-school speech law punished speech, not the speaker. We saw NGOs and agencies like the FBI or the State Department increasingly targeting speakers, not speech. The virality project brought us closer to propaganda, mind control, and binary thinking.
You’re not always perfect, but you’ve made mistakes. But you know you’re right. You know you’re trying your best. That you sometimes have to do a little recalibration or a re-correction. All human beings are like that. There’s not another class or cast of human beings that are exempted from that in politics or media or social media regulation. That’s why it’s dangerous to grant authority to any set of individuals. That’s why, in a way, democracy is the only game in town. And the more local that democracy is, the better.
Do you think that this set of values graphs with extreme on either end determined by AI or a guy or the way to move forward? That’s why figures like RFK and Donald Trump are interesting. They are anti-establishment figures. Even if you’re not into Donald Trump, even if you’re not into RFK, there are people from outside the establishment. I believe the establishment is a greater threat than anti-establishment voices. That’s why I personally believe. That’s why there are new alliances forming.
For me, that’s why RFK says, while in office, he said, ‘Shell be shut down.’ You recognize, ‘Wow, maybe that guy wasn’t as great as I thought he was.’ So, that’s why it’s interesting that Barack Obama is saying, ‘No, Joe Biden’s the only possible option.’ Well, that’s the best. And that’s what I dislike most of all about the neoliberal establishment that claims to be on the side of the people. Do you know what they’re basically telling you? ‘This is as good as it gets. Shut up and vote for Joe Biden. You don’t deserve any better.’
Take what you think is best. Yes, we bloody well do need these forever wars. They’re good for business. I think the Democratic Party is unified. You know, there was a lot of talk, you’ll remember when he was first elected because Bernie Sanders had run. That somehow there was this huge split between progressive Democrats and more centrist Democrats. And the truth is, partly because of how Joe has governed, those divisions have been bridged or everyone’s just shut the [ __ ] up.
The example he’s used is, what Democrats all over our lives don’t want big business to have so much power that democracy becomes worthless and pointless and futile and facile. And are willing to get along with people that are different as long as they leave us alone. So, what’s worse, harmful misinformation, like, for example, RFK’s views on a variety of subjects? Remember, this guy’s a lawyer. There’s one case is against big agri-companies, their fault for the rights of rivers. Aren’t they supposed to care about that? The Democrats’ environment. Democrats control both houses of Congress, yet both Clinton and Obama advocate free trade agreements without providing millions of blue-collar workers who consequently lost their jobs any means of getting new ones that paid at least as well. Clinton pushed for NAFTA and for China joining the World Trade Organization, and Obama sought to restore the confidence of Wall Street instead of completely overhauling the banking system. Both stood by corporations, hammered trade unions, and let millions of homeowners drown. Both Clinton and Obama turned their backs on campaign finance reform. They also drank from the same campaign funding trough as the Republicans, big corporations, Wall Street, and the very wealthy.
The most powerful force in American politics today continues to be anti-establishment fury at a rigged system. Heroes of the Democratic Party like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama created and doubled down on this problem, turning the Democratic Party into the party of big finance, big war, and big everything. They are confronted when they offer us propaganda that amounts to wishful thinking and expedient ambition for those already in power. There can be no real change without real conversation because we all have to be included. So, conversation is going to be part of it. They know that, that’s why they’re trying to shut conversation down by saying, ‘This is extreme, that’s extreme, this is just right, RFK extreme left, Nutter, Donald Trump extreme right, Nutter. We’ll handle it right down the middle.’
They’ve got your long show, which I know you’ll love. More important than any of that is if you can please stay free.”
Author
