FS: This sounds like a traditional Left-of-centre critique, but you’re now being described as Right-wing. Do you think the old distinctions between Left and Right are breaking down?
RFK Jr: I consider myself a traditional Kennedy liberal. I don’t know of any values that my uncle John Kennedy harboured, or my father shared, that I don’t share. They had antipathy and suspicion towards war and the military-industrial complex; they did not want corporations running the American government; they were completely against censorship. They were against the use of fear as a governing tool, and they spoke out about it often. If you go down the list of things that they believed in, I don’t think there’s really any daylight between me and what they believed.
But I do think that there is a growing coalition in this country of populist forces, on the Left and Right, that are convening now and finding common ground. And I think that really is probably the only thing that is going to rescue American democracy.
FS: So you’re overtly trying to get support from conservative voters?
RFK Jr: I always have been. I spent 35 years as — I don’t want to toot my own horn, but — arguably the leading environmentalist in the country. I was the only environmentalist who was going on Fox News constantly, on Sean Hannity, on Neil Cavuto, on Bill O’Reilly, on Tucker Carlson. People would say to me: “You’re legitimising those platforms by going on there.” And I said: “I’m not compromising my values.” When I go on there, I’m talking to their audiences. I want to speak to their audiences. How are we going to persuade people, how are we going to end polarisation, if we’re not talking to each other? I’ll go on any platform, and the only platforms I won’t go on are ones that my wife just can’t live with. If it was up to me, I would go on Steve Bannon and I would even go on Alex Jones, because I want to talk to those audiences.
I think there’s a rebellion happening in our country now — there’s a populist rebellion — and if we don’t capture that rebellion, for the forces of idealism and the forces of generosity and kindness, somebody else is going to hijack that rebellion for much darker purposes. I don’t think it’s a good idea to say we’re not going to talk to American populists because they’re deplorable. Americans are our brothers and sisters, and we need to listen to them. And their backs are against the wall because of policies that have come from both Republican and Democratic parties.
FS: One name you mentioned there is Tucker Carlson, who obviously lost his job last week. He is thought of as a Right-wing conservative, but seems to agree with you on a lot of things. What is your view of Tucker Carlson?
RFK Jr: There was nobody, during most of his career, who was more critical of Tucker Carlson than I was. But I think Tucker has evolved over the past three years into probably one of the leading populist voices in our country. He’s one of the only people on American television that’s talking about free speech. It’s extraordinary — when I was growing up, the people who were most militant, who were the First Amendment absolutists, were journalists. The average American journalist seems not the least bit concerned by government-orchestrated censorship. It’s very, very strange.
FS: It’s been speculated that you could run on a joint ticket with Tucker Carlson. Is there any scenario in which you would work together?
RFK Jr: I wouldn’t speculate about that. I can’t see Tucker Carlson running as a Democrat and I’m running as a Democrat.
FS: And if you don’t win the Democratic nomination, will you consider running as an independent?
RFK Jr: I intend to be successful. I don’t have a plan B.
FS: There are some areas where you seem to have a very different view to people like Tucker Carlson. On culture-war issues such as gender, do you think that the Democratic Party has become too “woke”?
RFK Jr: I’m not going to cast judgement on a generalised description of the Democratic Party. I feel like we should take a common-sense approach to these issues. I’m trying to figure out ways to emphasise the values that we have in common, rather than the issues that are tearing our country apart. So I don’t feel the need to take a position on every issue. If it’s an issue that I will have nothing to do with as president, then I’m very unlikely to take a position on it.
FS: Let me be specific then. The concept of “equity” is central to President Biden’s ideas about governance — the idea that minority groups, such as racial minorities, should be retrofitted into positions via quota rather than just through a normal meritocratic process. Do you agree with the principle of equity?
RFK Jr: I wouldn’t agree with the policy that you just described. My family has been deeply involved in the Civil Rights Movement, and I’ve been involved with environmental justice issues. My first case was representing the NAACP [The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]. In 2001, I spent the entire summer in a maximum security prison in Puerto Rico for civil disobedience that I did in conjunction with a case that I brought, defending the poorest black and Hispanic populations in America, arguably — the population of Vieques. I brought probably as many environmental justice cases during my career as anybody else, and I understand that there is institutional racism in our country. You see it in many police departments, although not all of them. Certainly not all police are racist, but it is a huge problem. Blacks in our country are living not only with the legacy of slavery, but the legacy of 100 years of Jim Crow, having their leaders systematically murdered — and then being redlined! In the 2008 collapse, it was black homeowners who were targeted first. We need to figure out ways to make sure that those communities are participating in the American experiment.
FS: The question is whether, as a “Kennedy liberal”, you believe the best way to address those inequalities is to try to improve equality of opportunity rather than selecting candidates by identity criteria. When, for example, the President announced that he was going to find an African-American female to fill the latest Supreme Court vacancy before having started the selection process, did that make you uncomfortable in that it wasn’t an open, meritocratic choice? Or did you feel that that is the right thing to do?
RFK Jr: I’m not going to second guess President Biden on that choice. I’ve sat for 20 years on the board of Bedford-Stuyvesant restoration, which was the first community development corporation in our country. I watched that bring capital and mentorship into one of the poorest black communities in this country. We saw a renaissance in Bedford-Stuyvesant because of that. Black Americans want to feel represented, and I think a black child ought to be able to look at our Cabinet and our courts and be able to see a possibility of positions that they can aspire to. But I also think that our real target needs to be getting capital into those communities, making homeownership more widespread in those communities, reducing crime, making healthcare available, and all of those things that will invite black Americans into the American experience.
FS: Let me ask you about climate and the environment, which is a lifelong issue for you. In the last few years, environmentalism seems to have shifted from being an anti-establishment position to an establishment, corporate-endorsed position. Do you think there is a good version of the green movement, and a corporate, Davos-style version of the movement? And how would you distinguish between them?
RFK: Yes, definitely that has happened. Climate has become more polarised than ever, and with good reason. The crisis has been, to some extent, co-opted — by Bill Gates and the World Economic Forum and the billionaire boys’ club in Davos — the same way that the Covid crisis was appropriated by them to make themselves richer, to impose totalitarian controls and to stratify our society, with very powerful and wealthy people at the top, and the vast majority of human beings with very little power and very little sovereignty over their own lives. Every crisis is an opportunity for those forces to clamp down controls.
And then you also see, with climate, there’s been a shift — from habitat preservation and regenerative farming to trying to reduce the power of the carbon industry — towards corporate carbon capture, which can be monetised by the corporations and exploited without seeing any real benefit on the ground. And also with geoengineering solutions, which I oppose. It tends to be that the people who are pushing them also have IP rights — in other words, patent rights in a lot of those technologies. There is definitely an optic of self-interest.
FS: We had an example here in Europe, with the farmers’ protests in the Netherlands. New environmental rules on use of nitrate fertilisers and other things came in and populist voters — frankly, the kind of voters who might be interested in you — were very angry about it, as it seemed to ignore ordinary people’s economic reality? Did you observe that?
RFK Jr: I fell on the side of the farmers in that debate because I saw what happened over the years, which is the increase in the power of this combination of corporate and government power, which colluded to get those farmers to switch over to heavily nitrate fertiliser-dependent and GMO farming. It was purposeful and systematic. Once you get all of those farmers to switch to hydrocarbon-based fertilisers and to monocultures, then you say: “Those things are bad and now we’re going to shut you all down.” It’s a bait and switch, a way of destroying small farmers.
If we want to have democracy, we need a broad ownership of our land by a wide variety of yeoman farmers, each with a stake in our system. That’s what Thomas Jefferson said. Wiping out the small farmers and giving control of food production to corporations is not in the interests of humanity. We need to help those farmers transition off the addiction that we imposed upon them in the first place.
FS: Similarly, to be anti-nuclear, as you’ve been for decades, has historically been an anti-establishment position. But now things have changed, as countries such as Germany have shut down their nuclear power and now find themselves vulnerable and dependent on Russian gas. Have your views evolved on nuclear?
RFK Jr : No. I’ve always said I’m all for nuclear if they can make it safe and if they can make it economic. Right now, it is literally the most expensive way to boil a pot of water that has ever been devised. We were told that nuke energy would be too cheap to metre, and actually it’s so expensive that no utility in the world will build a nuclear power plant without vast public subsidies from the taxpayer. In our country, we had to pass the Price-Anderson Act because nuclear is dangerous. It’s too dangerous for humanity — look at Fukushima. There is so much contaminated water that is pouring out and contaminating the entire Pacific Ocean; they’re finding radiation in fishes all over the ocean. And the only solution is for them to pump the water into these huge tanks, and then store it forever. If you look at the pictures of Fukushima now, there are these giant tanks that just go on as far as the eye can see. Look at Chernobyl.
You may say there’s new forms of nuke power that are safer, which I would say is not true. But don’t listen to me — listen to the insurance industry; ask them: “Would you ever insure one of these plants?” and they won’t. Until they can buy an insurance policy, they shouldn’t be saying it’s safe. In our country, they had to make a sleazy legislative manoeuvre in the middle of the night and pass the Price-Anderson Act which shifts the burden of their accidents onto the public. So it’s not hippies in tie-dyed T-shirts who are saying it’s dangerous; it’s guys on Wall Street with suits and ties. This is so dangerous that they can’t get an insurance policy and then they have to store the stuff at taxpayer expense for the next 30,000 years, which is five times the length of recorded human history. How can that ever be economic? If they had to internalise the cost, nobody would ever build one of these plants. To build a solar plant, a gigawatt of solar now costs about a billion dollars. To build a nuke plant, it’s between 9 and 16 billion for one gigawatt of the same thing…
FS: In the European context, though, France has a lot of nuclear power and seems to be sitting quite pretty now, while Germany has had to restart its coal-fired plants.
RFK Jr: Well, my solution to that is stop making oil wars.
FS: That takes us to this pressing question: one thing you talk about a lot is that America is in a permanent state of war and you want to put an end to that. With regard to Ukraine, how do you propose to do that?
RFK Jr: Settle it. The Russians have repeatedly offered to settle. If you look at the Minsk accords, which the Russians offered to settle for, they look like a really good deal today. Let’s be honest: it’s a US war against Russia, to essentially sacrifice the flower of Ukrainian youth in an abattoir of death and destruction for the geopolitical ambition of the neocons, oft-stated, of regime change for Vladimir Putin and exhausting the Russian military so that they can’t fight anywhere else in the world. President Biden has said that was his intention — to get rid of Vladimir Putin. His Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, in April 2022, said that our purpose here is to exhaust the Russian army. What does that mean, “exhaust”? It means throwing Ukrainians at them. My son fought over there, side-by-side with the Ukrainians and we’ve sacrificed 300,000 of them. The commander of the special forces unit in the Ukraine, which is probably the most elite fighting force in Europe, has said 80% of his troops are dead or are wounded and they cannot rebuild the unit. Right now, the Russians are killing Ukrainians at a ratio of either 1:5 or 1:8, depending on what data you believe.
FS: If you became president you would inherit the situation as it is. Would your policy be to say that Russia can keep the territory it has conquered? You would be accused of surrendering.
RFK Jr: What I’m accused of is irrelevant to me, as you may have figured out by now. Let’s do what is sensible, what saves lives. This was supposed to be a humanitarian mission — that’s how they sold it to us in the United States. But that would imply that the purpose of the mission was to reduce bloodshed and to shorten the conflict, and every step that we’ve taken has been to enlarge the conflict and to maximise bloodshed. That’s not what we should be doing.
If you look at the Minsk accords, it sets the groundwork for a final settlement. The Donbas region, which is 80% ethnic Russian — and Russians that were being systematically killed by the Ukrainian government — would become autonomous within Ukraine and would be protected. Let’s protect those populations with a United Nations force or whatever we have to do to make sure the bloodshed stops. In addition to that, we need to remove our Aegis missile systems, which house the Tomahawk missiles — nuclear missiles — from 70 miles from the Russian border. When the Russians put nuclear missiles on Cuba, 1,500 miles from Washington DC, we were ready to invade them, and we would have invaded them if they hadn’t removed them. The way they got removed ultimately is: my uncle and father made a deal with Ambassador Brennan and Khrushchev, who they had a close relationship with and they could talk directly to at that point. The deal was: we will remove our Jupiter missiles from Turkey, on your border, because we know that’s intolerable to you.
Russia has been invaded twice in the previous 100 years. One could see why they wouldn’t want nuclear missile systems in hostile countries on their border. We should also agree to keep Nato out of Ukraine, which is what the Russians have asked. I think based upon those three points, somebody like me could settle this war. I don’t think the neocons are capable of settling it, nor the people who surround President Biden — because they were the ones who created the problem. I don’t think they’ll ever recognise that. I think part of a settlement is to recognise that, with some of the history that went into this war, there were geopolitical machinations on both sides. And by the way, I am not excusing or justifying Vladimir Putin’s barbaric and illegal invasion of the Ukraine. But my uncle always said, if you want to actually achieve peace, you’ve got to put yourself in the other guy’s shoes and you’ve got to figure out the local pressures on him too.
FS: You mention the Cuban Missile Crisis and your uncle’s strategy: you could argue that’s an example of the opposite approach. He stared them down. He played chicken and he won, in a sense. He took a firm stand. And there are lots of people who feel that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is just such a moment and that somehow a stand needs to be taken and Putin can’t be rewarded for invading. What do you say to those people?
RFK Jr: You can argue the history of it. My uncle was surrounded by joint chiefs of staff, by an intelligence apparatus that was trying to get him to go to war. And the fact that there was one confrontation, where the Russian ship that was carrying supplies to Cuba stopped before it hit the embargo wall of US ships, that wasn’t the end of the crisis. That was just a midpoint, and it could have gone anywhere from there. The end of the crisis happened because my uncle reached out to Khrushchev directly, and said: “Let’s settle this between ourselves.” And their settlement was secret, and it remained secret for many years. But my uncle wanted to settle it, and he understood that he had to put himself in Khrushchev’s position and that Khrushchev didn’t want war, and neither did he, but they were both surrounded by people who did want to go to war.
FS: So what is the wise, equivalent action that the US president should have taken when Russian tanks started rolling across Ukrainian borders from three directions, headed for the capital?
RFK Jr: We should have listened to Putin over many years. We made a commitment to Russia, to Gorbachev, that we would not move Nato one inch to the east. Then we went in, and we lied. We went into 13 Nato countries, we put missile systems in with nuclear capacity; we did joint exercises with Ukraine and these others for Nato. What is the purpose of Nato? This is what George Kennan asked; this is what Jack Matlock asked. All of the doyens of US foreign policy were saying: “Russia lost the Cold War. Let’s do to Russia what we did in Europe when we gave them the Marshall Plan. We’re the victors — let’s lift them up. Let’s integrate them into European society.”
FS: So you would have had Russia inside Nato?
RFK Jr: I think that that’s something we should have considered. What is the purpose of Nato other than to oppose Russia? If you’re addressing Russia in a hostile way from the beginning, of course their reaction is going to be hostile back. And if you’re slowly moving in all of these states, who we said would never become part of Nato. What happened in the Ukraine is that the US supported essentially a coup d’etat in 2014, against the democratically-elected government of Ukraine. We have telephone call transcripts of Victoria Nuland, one of the neocons in the White House, handpicking the new cabinet that was hostile to the Soviet Union. If you look at that, and you put yourself in Russia’s position, and you say: “Okay, the United States, our biggest enemy, is treating us as an enemy, has now taken over the government of a nation and made them hostile to us, and then started passing laws that are prejudicial to this giant Russian population.” If Mexico did that and then started killing — they killed 14,000 Russians in Donbas, the Ukrainian government — if Mexico did that to expatriate Americans, we’d invade in a second. We have to put ourselves in the shoes of our opponents. And it doesn’t mean saying that Vladimir Putin is not a gangster — he is. Or he’s not a thug — he is. Or he’s not a bully — he is. But going to war is not in his interest, either. And he repeatedly told us: these are red lines, you’re crossing.
FS: Day by day, we hear news of atrocities taking place within the Russian-controlled parts of Ukraine. The idea that a peaceful settlement will be reached seems very distant at this point. Should we take it from what you’re saying that your support for Nato as president would be different?
RFK Jr: That is something that I’m going to look at as President. I’m going to look at how we de-escalate tensions between the great powers: between China, between the United States and Russia. How do we let these countries deal with their neighbours without pressure from the United States that makes them feel like they’re going to have to go into a military mode. I’m not saying that’s what happened here. I’m saying that’s something that we need to look at, and the reason that we need to look at that is we have institutional problems in our country.
This is something my uncle discovered in 1960/61. He realised during the Bay of Pigs crisis that the CIA had devolved into an agency whose function was to provide the military-industrial complex with a constant pipeline of new wars. And my uncle came out of one of those meetings as the Bay of Pigs invasion collapsed, and he realised the CIA had lied to him, and he fired Allen Dulles, the head of the CIA, Charles Cabell, Richard Bissell, the three top people in the CIA, for lying to him. And he said at that time: “I want to take the CIA and shatter it into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind.” We have to recognise that it’s not just our civilian agencies that have been captured by industry — the military agencies, the Pentagon, and particularly the intelligence agencies have been captured by the military-industrial complex. We have to recognise that and we have to say, “We don’t want constant wars in our country; we can’t afford them.”
FS: So do you see yourself finishing the job they started then — do you want to take the CIA and shatter it into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind?
RFK Jr: I think the CIA needs to be reorganised. Most of the people who work at the CIA are patriotic Americans. They’re very good public servants, and we need them to function. But I think we really need to separate the espionage functions of that agency and the Plans Division, the division that actually does dirty tricks, that kills people, that makes wars, that involves itself in actions. Because what happens is, that operations tail begins to wag the espionage dog. That term has been hijacked — it means information gathering and analysis, and that is the function that we want, that the CIA was created to perform. And very, very early on, Allen Dulles, essentially corrupted the purpose of it by getting the CIA involved in assassinations and fixing elections.
The CIA has been involved in coup d’etats and attempted coup d’etats in about a third of the countries in the world, most of them democracies. So if our national policy as a country is to promote democracy, the CIA’s policy has been the opposite. It has been at odds with the United States. My father recognised this too: his plan was to reorganise the CIA along those lines to separate the espionage and the analysis and information gathering functions from the black functions, because otherwise the espionage section sees its job as justifying all of these nefarious activities they’re involved in, and there’s no accountability. There’s never any accountability. You overthrow a government in Iraq, and what happens: you create Isis. You then get involved in Syria, from Isis, and you drive 2 million refugees into Europe which destabilises democracy all over Europe and basically causes Brexit. That’s the outcome of what the CIA considers a successful operation to depose Saddam Hussein. Is it really successful? I don’t think so. We have a 60-year war with Iran and that war began when the CIA overthrew the first democratically-elected government in the 6,000-year history of Persia. And we are still living with the blowback from that operation. And there’s no accountability and these agencies need to be accountable, and I would break up the CIA in a way that would make them accountable.
FS: The way you talk about the CIA and other agencies, saying that these organisations are corrupt, that the media is corrupt — at the same time, you talk about how you want to bring people together, and you’re worried about how divided society is. Is there not a sense that your rhetoric is divisive? It leads people to believe that a big chunk of their own country is against them? There is an enemy within, in the RFK world view, that needs to be destroyed. Isn’t that divisive?
RFK Jr: The way that you bring people together is by telling people the truth and getting them to agree on facts. If I’m wrong in any of the facts I told you, you and other people should challenge me. Because I feel that my job is to search for empirical truths, and then to be honest with people about it. If you try to censor people, if you try to lie to them about what’s happening — that our government is broken — if you try to lie about that, it just divides them further. You have to acknowledge there’s a problem. I’m a former drug addict and the first thing that you do if you want to deal with drug addiction is you admit there’s a problem and then you can deal with everything. We need to admit there’s a problem in our government before we’re able to heal our country.
FS: The rot, by your account, goes deep and wide. It almost feels like a revolution when you talk about it, because there must be many thousands of people who are in positions of power who you would want out. Do you think of it as a revolution?
RFK Jr: We need a revolution, I would say that — a peaceful revolution, and a revolution that brings us back to the values that have been robbed from us over the past 40 years, systematically, which I watched happen. I was watching what happened in 1980. We had a functioning government and we were in the middle of the Great Prosperity and most Americans trusted the government and we all trusted the media. And today, 22% of Americans trust their government and 22% trust the media. And the reason we have this blizzard of misinformation — or what is called misinformation — is because people are looking for other sources of information that they can actually trust, because the people who are supposed to be giving us good information are not. It’s spin; it’s propaganda. It’s government-orchestrated, and people know it.
Everybody knows we were lied to about Covid. Everybody knows we were lied to about Vietnam. Everybody knows we were lied to about Iraq. “Weapons of mass destruction.” My opinion about these agencies is not happening in a vacuum. Everybody knows that Pharma lied to us about opioids, and about Vioxx. These aren’t conspiracy theories: “Robert Kennedy is crazy, because he thinks a corrupted FDA helped the pharmaceutical companies create the opioid crisis.” This is a fact that is well-known, well-documented, and that happened. And the question is: how are we going to stop it from happening again? And the answer to that is we’ve got to start by telling the truth about it.
FS: Speaking of truth, and returning to the subject of vaccines for a moment, do you acknowledge that you went too far at any stage? Do you think that you yourself might have lost perspective?
RFK Jr: Here’s what I would say: show me where I got it wrong. Show me one fact that I’ve said in all of my social media postings that was factually erroneous. If you show me that, I’ll fix it, I’ll change it. And if it’s appropriate, I’ll apologise for it. But, that’s not what’s happened. What’s happened is, the media has said: “Oh, he passes misinformation.” And I say: “What piece of misinformation?” Everything I post is cited and sourced to government databases, and to peer-reviewed publications. I have probably the most robust fact-checking operation in America today. I have 320 MD physicians and PhD scientists, including, until recently, Nobel Prize-winner Luc Montagnier, on our advisory board looking at everything I post. If I get something wrong — and I will ultimately get something wrong — but so far, nobody’s been able to show me anything that I’ve gotten wrong. I wrote a book on Anthony Fauci — the biggest bestseller in America for a year, not reviewed anywhere, not acknowledged, but nevertheless — it’s 240,000 words, and nobody’s been able to find one. There’s 2,200 citations, every one of them with a barcode on it, so you can look up the citation while you read the book. Show me anything I got wrong. And we’ve had 12 or 15 editions, so if there was something wrong, we would correct it.
FS: You talk a lot about the corruption of America, at home and abroad. Do you even think a good version of America is achievable at this point?
RFK Jr: I do think it’s achievable, and I think it’s achievable very quickly. I think my ultimate ambition is to restore the faith and the love of America, and the pride in America, so that my children can grow up with the kind of pride that I felt about my country. I can restore our moral authority around the world, and restore the reputation of America as an exemplary nation, something that the rest of the world can look to as an example, one that people will want to copy rather than as a threat. My uncle believed that America should be a leader, but we should not be a bully; and people understand the difference between those two things. Because my uncle steadfastly avoided war, and instead said: “I don’t want the picture of Americans around the world to be somebody with a gun, I want it to be a Peace Corps volunteer. I want it to be the Kennedy milk programme, in all the countries in Latin America and Africa; USAID, which was built to foster the growth of the middle class in those countries; and the Alliance for Progress.” And because of that, people around the world love John Kennedy more than any president in our history. There’s more boulevards named after him, more avenues, more statues to him, more universities and hospitals, in Africa and Latin America and all over the world than any other US President. That’s because he had a different vision that was not based on conquering people, but on helping them.
You can watch the whole video interview HERE…
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThank you Unherd for this interview while the rest of the UK and most of the US media buries its head pretending RFK Jr is not a presidential candidate when his is probably the most enthralling US candidacy for years.
Polling 20% after 3 weeks makes him a severe headache for Biden and if he keeps growing at this rate the DNC’s options of just preempting the primary process or finding a way to disqualify RFK Jr could massively backfire. And their minions, never mind Biden of course, won’t dare debate him – he knows his history and the system backwards so the DNC and their puppet / brainwashed media can rely only on smears and dirty tricks to diminish him.
RFK Jr has huge cross-party, revolutionary appeal. He is an honest man of great courage and I wish him well.
Rarely someone’s views I can almost feel 100% aligned with, this is him.
He comes across humble, knowledgeable, energetic, passionate and fearless and has all the right qualities of leadership. I will be eagerly watching & will be delighted to see him succeed. He seems incorruptible and has fought his demons in his past and recognises most of the demons in his country.
Good luck and all the power to you.
He came across to me as an utter crank, possibly well meaning but utterly naive. It’s strange how people can read the same interview and come away with two completely different opinions on the man, keeps life interesting though I suppose
Totally agree. Sounds like one of those swivel-eyed loons that rant in the street about all the conspiracies out to get you.
Totally agree. Sounds like one of those swivel-eyed loons that rant in the street about all the conspiracies out to get you.
Alka–I second this! For the first time in over three years I don’t feel politically homeless, as I was once someone who identified as “left” but have been chewed up and spit out in the face of their love in America for lockdowns, illegal vaccine mandates, cancel culture, Big Pharma and the military-industrial complex. This is not MY left and his left me reeling and horrified.
Perhaps worst of all, is how my old political home has completely abandoned the anti-war movement and turned over with the rest of the DNC, like the old bloated corpse that it is, in the process leading down a path to a land war in Europe at the very least, a nuclear holocaust in the worst case scenario. I’ve been appalled every step of the way these last 1200 days as the “left” became something far more resembling a fascism tinged, militaristic enterprise.
He came across to me as an utter crank, possibly well meaning but utterly naive. It’s strange how people can read the same interview and come away with two completely different opinions on the man, keeps life interesting though I suppose
Alka–I second this! For the first time in over three years I don’t feel politically homeless, as I was once someone who identified as “left” but have been chewed up and spit out in the face of their love in America for lockdowns, illegal vaccine mandates, cancel culture, Big Pharma and the military-industrial complex. This is not MY left and his left me reeling and horrified.
Perhaps worst of all, is how my old political home has completely abandoned the anti-war movement and turned over with the rest of the DNC, like the old bloated corpse that it is, in the process leading down a path to a land war in Europe at the very least, a nuclear holocaust in the worst case scenario. I’ve been appalled every step of the way these last 1200 days as the “left” became something far more resembling a fascism tinged, militaristic enterprise.
I really hope he can win. People need to know he is running. The vaccine thing is taken out of context and hurts him. I hope he can stay safe if he wins. He has my vote and my friends’ also. We fear some psycho will assassinate him. We have so many nutty people in this country! He makes sense. I hope folks will give him a chance. He needs to make it clear he is not against vaccines; he is against lack of research for them, which is dangerous. I am a certified R.N. and I understand what he is trying to say; but I repeat: people take it out of context and that can hurt him. Diana Woodruff, R.N.
It’s interesting to see your perspective on RFK Jr’s candidacy and the media’s coverage of it. The way you highlight his polling numbers and the potential challenges he poses to the DNC raises some valid points. It’s clear that you admire RFK Jr for his knowledge, courage, and appeal across party lines.It brings back memories of my own experiences translating articles, find more info here, that provide diverse viewpoints, allowing for broader accessibility and cross-cultural understanding. Your support for RFK Jr is evident, and I appreciate your well wishes for his campaign.
Rarely someone’s views I can almost feel 100% aligned with, this is him.
He comes across humble, knowledgeable, energetic, passionate and fearless and has all the right qualities of leadership. I will be eagerly watching & will be delighted to see him succeed. He seems incorruptible and has fought his demons in his past and recognises most of the demons in his country.
Good luck and all the power to you.
I really hope he can win. People need to know he is running. The vaccine thing is taken out of context and hurts him. I hope he can stay safe if he wins. He has my vote and my friends’ also. We fear some psycho will assassinate him. We have so many nutty people in this country! He makes sense. I hope folks will give him a chance. He needs to make it clear he is not against vaccines; he is against lack of research for them, which is dangerous. I am a certified R.N. and I understand what he is trying to say; but I repeat: people take it out of context and that can hurt him. Diana Woodruff, R.N.
It’s interesting to see your perspective on RFK Jr’s candidacy and the media’s coverage of it. The way you highlight his polling numbers and the potential challenges he poses to the DNC raises some valid points. It’s clear that you admire RFK Jr for his knowledge, courage, and appeal across party lines.It brings back memories of my own experiences translating articles, find more info here, that provide diverse viewpoints, allowing for broader accessibility and cross-cultural understanding. Your support for RFK Jr is evident, and I appreciate your well wishes for his campaign.
Thank you Unherd for this interview while the rest of the UK and most of the US media buries its head pretending RFK Jr is not a presidential candidate when his is probably the most enthralling US candidacy for years.
Polling 20% after 3 weeks makes him a severe headache for Biden and if he keeps growing at this rate the DNC’s options of just preempting the primary process or finding a way to disqualify RFK Jr could massively backfire. And their minions, never mind Biden of course, won’t dare debate him – he knows his history and the system backwards so the DNC and their puppet / brainwashed media can rely only on smears and dirty tricks to diminish him.
RFK Jr has huge cross-party, revolutionary appeal. He is an honest man of great courage and I wish him well.
On 4th April, I ended a comment on your interview with Jacob Siegel with: “Freddie – journalistic coup of the year would be an interview with RFK Jr now he has just declared.”
I don’t know if that contributed in any way to bringing this about, but I want to thank you for this interview. You asked some excellent, penetrating, relevant questions.
Whilst I don’t agree with him on everything (for example, nuclear energy, though I will ponder the insurance point!), I trust everybody can see the quality and honesty of this man, that his intentions are noble and moral, and that he is more than suited to be the president of the US. The rest of the world badly needs him to be the president – does anybody really want to see a repeat of a race between two divisive and corrupt presidents who have been proven failures and one of whom has brought us to the brink of armageddon?
If you haven’t read his page-turning book yet (‘The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health’), please do. It was the book that ‘red-pilled’ me last year and led me to read scores of other books, papers and articles on the subject. It’s no wonder that the establishment and Davos elites find him so dangerous (like Socrates corrupting the youth of Athens!).
I look forward to the proposed second interview. Thank you, Freddie, and my best wishes and sincere hopes, Bobby, for the primaries and the presidency.
On 4th April, I ended a comment on your interview with Jacob Siegel with: “Freddie – journalistic coup of the year would be an interview with RFK Jr now he has just declared.”
I don’t know if that contributed in any way to bringing this about, but I want to thank you for this interview. You asked some excellent, penetrating, relevant questions.
Whilst I don’t agree with him on everything (for example, nuclear energy, though I will ponder the insurance point!), I trust everybody can see the quality and honesty of this man, that his intentions are noble and moral, and that he is more than suited to be the president of the US. The rest of the world badly needs him to be the president – does anybody really want to see a repeat of a race between two divisive and corrupt presidents who have been proven failures and one of whom has brought us to the brink of armageddon?
If you haven’t read his page-turning book yet (‘The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health’), please do. It was the book that ‘red-pilled’ me last year and led me to read scores of other books, papers and articles on the subject. It’s no wonder that the establishment and Davos elites find him so dangerous (like Socrates corrupting the youth of Athens!).
I look forward to the proposed second interview. Thank you, Freddie, and my best wishes and sincere hopes, Bobby, for the primaries and the presidency.
He will be hated by the existing Democratic machine, the major media outlets, diverse lobby groups, federal agencies, and various corporate concerns. I suspect that Elite America ‘cannot handle the truth’.
Look at what they did to Trump – and he was nowhere as challenging to the status quo as RFK Jr.
Exactly. Will be interesting to see if he’s even able to run on the D ticket. Somehow I don’t think so – he’s just too controversial…
When dems want a change from the corrupt swampmeisters’ criminal regimes it’s a “revolution”. When the R’s try it, it’s an ” insurrection”. Go figure.
Exactly. Will be interesting to see if he’s even able to run on the D ticket. Somehow I don’t think so – he’s just too controversial…
When dems want a change from the corrupt swampmeisters’ criminal regimes it’s a “revolution”. When the R’s try it, it’s an ” insurrection”. Go figure.
He will be hated by the existing Democratic machine, the major media outlets, diverse lobby groups, federal agencies, and various corporate concerns. I suspect that Elite America ‘cannot handle the truth’.
Look at what they did to Trump – and he was nowhere as challenging to the status quo as RFK Jr.
I liked most of it. He certainly knows the history of the security state and the administrative state going out of control. I also like what he has to say about screwed up state of our modern economy. There is one thing I have to massively disagree with him on, nuclear power. I’m sorry but the real world runs on the principal of making do with what you have and the only viable path in the future of supplying a lot of power with little carbon emission is nuclear. Maybe one day we will get our electricity from safe, clean cold fusion power plants, but today is not that day. Tomorrow does not look too promising either.
He said ‘then they have to store the stuff at taxpayer expense for the next 30,000 years, which is five times the length of recorded human history’. That was sobering.
I would have liked Freddie to ask him about gun control.
Sobering, but also dead wrong. The reason that spent fuel stays radioactive for so long is that our once-through power process leaves most of the fissionable uranium behind. If we reprocessed the waste to separate that uranium from the contaminating isotopes that build up in it during the active fission cycle, that uranium would be available to make new fuel while the remaining isotopes, after harvesting those which are medically and industrially valuable, decay in about 300 years, rather than 30,000. It was the left which prevented us from recycling nuclear waste so they could then claim it as a deal-killing problem.
And if we want to get serious about the greenhouse has issue, we absolutely need to soak up carbon already free in the environment by doing such large-scale sequestration operations as seeding ocean gyres with nutrients to promote the growth of carbon-absorbing plant life that, when it dies and sinks to teh bottom, takes large amounts of carbon down with it.
We are as gods, and had better get good at it.
Mercury, lead and cadmium remain toxic for forever, which is infinitely longer than the length of recorded time. Few people are hyperventilating about these far more deadly toxins being used for all manner of essential industrial applications including alternatives to nuclear. Yet they cause far more harm than nuclear and are as invisible as radiation, present in all our food often at levels (rice) dangerous to health. Despite the higher population level risk, no one is insisting on 30,000 year storage of heavy metal waste – a clay lined landfill often does the job. High level radioactive waste will transmute to something generally safe within 300 years whilst those toxic metals will remain toxic metals until the end of the solar system.
Sobering, but also dead wrong. The reason that spent fuel stays radioactive for so long is that our once-through power process leaves most of the fissionable uranium behind. If we reprocessed the waste to separate that uranium from the contaminating isotopes that build up in it during the active fission cycle, that uranium would be available to make new fuel while the remaining isotopes, after harvesting those which are medically and industrially valuable, decay in about 300 years, rather than 30,000. It was the left which prevented us from recycling nuclear waste so they could then claim it as a deal-killing problem.
And if we want to get serious about the greenhouse has issue, we absolutely need to soak up carbon already free in the environment by doing such large-scale sequestration operations as seeding ocean gyres with nutrients to promote the growth of carbon-absorbing plant life that, when it dies and sinks to teh bottom, takes large amounts of carbon down with it.
We are as gods, and had better get good at it.
Mercury, lead and cadmium remain toxic for forever, which is infinitely longer than the length of recorded time. Few people are hyperventilating about these far more deadly toxins being used for all manner of essential industrial applications including alternatives to nuclear. Yet they cause far more harm than nuclear and are as invisible as radiation, present in all our food often at levels (rice) dangerous to health. Despite the higher population level risk, no one is insisting on 30,000 year storage of heavy metal waste – a clay lined landfill often does the job. High level radioactive waste will transmute to something generally safe within 300 years whilst those toxic metals will remain toxic metals until the end of the solar system.
I agree with you Matt on the nuclear thing. I’ve been trying to discover more about LENR for a few years and while I think there is something going on there, its not visible yet. Small modular reactors are being produced however that show promise – the industry certainly doesn’t need to remain locked in the 1970s.
He said ‘then they have to store the stuff at taxpayer expense for the next 30,000 years, which is five times the length of recorded human history’. That was sobering.
I would have liked Freddie to ask him about gun control.
I agree with you Matt on the nuclear thing. I’ve been trying to discover more about LENR for a few years and while I think there is something going on there, its not visible yet. Small modular reactors are being produced however that show promise – the industry certainly doesn’t need to remain locked in the 1970s.
I liked most of it. He certainly knows the history of the security state and the administrative state going out of control. I also like what he has to say about screwed up state of our modern economy. There is one thing I have to massively disagree with him on, nuclear power. I’m sorry but the real world runs on the principal of making do with what you have and the only viable path in the future of supplying a lot of power with little carbon emission is nuclear. Maybe one day we will get our electricity from safe, clean cold fusion power plants, but today is not that day. Tomorrow does not look too promising either.
Very good interview and quite a coup! Interestingly, his message is not so far removed from ‘drain the swamp’, put forward by a certain other presidential hopeful; but much, much more articulate.
Given the myriad vested interests he says he will confront, together with his family history, I do feel worried for his personal safety should he be in with a chance of winning the Democratic nomination.
Strike 3! Wow that would me a MF.
Strike 3! Wow that would me a MF.
Very good interview and quite a coup! Interestingly, his message is not so far removed from ‘drain the swamp’, put forward by a certain other presidential hopeful; but much, much more articulate.
Given the myriad vested interests he says he will confront, together with his family history, I do feel worried for his personal safety should he be in with a chance of winning the Democratic nomination.
Fascinating interview, I wish him luck.
Fascinating interview, I wish him luck.
I have lived here in the US for 18 years but never had the desire to apply for citizenship, happy just being a green card holder.
I will apply to vote for this man.
I have lived here in the US for 18 years but never had the desire to apply for citizenship, happy just being a green card holder.
I will apply to vote for this man.
RFKjnr – future president of the USA – or BUST !
RFKjnr – future president of the USA – or BUST !
RFK is the only current candidate fit to lead the US. Question is: will “they” let him?
RFK is the only current candidate fit to lead the US. Question is: will “they” let him?
This man makes very good sense.
And another thing: His family background goes far beyond manifesting a bold centrosity, such as his father and his uncle did. He strikes me as a potentially excellent President.
As a 71-year-old American, I would probably vote for him. I would love it if he could somehow manhandle the Republican nomination away from the trump dysfunction.
Robert’s centrism is very timely and refreshing, just now. He has a lot of common sense, which appeals to conservatives. He also has a lot of experience in exploring the actual manifestations of politics. His experience in litigation shines brightly in a manner that is persuasive, practical and still appropriately ideological at the same time.
His unabashed truth-telling, is, however, dangerous. It is the same boldly honest character trait that provoked murderers to assassinate his uncle and his father.
Were he to run for President, he would be taking a very big risk toward suffering the same fate as our former President Kennedy and our former Attorney General Kennedy.
His rough, gravelly voice would also be a negative factor. With his mafiaesque grumble, many Americans would find that as excuse to concentrate on his speech rather than the content of his character and his message.
Even so, with all that said, this never-trumper would vote for him. Godspeed, Robert!
This man makes very good sense.
And another thing: His family background goes far beyond manifesting a bold centrosity, such as his father and his uncle did. He strikes me as a potentially excellent President.
As a 71-year-old American, I would probably vote for him. I would love it if he could somehow manhandle the Republican nomination away from the trump dysfunction.
Robert’s centrism is very timely and refreshing, just now. He has a lot of common sense, which appeals to conservatives. He also has a lot of experience in exploring the actual manifestations of politics. His experience in litigation shines brightly in a manner that is persuasive, practical and still appropriately ideological at the same time.
His unabashed truth-telling, is, however, dangerous. It is the same boldly honest character trait that provoked murderers to assassinate his uncle and his father.
Were he to run for President, he would be taking a very big risk toward suffering the same fate as our former President Kennedy and our former Attorney General Kennedy.
His rough, gravelly voice would also be a negative factor. With his mafiaesque grumble, many Americans would find that as excuse to concentrate on his speech rather than the content of his character and his message.
Even so, with all that said, this never-trumper would vote for him. Godspeed, Robert!
Cometh the hour, cometh the man. A leader with clear vision. We’d forgotten what such a man looks and sounds like.
Cometh the hour, cometh the man. A leader with clear vision. We’d forgotten what such a man looks and sounds like.
This guy talks a lot of sense and would appear to be a threat to some powerful interests. Shame if something happened to him…
This guy talks a lot of sense and would appear to be a threat to some powerful interests. Shame if something happened to him…
Quite a mish-mash of some good with some nonsense. He’ll has a touch point though for many, but the question is whether that adds up to a coherent coalition that’d generate sufficient votes?
Not unsurprisingly he’s got a ‘rose tinted’ view of his Uncle too. Yes his Uncle showed true Statemanship during the Cuban Crisis holding back his Chief of Staffs desire to invade and escalate, but he also started the drift in Vietnam and he conveniently doesn’t refer to that. He also forgets the administration in 62 traded the Jupiters because they were obsolete and Polaris was changing deterrence anyway. The missile crisis was a ‘political’ not a ‘strategic’ issue and his viewpoint seems to miss that a bit. JFK was adamant about defending Berlin too. So feels like he’s quite selective in his recollections.
A statement like ‘do we let these countries deal with their neighbours’, implying ‘yes we do, not our problem’, music to the ears of Putin & Xi’s and would send a huge message to other countries round the world about which way to lean. Massively naive.
And then later in the interview he ducks answering question on regretting his Holocaust vaccine analogy. Weak, evasive and fact he even used this analogy indicates massive lack of judgment.
There seem good reasons why he’s not been a successful politician thus far in his 68yrs and it’s that he’s all over the place. He has some valid views and ideas alongside some fairly ill considered. Unlike Trump it seems doubtful he’d generate the donations needed either.
I would far prefer someone who is not a career politician.
Certainly something in that, but learning how to navigate the complexity of Govt and the Legislatures can mean experience of Govt departments and of Congress invaluable if you really want to get stuff done.
Certainly something in that, but learning how to navigate the complexity of Govt and the Legislatures can mean experience of Govt departments and of Congress invaluable if you really want to get stuff done.
I agree with you. Although he sounded quite intriguing, but there was no depth to his points , except probably about Covid vaccinations. He thought that his uncle did very well in the Cuban missile crisis, but I would argue, that UncleJack started it all with his betrayal of the Cuban exiles in the “Bay of Pigs”, where the CIA was also heavily involved.
He also criticised Biden and the neo cons about their conduct in Ukrainian war, but I find huge similarities in this conflict to the beginning of the Vietnam war, as Jack Kennedy sent weapons and “advisers”, starting this long and bloody conflict, supposedly helping a “democracy” defending itself from a hostile regime…
I think JFK inherited the Bay of Pigs scheme and was lied to by the CIA about it’s details and degree of support in Cuba. It happened only weeks into his Presidency. I think he learnt from it though and was much less persuaded by the Hawks in CIA and military 18mths later during the Missile crisis, thank goodness.
We’ll never know if JFK would have double-downed in Vietnam as Johnson did repeatedly until too late, but he was intent in helping resist Communist encroachment into SV up to the point of assassination. I think he’d have helped Ukraine the moment apparent Zelensky and his people going to strongly resist and fight, although obviously we’ll never know.
I think JFK inherited the Bay of Pigs scheme and was lied to by the CIA about it’s details and degree of support in Cuba. It happened only weeks into his Presidency. I think he learnt from it though and was much less persuaded by the Hawks in CIA and military 18mths later during the Missile crisis, thank goodness.
We’ll never know if JFK would have double-downed in Vietnam as Johnson did repeatedly until too late, but he was intent in helping resist Communist encroachment into SV up to the point of assassination. I think he’d have helped Ukraine the moment apparent Zelensky and his people going to strongly resist and fight, although obviously we’ll never know.
I would far prefer someone who is not a career politician.
I agree with you. Although he sounded quite intriguing, but there was no depth to his points , except probably about Covid vaccinations. He thought that his uncle did very well in the Cuban missile crisis, but I would argue, that UncleJack started it all with his betrayal of the Cuban exiles in the “Bay of Pigs”, where the CIA was also heavily involved.
He also criticised Biden and the neo cons about their conduct in Ukrainian war, but I find huge similarities in this conflict to the beginning of the Vietnam war, as Jack Kennedy sent weapons and “advisers”, starting this long and bloody conflict, supposedly helping a “democracy” defending itself from a hostile regime…
Quite a mish-mash of some good with some nonsense. He’ll has a touch point though for many, but the question is whether that adds up to a coherent coalition that’d generate sufficient votes?
Not unsurprisingly he’s got a ‘rose tinted’ view of his Uncle too. Yes his Uncle showed true Statemanship during the Cuban Crisis holding back his Chief of Staffs desire to invade and escalate, but he also started the drift in Vietnam and he conveniently doesn’t refer to that. He also forgets the administration in 62 traded the Jupiters because they were obsolete and Polaris was changing deterrence anyway. The missile crisis was a ‘political’ not a ‘strategic’ issue and his viewpoint seems to miss that a bit. JFK was adamant about defending Berlin too. So feels like he’s quite selective in his recollections.
A statement like ‘do we let these countries deal with their neighbours’, implying ‘yes we do, not our problem’, music to the ears of Putin & Xi’s and would send a huge message to other countries round the world about which way to lean. Massively naive.
And then later in the interview he ducks answering question on regretting his Holocaust vaccine analogy. Weak, evasive and fact he even used this analogy indicates massive lack of judgment.
There seem good reasons why he’s not been a successful politician thus far in his 68yrs and it’s that he’s all over the place. He has some valid views and ideas alongside some fairly ill considered. Unlike Trump it seems doubtful he’d generate the donations needed either.
I’m an evangelical conservative who thinks the sexual revolution is the most pressing problem in the US today, so the chances of me voting for RFK Jr. are tiny. That said, I think he came across very well in this interview. He’s a person with a strong sense of himself, of what he believes and of what he wants to accomplish. He’s also clearly distinguishing himself from his competition. All of those things are good starting points for any campaign.
I’m an evangelical conservative who thinks the sexual revolution is the most pressing problem in the US today, so the chances of me voting for RFK Jr. are tiny. That said, I think he came across very well in this interview. He’s a person with a strong sense of himself, of what he believes and of what he wants to accomplish. He’s also clearly distinguishing himself from his competition. All of those things are good starting points for any campaign.
He’s clearly still living in the 60s, an old-style Democrat. Which is certainly preferable to a Biden-style Democrat.
His solution to the Ukraine problem is very like Trump’s. Unfortunately, that won’t end the fighting, it will just pause it until Putin has reconstituted his Army ready for the next push. Kennedy has a blind spot about NATO, which was very reluctant to extend eastwards. It was the former Warsaw Pact countries, who know a thing or two about living in fear of the Russians, who made all the running. Had NATO ignored their need to feel secure, it would inevitably have lead to Russian influence creeping back and the end to their search for democracy and better living standards.
He’s clearly still living in the 60s, an old-style Democrat. Which is certainly preferable to a Biden-style Democrat.
His solution to the Ukraine problem is very like Trump’s. Unfortunately, that won’t end the fighting, it will just pause it until Putin has reconstituted his Army ready for the next push. Kennedy has a blind spot about NATO, which was very reluctant to extend eastwards. It was the former Warsaw Pact countries, who know a thing or two about living in fear of the Russians, who made all the running. Had NATO ignored their need to feel secure, it would inevitably have lead to Russian influence creeping back and the end to their search for democracy and better living standards.
I hope he can win. I believe people take his stance on vaccines completely out of context. As an R.N. I realize he is NOT against vaccines per se, he is against the lack of research needed for new vaccines, which can be deadly. This needs to be made clear to the public. Also, more publicity that he is a candidate is needed. I cannot imagine a debate between him and Biden. He is our best chance at healing our country. I pray to God he is not assassinated. I have watched his two brothers killed by psychotic maniacs and remember sobbing at age 19 when JFK was shot. I volunteered for the young Democrats back then. What followed was disaster with Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam.
Diana Woodruff, R.N.C.
I hope he can win. I believe people take his stance on vaccines completely out of context. As an R.N. I realize he is NOT against vaccines per se, he is against the lack of research needed for new vaccines, which can be deadly. This needs to be made clear to the public. Also, more publicity that he is a candidate is needed. I cannot imagine a debate between him and Biden. He is our best chance at healing our country. I pray to God he is not assassinated. I have watched his two brothers killed by psychotic maniacs and remember sobbing at age 19 when JFK was shot. I volunteered for the young Democrats back then. What followed was disaster with Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam.
Diana Woodruff, R.N.C.
What has happened to my very benign critique of the Kennedy Clan?
Surely NOT censorship of the vilest sort on UnHerd of all places?
A couple of critical posts have disappeared. Seems so folks only want these peculiar gushing statements of how brilliant he is.
The beginning of the end, sadly.
The beginning of the end, sadly.
I agree. I noticed.
The interview of a man who is pro freedom of speech and the removal of any criticism of his views and disapproval of his techniques- that is so contradictory to good journalism and so unlike this forum’s original stance.
Yes, it was benign. I imagine some eejit flagged it up but it’ll probably be back. If not, you may be right – beginning of the end of a brief but glorious period of free thinking.
I must agree, it has been a good three years!
This is how social media works in the US
This is how social media works in the US
I must agree, it has been a good three years!
Actually emailed support last week, still heard nothing, it’s been a massive problem for me. Some subjects get me a lot of grief. Some really tame stuff never gets through. Other people seem allowed to post under ‘unherd reader’ or something stupid and they contacted me to change my user name to what they deemed appropriate. Seems no rules to how this place works, so it’s hard to trust. Wits end.
Yes pathetic!
I’ve only just realised what ‘flagging’ is and rather naively thought nobody could stoop so low on UnHerd!
Silly me!
Yes, it’s been quite a problem for me for a while. It’s all got a bit wild at times. The Internet is not what it was. Grumble. I’m done complaining. Don’t want to drag it down too much, it’s not their fault people are doing it.
And my very reasonable reply has gone to moderation. Nice to talk with you when I am permitted by the crazy moderation Mr Stanhope. I’m mostly going back to gardening and electrics, I might drop in occasionally.
Don’t forget to spend a little time exploring the wonderful history of the Midlands.
There are a plethora of Roman, Medieval and ‘Modern’ monuments, ruined and intact to explore. Ideal for inquisitive children to clamber over and excite their very fertile imagination.
Good luck Ms Emery.
Thank you for taking the time with me, all the best.
Thank you for taking the time with me, all the best.
Don’t forget to spend a little time exploring the wonderful history of the Midlands.
There are a plethora of Roman, Medieval and ‘Modern’ monuments, ruined and intact to explore. Ideal for inquisitive children to clamber over and excite their very fertile imagination.
Good luck Ms Emery.
Yes, it’s been quite a problem for me for a while. It’s all got a bit wild at times. The Internet is not what it was. Grumble. I’m done complaining. Don’t want to drag it down too much, it’s not their fault people are doing it.
And my very reasonable reply has gone to moderation. Nice to talk with you when I am permitted by the crazy moderation Mr Stanhope. I’m mostly going back to gardening and electrics, I might drop in occasionally.
Yes pathetic!
I’ve only just realised what ‘flagging’ is and rather naively thought nobody could stoop so low on UnHerd!
Silly me!
I believe it’s caused by users flagging comments they don’t like. This seems to hide them for a bit while I assume they’re checked. All mine eventually reappear unless the original comment I’ve replied to has been deleted.
My criticism of Kennedy has also been flagged for moderation, it appears some of the voices on here who criticise cancel culture are also quite keen to use it themselves when they read things they dislike
Breaks the trust between different views…
Sadly I think you must be correct!
This Kennedy thing seems to be worse that usual, for some inexplicable reason.
Don’t conflate a user giving you a ‘thumbs down’ with a site administrator removing your post. The users are asked to offer their opinions and do.
Breaks the trust between different views…
Sadly I think you must be correct!
This Kennedy thing seems to be worse that usual, for some inexplicable reason.
Don’t conflate a user giving you a ‘thumbs down’ with a site administrator removing your post. The users are asked to offer their opinions and do.
A couple of critical posts have disappeared. Seems so folks only want these peculiar gushing statements of how brilliant he is.
I agree. I noticed.
The interview of a man who is pro freedom of speech and the removal of any criticism of his views and disapproval of his techniques- that is so contradictory to good journalism and so unlike this forum’s original stance.
Yes, it was benign. I imagine some eejit flagged it up but it’ll probably be back. If not, you may be right – beginning of the end of a brief but glorious period of free thinking.
Actually emailed support last week, still heard nothing, it’s been a massive problem for me. Some subjects get me a lot of grief. Some really tame stuff never gets through. Other people seem allowed to post under ‘unherd reader’ or something stupid and they contacted me to change my user name to what they deemed appropriate. Seems no rules to how this place works, so it’s hard to trust. Wits end.
I believe it’s caused by users flagging comments they don’t like. This seems to hide them for a bit while I assume they’re checked. All mine eventually reappear unless the original comment I’ve replied to has been deleted.
My criticism of Kennedy has also been flagged for moderation, it appears some of the voices on here who criticise cancel culture are also quite keen to use it themselves when they read things they dislike
What has happened to my very benign critique of the Kennedy Clan?
Surely NOT censorship of the vilest sort on UnHerd of all places?
I hope he stays clear of Dallas, if you know what I mean….
I hope he stays clear of Dallas, if you know what I mean….
Environmentalists worry about the end of the World and the “Middle Class” worry about the End of the Month. And Robert Kennedy worries about a hypothetical problem that might effect us in 30,000 years. I’ve yet to see anyone injured by nuclear waste.
Environmentalists worry about the end of the World and the “Middle Class” worry about the End of the Month. And Robert Kennedy worries about a hypothetical problem that might effect us in 30,000 years. I’ve yet to see anyone injured by nuclear waste.
He makes a lot of sense but unfortunately he can’t possibly win the presidency with that gravel voice. I know that sounds superficial, but we live in a superficial culture where such things are important.
He makes a lot of sense but unfortunately he can’t possibly win the presidency with that gravel voice. I know that sounds superficial, but we live in a superficial culture where such things are important.
Funny, but Mussolin wanted to call his new party “Corporatist”, but they didn’t think it would catch on. What did they chose? Fascism.
Funny, but Mussolin wanted to call his new party “Corporatist”, but they didn’t think it would catch on. What did they chose? Fascism.
the only complaint i have with this interview was the missed opportunity to follow up on the SCOTUS nomination of KBJ. I am curious what he would say he would do, now, in a hypothetical situation.
i disagree with him on several fronts, but i appreciate what feels like sincerity and honesty.
It is not as if Robert F. Kennedy Jr is going to be nominated, but while I appreciate that he is anti-war, that he is economically egalitarian by American standards, and that he is accordingly averse to erosions of civil liberties, he is also an anti-industrial Malthusian, an anti-vaxxer, and, well, yes, a very liberal Catholic indeed, who therefore lacks the philosophical foundation of a truly radical alternative.
What, though, of the idea that he will take 15 per cent in any closed primary, and at least double that in Massachusetts, out of dynastic loyalty? Ted Kennedy could not win the nomination against Jimmy Carter as long ago as 1980, and even in unison with John Kerry and Deval Patrick, he could not persuade the Bay State’s Democrats to prefer Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton in 2008. Even the sort of voters to whom the whole Kennedy thing is supposed to appeal are far less commonly Democrats these days. They are a much smaller proportion of the electorate at large. And more than half of them were not born when Bobby Kennedy was assassinated, 55 years ago. What do the Kennedys mean to anyone under 70?
There has never been the class consciousness in the United States that there has been in Europe and the Old Commonwealth, and it has declined in those places under American influence. But when the tide turns there, then it will turn everywhere. The failure of the woke movement to take economic inequality seriously, and therefore to include vast numbers of its victims, may well be the turning point. This, though, does not look like that point just yet.
Antivaxxer?? Read the book and do your homework- you are a teeny bit behind the times.
RFK, Jr. is a well-known antivaxxer. Not just anti-COVID vaccines, but anti-vaccine in general. Believes that vaccines cause autism. This is well-documented.
RFK, Jr. is a well-known antivaxxer. Not just anti-COVID vaccines, but anti-vaccine in general. Believes that vaccines cause autism. This is well-documented.
I say Bernie Sanders with better messaging. I am with RFK on covid vaccines, nuclear power generation and ending the proxy war in Ukraine. But he trots out long-time leftist ideas in every other area. He doesn’t use Bernie’s script but in his view it is corporations and rich people who are at fault. Anyone reading Matt Taibbi’s Twitter reports can see that it is government power that is coercing private entities, not the other way around. Not that there isn’t bribery and corruption but corporations did not come up with ESG, it was the administrative state through regulation. The big tech companies were threatened by Congress and these same agencies to go along with the crushing of dissidents on their sites.
On race, he seems to believe systemic racism exists and he cites a need for young black children to be able to see people like themselves in our institutions. How do we achieve that? He fudged his answer on equity and what it means. He mentioned lack of access to healthcare (Medicare for all, maybe?), and redlining a favorite of the left in explaining home ownership inequities. These issues are complex and only demagogues like Sanders and other leftists offer simple solutions.
Kennedy did not lead his statement about why he is running with support for free speech although he has stressed it in other statements. He has been a radical environmentalist and is on record as calling climate a “public health crisis. “ He used the word crisis here when questioned about his record. He certainly understands censorship of covid dissidents but has in the past suggested we need laws to punish “climate deniers.” Climate is also a complex problem and those who question the role of carbon and the proposed solutions have been excluded from the conversation. Kennedy is obviously opposed to continued use of fossil fuels and against using using nuclear. So does he think renewables are the answer? I wish Sayers had asked him.
I was a big fan of John Kennedy as were many in my generation and I was a Peace Corps volunteer. The Peace Corps ideal lost a lot in execution in my experience. I served in West Africa and can say that in the late 60s we were respected in that part of the world. Today the Africans say when they deal with China they get an airport, when they deal with us, they get a lecture. Mostly today about why they should not use their vast oil reserves.
Finally, Kennedy suffers from a bit of a messiah complex, stating that he is the only one that can essentially restore our past glories, when we had “moral authority.” What does he mean by that and doesn’t it contradict his litany of our foreign policy failures since at least the 50s?
Antivaxxer?? Read the book and do your homework- you are a teeny bit behind the times.
I say Bernie Sanders with better messaging. I am with RFK on covid vaccines, nuclear power generation and ending the proxy war in Ukraine. But he trots out long-time leftist ideas in every other area. He doesn’t use Bernie’s script but in his view it is corporations and rich people who are at fault. Anyone reading Matt Taibbi’s Twitter reports can see that it is government power that is coercing private entities, not the other way around. Not that there isn’t bribery and corruption but corporations did not come up with ESG, it was the administrative state through regulation. The big tech companies were threatened by Congress and these same agencies to go along with the crushing of dissidents on their sites.
On race, he seems to believe systemic racism exists and he cites a need for young black children to be able to see people like themselves in our institutions. How do we achieve that? He fudged his answer on equity and what it means. He mentioned lack of access to healthcare (Medicare for all, maybe?), and redlining a favorite of the left in explaining home ownership inequities. These issues are complex and only demagogues like Sanders and other leftists offer simple solutions.
Kennedy did not lead his statement about why he is running with support for free speech although he has stressed it in other statements. He has been a radical environmentalist and is on record as calling climate a “public health crisis. “ He used the word crisis here when questioned about his record. He certainly understands censorship of covid dissidents but has in the past suggested we need laws to punish “climate deniers.” Climate is also a complex problem and those who question the role of carbon and the proposed solutions have been excluded from the conversation. Kennedy is obviously opposed to continued use of fossil fuels and against using using nuclear. So does he think renewables are the answer? I wish Sayers had asked him.
I was a big fan of John Kennedy as were many in my generation and I was a Peace Corps volunteer. The Peace Corps ideal lost a lot in execution in my experience. I served in West Africa and can say that in the late 60s we were respected in that part of the world. Today the Africans say when they deal with China they get an airport, when they deal with us, they get a lecture. Mostly today about why they should not use their vast oil reserves.
Finally, Kennedy suffers from a bit of a messiah complex, stating that he is the only one that can essentially restore our past glories, when we had “moral authority.” What does he mean by that and doesn’t it contradict his litany of our foreign policy failures since at least the 50s?
It is not as if Robert F. Kennedy Jr is going to be nominated, but while I appreciate that he is anti-war, that he is economically egalitarian by American standards, and that he is accordingly averse to erosions of civil liberties, he is also an anti-industrial Malthusian, an anti-vaxxer, and, well, yes, a very liberal Catholic indeed, who therefore lacks the philosophical foundation of a truly radical alternative.
What, though, of the idea that he will take 15 per cent in any closed primary, and at least double that in Massachusetts, out of dynastic loyalty? Ted Kennedy could not win the nomination against Jimmy Carter as long ago as 1980, and even in unison with John Kerry and Deval Patrick, he could not persuade the Bay State’s Democrats to prefer Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton in 2008. Even the sort of voters to whom the whole Kennedy thing is supposed to appeal are far less commonly Democrats these days. They are a much smaller proportion of the electorate at large. And more than half of them were not born when Bobby Kennedy was assassinated, 55 years ago. What do the Kennedys mean to anyone under 70?
There has never been the class consciousness in the United States that there has been in Europe and the Old Commonwealth, and it has declined in those places under American influence. But when the tide turns there, then it will turn everywhere. The failure of the woke movement to take economic inequality seriously, and therefore to include vast numbers of its victims, may well be the turning point. This, though, does not look like that point just yet.
Do we really need another Kennedy, we’ve already had four?
The first was the worst, the second the best, the third had promise, and the fourth was feeble.
Do we really need another Kennedy, we’ve already had four?
The first was the worst, the second the best, the third had promise, and the fourth was feeble.
Just when you think things can’t get any crazier. Truly, the lunatics are taking over the asylum.
Too true.
Too true.
Just when you think things can’t get any crazier. Truly, the lunatics are taking over the asylum.