A second Kennedy presidency? (John Lamparski/Getty Images)
This article was first published in May 2023.
For decades, as a scion of the Kennedy family and environmental litigator, Robert F. Kennedy Junior was considered an establishment hero. In recent years, however, his rhetoric against Covid lockdowns and vaccines — culminating in him making a comparison with Anne Frank and the Holocaust at a vaccine mandate rally — sealed his reputation among most commentators as irresponsible and potentially dangerous. So, since he announced that he was running for president two weeks ago, challenging Joe Biden for the Democratic nomination, he has presented the establishment media with something of a conundrum. He is already polling at 20% — should he be ignored or interrogated?
When Mr Kennedy agreed to speak to UnHerd, we thought we’d try something different: instead of re-rehearsing familiar arguments over vaccines, we thought we’d actually try to understand the way he thinks, and why he appeals to so many people. Does his curious basket of views — on the environment, Ukraine, corporate power, cultural issues — hang together? Below is an edited transcript.
Freddie Sayers: The issue of vaccines was notably absent from your campaign launch speech last week. Was this a deliberate effort to set the issue aside and appeal to mainstream Democrats?
Robert F. Kennedy: My approach is that, unless I’m talking to a group that specifically wants to talk about that issue, I would not lead with it. The issues that I want to lead with are those I talked about in my speech. If somebody asks me about vaccines, I’m going to tell them the truth. But I think for most Americans, it’s not on their top list of issues.
Freddie Sayers: It’s not going to be easy to set aside, as every interview will mention it. What would be your message to mainstream Democrats who might be interested in some of the things you’re saying, but have made up their mind about you based on the vaccines issue?
RFK Jr: I’m talking about issues that I think most Americans and probably most Democrats are concerned about: the systematic gutting of the middle class; the elevation of corporations — particularly polluting corporations; and, from the financial industry to the military-industrial complex, the corrupt merger of state and corporate power. Through wars, bank bailouts and lockdowns, we’ve been systematically hollowing out the American middle class, and printing money to make billionaires richer. During the Covid lockdown, there was a $4.4 trillion shift in wealth from the American middle class to this new oligarchy that we created — 500 new billionaires with the lockdowns, and the billionaires that we already had increased their wealth by 30%.
That’s just one of the assaults, and then you go to the bailout of the Silicon Valley Bank, and the war in Ukraine, which is costing us $113 billion; the war in Iraq and the wars that followed that have cost us $8 trillion. The total cost of the lockdowns was $16 trillion, and we got nothing for any of it. Is it any wonder that we don’t have a middle class left in the United States of America? Unless we rebuild the middle class, and rebuild our economy, our national security is going to fail, and our democracy is going to fail.
FS: You’ve been using the word “corporatism” a lot in interviews — what do you mean by it?
RFK: It’s the domination of government, and particularly democratic governments, by corporate power. I’ve spent 40 years litigating against the agencies, the regulatory agencies in the United States, so I can tell you that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is effectively run by the oil industry, the coal industry and the pesticide industry. When I was on the trial team that brought the Monsanto cases, and we ended up with a $13 billion settlement after winning three trials, we uncovered that the head of the pesticide division at the EPA was secretly working for Monsanto, and was running that agency to promote the mercantile ambitions of that business rather than the public interest. He was killing studies, he was fixing studies, he was ghost-writing studies. And that’s true throughout the agencies.
If you look at the pharmaceutical industry in our country, it runs the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA gets 50% of its budget from Big Pharma. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) spends half of its budget purchasing vaccines from Big Pharma, and then distributing it. And the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is just an incubator for new pharmaceutical products. It doesn’t do the basic research that we want them to be doing — about where all these diseases come from. The studies that do get done are studies that develop pharmaceutical products. And then the NIH collects royalties when the pharma company sells those products. The regulator is essentially a partner with the regulated industry. The Department of Transportation (DOT) is run by the railroads in our country and by the airlines; the banks have utterly corrupted the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); and the media has corrupted the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
FS: Are you alleging actual corruption within all these government agencies, or is it more of a general sense that there’s a revolving door between them and industry?
RFK Jr: It’s both. There’s legalised bribery and illegal bribery. The rules governing conflicts of interest aren’t just ignored — they’re systematically ignored. And the rules started out not strong enough to really protect the public interest. You have both things going on — honest graft and dishonest graft.
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…
Freddie Sayers is the Editor-in-Chief & CEO of UnHerd. He was previously Editor-in-Chief of YouGov, and founder of PoliticsHome.
freddiesayers 
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.
SubscribeFor crying out loud! How can someone who’s been double vaccinated, as Robert Malone is, be an “anti-vaxxer”?
Laziness or irony given that the subject is, essentially, about misleading the public?
Same way critics of Israeli actions are anti-Semites and people who think men are not women are “transphobes”.
Critics of Israeli actions are not antisemites, but deniers of Israel’s right to exist are.
Whilst you guys are focusing on Israel you might like to check out Malone’s findings on the vaccine’s effect on womens’ menstruation cycles in Israeli orthodox communities, just over an hour into the video. Scary!
Definition of anti-vaxxer : a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination
Quite a few vaccinated anti-vaxxers in that second category.
This is the problem. Some American dictionaries have recently now changed the definition of anti vaxxer, as per the above example.
Language is being politicised and changed in order to manipulate the debate.
Language has been politicized for centuries. The difference today is that we have so much access to it 24/7 and so many younger people do not have the critical thinking filters and skills that older folks were taught in school.
I don’t think language has been ‘politicised’ as such for centuries, since politics as we know it arose in mass industrial societies. However religion and social hierarchy were strongly supported and reinforced by language and indeed we still use many of those terms today (Christian often tending to mean generally good whether or not the person believe s in the Resurrection or the divinity of Jesus, ‘noble’, ‘villain’ -from ‘villein’ – etc.
It’s not a vaccine though.
Orlowski also calls Malone a “conspiracy theorist”, the new pejorative dumped on anyone whose opinion runs counter to the preferred narrative. Those two characterizations alone discredit this entire article.
If you check through his article you will see that he doesn’t. And while I agree with the stupidity and dishonesty of the wide use of that term, there are indeed a “fringe” of crazy people who believe the most absurd nonsense such as “chemtrails” being used to poison everyone, when it is already so much easier to do so by adding toxic fluoride to water supplies.
More widely, Orlowski adds some sound critiques of Desmet’s ignorant notions, besides my own commentary in a longer comment here.
Indeed, as explained in my own account of authoritarianism
Indeed, his profound ignorance of psychology more widely is all too obvious.
In the final paragraph of the article:
“…Google was prompted to qualify its results after a concept was promoted by a popular conspiracy theorist…”
I took this to be a reference by the author to Malone?
Reply to R r@rpc.co
It’s a fact that those affected by mass psychosis/mass formation are not confined to the ‘masses’ but affect university graduates, post grads and even post docs and professors to, at least, the same degree.
It is a sad fact that those affected are completely unaware that they have the condition.
Sadly it is clear that R r@rpc.co is particularly badly afflicted with the condition.
“This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.”
https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html
It is interesting that the term rarely gets ascribed to people on the Left, who make outrageous and unsubstantiated claims. Was Hillary Clinton accused of being a “conspiracy theorist” when she talked about “the vast right-wing conspiracy”?
No because those on the other side of the arguement (and others, bystanders,etc) knew she was just being Hillary.
Ah your own wee cancel culture? You realise you’re in the same group that pulled down Colston’s statue because of its associations.
You can only understand the opposition and then deconstruct their arguments if you listen and read their material. Don’t join the cancel bigots.
And a vaccinologist and one of the developers of the mRNA technology. A truly contemptible piece of journalism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zg1j7Zquoc for similar, Bret Weinstein,
the banned vidoe talked above https://odysee.com/@BannedYouTubeVideos:4/JOE-ROGAN-AND-DR-ROBERT-MALONE:c
a MUST Watch! Fun and interesting, watch before you Vax!
I’ve just listened to the first 1½ hours of this and I’m gobsmacked by some of his discoveries and assertions, and that’s even after listening to McCullough and Martin. The conspiracy ceases to be a theory when respected professionals, all highly relevant and knowledgeable in their fields are presenting verifiable facts and not just vague and unsubstantiated theories. The character assassinations and suppression going on are truly alarming and deeply troubling.
It’s very shocking when you first learn from entirely credible, institutional professionals. Truly alarming and deeply troubling just as you say.
First, we never miss an episode of Weinstein/Heying Darkhorse Podcast and support independents we watch.Second, YouTube fed me the Desmet video prior to Malone on Rogan. He is also a statistician and make a compelling arguments. Third, we also watch Steve Deace and Daniel Horowitz regularly. That’s enough to cause several heads here to explode. All of them have been months ahead on the Covidistan issue. and hosted Malone, Kory, McCullough, Cole, and other heroes quite some time ago. I pray Ryan Cole is next on Rogan…
Malone developed vaccines. He made it very clear in the podcast that he was very pro vaccination. He was angry and concerned that these vaccines were going to make people more “vaccine hesitant” in the future if the results work out as he believes they will. He is angered by the lack of rigor around the testing and studies done on the safety of the vaccines and even more concerned about the mandates which are leading to people to mistrust public health even more.
Robert Malone is the World’s most vocal Anti Vaxxer! Watch the banned Youtube on Oddest https://odysee.com/@BannedYouTubeVideos:4/JOE-ROGAN-AND-DR-ROBERT-MALONE:c
Excellent Video! Fascinating, and WATCH before you Vax!
The vax is way too dangerous for normal, healthy, people to use, Insanity for children to use. Watch the video.
Then Unherd’s own Dr Bret Weinstein and Dr NcCullough on exactly the same – a TOP scientist telling the terrible problems with vaxing, and how giving the vax has caused half a million deaths un-nessicarialy, in the West. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zg1j7Zquoc
Mass Formation Psychosis has been talked of everywhere – you all may be snoozing off in watching kitten videos if you never heard of it.
Exactly. Unless you realize the the term was recently redefined to include those that are against vaccine mandates. I don’t subscribe to the latest weaponization of the dictionary so I quit reading after most absurd line. (Edit: I reacted prior to reading the other comments. I bow to all who posited this idea prior to myself.)
He is a prime example of the type who say “do what I say, not what I do”. He protects himself first and then advises his followers to eschew vaccines and to rely on livestock dewormer instead.
A prime example of the weaponised language of the ‘permanent pandemic’ brigade. I like cheese but I don’t think lactose intolerant people should be forced to eat it. I guess that makes me anti-cheese.
Yet another reason to move to DuckDuckGo for search.
Here’s the archived version of the original Wiki RNA vaccine entry before the removal of Dr. Robert Malone. Under history he is mentioned at the very beginning as being the scientist behind the developed a high-efficiency in-vitro and in-vivo RNA transfection system…
Before June 14, 2021
https://web.archive.org/web/20210614140319/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_vaccine
After June 14, 2021
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRNA_vaccine
If you try and use the old link it will be moved to the new one.
However, if you look in the “references” at the bottom you will find “Robert Wallace Malone” mentioned. I guess Wiki didn’t completely erase him.
Wow. First article, the name “Malone” gets nine hits on the page, three of them in the main article, six in the footnotes. Second article, only three mentions of Malone, all in the footnotes. Kind of like those famous pictures of Lenin, one with Trotsky, one without.
That’s the same conclusion I came to, thanks for confirming it!
There are an Unherd interview with one of the founders of Wikipedia last year – they peddle a one sided narrative and continually manipulate entries.
The use of certain terms in this article reveal bias. Dr. Malone is not adverse to vaccines, nor does he seem conspitorial as observed in his SubStack space. He is contrarian against the current narrative. The public fear during this pandemic has been remarkable and our society’s response has been remarkable as well. Malone postulates a reason. We can mull that over as we wish.
The missed point is the bias in search “to save us from unapproved information” and Malone’s being removed from Twitter “to save us from unapproved information”. Please allow me to be an adult who does not need such filters.
Unfortunately, we are living in a world where information providers increasingly curate the information for us in case we think wrong thoughts. You may think you are an adult but in fact you have been reclassified as a vulnerable person who needs to be protected from wrong thoughts by suppressing any evidence that might cause you to doubt the approved truth.
LOL. And the next step is to save you from eating animal proteins, sugary drinks and overconsuming electricity.
Why the lol? -10 social credit points for you.
I stopped reading after use of the term “anti – waxxer”!
Quite right. Why shouldn’t women wax their legs if they want to.
Spot on!
Totally agree but there is a downside to using wax as it have to be repeated indefinitely. But don’t take my word for it (I never used the wax because of my allergies). I prefer a method that prevents the growth.
From Wikipedia (Gulliver’s Travels):
It would seem that satire is still alive but embedded in real life.
Thanks for posting that quote. I’ve recently reread Gulliver’s Travels and remember reading and applying that description to the ‘Lilliputians’ of our times.
This is why I use Duck Duck Go for internet searches. Google has been doing this a long time. During the second climategate email incident I noticed that searching climate gate on google took you to an article tut tutting about how stealing emails was unethical. All day long I kept checking and searches on other engines like Bing showed the term taking off – but the number of ‘hits’ on Google kept dropping. It is a disgrace that we allow these companies to manipulate public opinion.
Hooray! And what’s worse about Google is the sale of information about you to hundreds of their clients and the algorithmic strategies they use to keep you clicking.
The word ‘cult’ has a definition which applies to a surprisingly wide range of human institutions. This ‘mass formation psychosis’ seems to be the mesmerising brain mechanism exploited by those malfeasants who hope to be ‘great leaders’ of cultish acolytes.
Censors only ever censor the truth – falsehoods do not need to be censored, exposure is far more efficient.
Also, censors are always stupid and end up totally discrediting their medium. Established media, Google, FB, YouTube, Twitter etc. have within less than two years reduced their credibility to below that of Pravda and Izvestia.
Trusted News Initiative (TNI) A very real oxymoron.
Its still on screwtube i am listening at the mo….mass hysteria is as old as the human species and is probably evident in other animals too
This article isn’t what I would expect to find on Unherd. Not because it goes against my views, and it doesn’t offer me confirmation bias. Or it offends me or anything. But to call Dr. Malone an anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist, really? If I want to hear that kind of juvenile take I’ll just tune into CNN.
Andrew Orlowski is a conspiracy theorist.
There should not be this censorship, but more importantly, these notions of “mass psychosis” or “mass formation” reflect profound ignorance about psychology.
Years ago it was well-recognised that there is something called authoritarianism, and authoritarian mentality. There have been whole books about this. And associated with it is the delusion that we have meritocracy.
The present situation was fully explained already in my book Experts Catastrophe before this Covid even began.
But first some facts. These silly new ideas are DISPROVEN by the FACTS. The very firm observation is that there is very high belief in the Covophobia among posh “educated” people, and there is high disbelief among the non-posh non-“educated”. And that is the opposite of these silly “mass” theorists’ predictions. It is the people who are most comfortably in society who are the most Covophobic.
Coming now to authoritarianism, we all have to to an extent just rely on trusting our “superiors”. We don’t have time to research and question everything. So a level of unquestioning authoritarian mentality has evolved in us We all learn from the Bigger People – our parents, teachers, lecturers, professors. THIS is the brainwashing.
The exams system strongly rewards mindless authoritarianist parroting of “expertise”. “Earning” of qualifications acts as a biasing bribe adding to the delusion of a meritocracy.
Meanwhile there is huge disbelief among dark-skinned people because they are constantly bombarded with a message that they are victims of an inverted meritocracy (of “institutional racism”). So either that’s true and therefore there’s no meritocracy, OR it’s untrue and all the media are lying to the dark-skinned people hence again no honest meritocracy.
The popularity of this “mass” nonsense is itself a reflection of the gross incompetence of an academia which has forgotten most of what it had learnt only 50 years ago. I recommend books by Kreml and Eysenck for some more competent info, plus my own (pre-Covid) “Experts Catastrophe” for which I will add a link in a reply here.
Cheers, Robin P Clarke, someone who has actually STUDIED both psychology and medical charlatanism for many years, rather than become an instant expert the last year or two.
You can read for free the (pre-Covid) explanation of why there has been such a catastrophe of charlatanism, in the first chapter of my book Experts Catastrophe – http://www.pseudoexpertise.com/ch-1a.pdf
Cheers.
PS: If you are one of these ultra-superiors who don’t need to read things before dismissing them, then please just b off somewhere else instead as you won’t be properly appreciated here.
First I’ve ordered your book from Amazon, and there is no question that we have a catastrophe as a result of diktats from so-called Experts, who are actually not really experts. e.g. Fauci, for all his past scientific accomplishments, is not a practicing physician – sure he sees the odd patient at the NIH clinical center once in a blue moon but that’s not the same thing as actually treating thousands of patients. But there is something else going on: and that is that many very smart (or at least highly credentialed) people, especially those on the left for some reason, are not prepared to listen to any facts that contradict the current ExpertTM narrative, and at least research these facts. And to top that big tech (FB, Google, Twitter, YouTube) are censoring any contrarian views. This is an extraordinary situation because for many all common sense and independent thought has been thrown out the window and blind faith has been put into the ExpertsTM.
The result is frighteningly dangerous. A an example, consider the mandating of boosters at many of the top US universities as a condition of attendance. How dumb can this be: (1) the population (students in their late teens and early 20s) in question is not really at risk of untoward consequences from a covid infection; (2) the risk of myocarditis in young males following vaccination is up 20-fold (and that’s only the tip of the iceberg) over background (from the VAERS database); (3) there is no such thing as mild myocarditis that entails hospitalizations – by definition that’s a severe adverse event (i.e. language is being distorted – in other words these mild cases of myocarditis are only mild relative to myocarditis resulting in end stage cardiac failure require a heart transplant!); (4) they are mandating boosters for a vaccine that is no longer effective against the current (Omicron) variant – indeed the monoclonal antibodies directed against the original spike are no longer effective so why one would expect a vaccine that produces the original spike to be effective is beyond me.
Fauci is quite tame compared to the top leading expert we have here in the UK, professor Neil Ferguson, whom the BBC constantly wheel out for long erudite explanations about why we might need another “circuit-breaker” lockdown. For all I have to say about that please refer to http://www.pseudoexpertise.com/cherry.pdf and my own incompetent analysis of the deaths data of nine whole countries at http://www.pseudoexpertise.com/clarke-covid3.pdf
By the way, I think you indicate a popular illusion above. There is an important distinction between “taught knowledge” and “direct knowledge”, with the latter generally being greatly superior. BUT, when it comes to “what is happening nationally/globally”, there is no substitute for looking at the epidemiological data, which is of course not direct knowledge. And being a frontline physician, for instance in a hospital ward, does not entail any national viewpoint and indeed takes your attention away from studying the science. So, working on an intensive Covid ward actually goes with being LESS informed and expert rather than more! But talk to people in the shops and they will declare “but this guy works in a Covid ward so he is an expert”. This reflects the deep ignorance about expertise most people have in our society.
I read your your PDF analysis. I would agree with everything you say in it. In fact, I would say it is so self-evident that it is surprising to me (probably very naively) so few of my learned colleagues are willing to even consider the data which as you rightly point out are in plain view in the public domain, at the click of a mouse.
And with regard to my learned colleagues I’m not talking about people who have any sort of financial or any other stake in the outcome, other than their own personal considerations.
I’d bet there’s no rush by those at the top of all this to prove that they have taken these wonder-treatments themselves – Mr Gates, heads of the various Pharmas, directors of the Publicis propaganda corporation, investors, etc…….
I should add that the notion that the True Believers of Covophobianity are “deluded” “Sheeple” or “suckers” under some psychological effect is entirely unsound. They are simply DISINFORMED, IGNORANT. They are victims of an “expertise” system which has become grossly corrupted (see my book links here) and an information system which has become completely censored by Gigantic Money. People do not understand that money controls everything. They do not understand how gigantic the money is. A million dollars is peanuts to these corporations and yet with even one such “peanut” you can employ whole professional teams to churn out lies about the truth-tellers and promote “professor” Ferguson as the great “leading expert”. THAT is all the causality you need here, not this clueless nonsense from the doubtlessly well-meaning Dr Desmet here.
I don’t really agree here. It is unquestionable that fear has been used to promote behavioral changes. It is the biggest impact on their behavior from what I have experienced. This is the whole purpose of the SPI-B group and the Fors Marsh group in the USA. The money men wouldn’t have paid the Fors Marsh group $400 million dollars if it wasn’t working.
Thanks. I fully agree that fear (and shaming) has been a major component of the propaganda. Having studied marketing (exactly same as propaganda!) copywriting, I’m well aware that it targets emotions such as greed and fear. And also there has been that huge operation of deceit using those emotions.
But that in no way (a) undermines the position I explained in that Chapter 1, that it is just a matter of VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD individual psychology (in a context of huge propaganda disinformation), nor (b) validates the already disproven “mass formation” notion being here advanced by a person whose only expertise is in CLINICAL “psychology” (such as Freudian rubbish lol). Cheers.
You are certainly correct that the initial event is that people are victims of an “expertise” system that has become corrupted. You are also correct that such people (the majority it so happens) are disinformed and ignorant. But the problem is that these people are so convinced of the correctness of the Experts that they can no longer be persuaded of the errors in their views by reasoned arguments and actual facts. In other words, following the Experts has become analogous to a religion or a cult. And that is sort of what is meant by “Mass Formation”.
Thanks but I am well aware of that. And there’s nothing remarkable there. Once people have a notion massively built into their brains (by both authoritarianism instinct and DECADES OF “EDUCATION”), they consider it a “KNOWN FACT” that the bbc and professors speak the truth and any oddoes who say otherwise are “self-evidently” brainwashed by “misinformation”.
It is far harder for people to UNlearn faulty information than to just learn the correct in the first place.
Not so. My first comment explained why innate programming plus whole decades of education cause this behaviour. People do not have time or energy to examine the reasons and evidence for everything. How about you spend more time considering that maybe you have been fooled that climate crisis is/isn’t ridiculous, go through all the published and unpublished data. It is nothing to do with a group phenomenon such as cult.
And no that is not what is meant by mass formation, it is a grossly incompetent concept as already explained in my first comment. Cheers…
Interesting Robin. Ok, let’s discard “mass formation”.
But it does seem to me that it is awfully bizarre that colleagues of mine who are Members of the National Academy of Sciences, and therefore should be perfectly capable of assessing scientific/medical information critically and intelligently, just dismiss any concerns regarding serious adverse events following covid vaccination, especially when it is clear now that the vaccine does not prevent infection or transmission, but may only reduce the severity of symptoms (and even that isn’t for sure – it’s just something that is endlessly repeated as if it were fact). It is equally surprising that they (as well as many academic physicians) dismiss all inconvenient facts that go against the so-called mainstream narrative. Similarly it is very surprising that all these people are gung-ho for masks even though it is clear that they offer minimal protection at best, and it is also not clear from real world data that regular masks even act effectively as a method of source control.
The same is true of the panic over global warming, all based on mathematical modeling which gives the impression of tremendous rigor when it is anything but. I could understand it if the planet were really warming up dangerously, but 1 degree centigrade in a 150 years, especially since 1850 marks the beginning of the end of the mini-ice age, is not exactly either surprising or particularly worrying, especially when one considers previous highs in the Minoan, Roman and Medieval periods which could not have had anything to do with human-generated CO2. These same people will even deny US Government data from the reference NOAA dataset that was started by NOAA in 2005 for the 50 US states that shows absolutely no warming over the last 16 years in the US. And not only that, they will blame natural occurrences (such as blight) on global warming. But it’s not just smart people but the majority of climate scientists themselves who deny the best data, and fall back on heavily doctored/erroneous/corrected data. For example, recently, the current President of the National Academy of Sciences wrote to all members about the impending climate doom and existential crisis based on a summary of the latest IPCC report, yet if one actually goes to the report proper it says no such thing. Indeed, the analysis of the IPCC reports by Steve Koonin, who is hardly some right wing conspiracy theorist, given that he was Obama’s deputy Secretary of Energy and a world-renowned computational physicist, demonstrated quite clearly that there is no indication of impending doom and there is plenty of unsettled science, even in the bowls of the IPCC reports.
So I fully understand if people with no scientific/medical knowledge are easily hoodwinked, but in the case of COVID, it is precisely those who should be the least susceptible to hoodwinking who are actually hoodwinked, while many of the common folk (i.e. non-scientists and non-intellectuals) are not.
In other words, it seems to me that there is more going on than can just be explained at the level of the individual, given the huge numbers that appear to be affected, and all in the same direction.
You raise a crucial point here. The thing to understand is that there are two things, how the education system supposedly works, and how it actually works. Supposedly it teaches truth and critical thinking.
.Of course it does that to a significant extent. But especially in med schools, the exams system strongly discriminates in favour of mindless high-efficiency parroting, and strongly discriminates against stopping to ask whether it is all true, Independent thinkers are rigidly excluded by this system. And as for “critical thinking” these people actually believe that it consists of if the profs say it, or the authorities say it, and peer-reviewed, then it can be assumed to be true, whereas if some unpaid nobody says it, you should not even bother listening to them. They have zero understanding of the corrupting and biasing factors. This was explained in my first chapter http://www.pseudoexpertise.com/ch-1a.pdf
I meet and talk to people in very different areas of this city. There is a stark contrast. In the posh area near the university and hospital, the Covophobia is intense, whereas in the un-posh areas there is a lot of disbelief, hidden just below the surface.
That is because people in the posh areas believe there is a functioning meritocracy system, the good people are the heroes on BBC etc. The people in non-posh areas know otherwise. They are constantly told they are victims of “institutional racism”. Therefore, either (a) that it true and there’s no true meritocracy, or (b) it’s untrue so those superiors are all lying to us about it.
Also bear in mind that people with jobs in science are afraid to speak out against false bandwagons lest they harm their careers. Then the silence is assumed to mean non-disbelief.
Motivated by money and prestige; this is an important factor in the way that big corporations behave and manipulate. They want admiration & respect.
Robert Malone is not an anti vaxxer – really surprised at Unherd
For those who want the opportunity to make up their own mind the banned video is here: https://www.bitchute.com/video/RbEtHaVCeNYs/
I haven’t watched it yet so can’t confirm it’s definitely the original banned video etc
Also, as a first time visitor to bitchute, that was interesting lol
That is the interview. Watch it, then look up rogan and Dr McCullogh forr the same from an expert of equal credentials saying the same, or just watch him here with Bret Weinstein https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zg1j7Zquoc
Thanks but I’ll wait till the BBC and Professor Ferguson certify that it isn’t dangerous misinformation first!
Louis was his middle name. I believe he went by Edward Bernays. It should be noted that Joseph Goebbels had everything Edward Bernays ever published in his library. Bernays even mentioned it in his own autobiography. They were using my books as the basis for a destructive campaign against the Jews of Germany. This shocked me, but I knew any human activity can be used for social purposes or misused for antisocial ones.
The USA is the inventor and world leader in modern propaganda and behavioral modification. They have been for decades. Hill & Knowlton’s Nayirah testimony production often comes to mind as a good example. The SPI-B group of SAGE in the UK and the Fors Marsh group in the USA that the Biden administration just rehired are doing this work on the coronavirus response for these governments. They should be watched closely. On a funny note when Trump signed them up for their first $250 million the Democrats started to get in an uproar for fear it might blunt their strongest campaign message against him. It seemed to be short lived though. Whoever the TPTB are must have told them to back off. Dr. Mattias discusses his theory here… if somebody want to hear it from the horse’s mouth.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/dr-mattias-desmet-dr-robert-malone-dr-peter-mccullough-mass-formation-psychosis/
To label Robert Malone an anti-vaxxer is ludicrous! He is strongly pro-vax but opposes the roll-out of this mRNA-based gene therapy. Surprisingly sloppy journalism from UnHerd.
This Wikipedia article describes what’s happening in the West quite aptly:
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism
Interested to see that Malone thinks we can stop the scamdemic crew by using reason and finding common ground. There is only one solution to determined criminal group with guns. Once that becomes common ground the problem generally goes away as it did in 1945, 1648, 1776, 1917 etc etc
Mr. Orlowski
Listen to Joe Rogan podcast with Malone, the whole thing not the snippets you have seen or not just enough to apply few labels to dr Malone. What you wrote may appease the TwitterSS, but has nothing to do with the Malone opinions or expressed views.
TIme to cancel Google, methinks
34:30 ‘We are in what is called A Mass Formation Psychosis’
https://odysee.com/@NoFriendRequests:5/Joe-Rogan-Peter-McCullough:c
one of the top world’s top research Doctors talking of why the covid response is entirely a Mass Formation Psychosis.
I have been hearing of Mass Psychosis for a wile now, and everyone talking negatively of covid response always talks of this phenomenon. It always ends up very badly indeed.
Mattias Desmet is not alone in his thinking re mass psychosis https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7913136/
Another Desmet link here: https://ratical.org/PandemicParallaxView/EyeOfTheStorm-ProfMattiasDesmet.html
This is a transcript of a very interesting discussion around mass formation.
Glad I switched to duck duck go long time ago
Hold your horses… I’ve seen these warning plates on other less potentially controversial search terms before. I don’t think it necessarily means editorialising. I think your assertion that “Besides the very obvious point that Google is editorialising, and therefore imperilling its safe harbour privileges” is a pretty big leap of logic in this case.
According to the caption under the screenshot in the article “Searches for a well-known concept yielded no results after it was promoted by Robert Malone”
So it’s more that just adding a ‘warning plate’; they actually blocked you from seeing any results.
As people migrate to alternative search engines they learn more. Google workers have become enemies of information as they decide what’s best for us. They imagine they can change our views via search and they may be right.
They sure are. They helped elect a hapless, senile, buffoon who spent 50 years in politics accomplishing absolutely nothing, with the exception of being pummeled by the media 30 years ago over being a plagiarist.