The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 363. Rekindling the Spirit of the Classic Democrat | Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Episode Date: June 5, 2023

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. discuss his candidacy for the 2024 presidential election, his thoughts on key issues such as climate change, woke ideological capture, Big Pharma’s stranglehold on Democrat campaign funding and the legacy media, and how the ideals that unite Americans are stronger than the ones which divide. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a writer, attorney, activist, and politician, who has had a career-spanning focus on clean water, environmental, and public health issues. RFK Jr. is the founder of the Waterkeeper Alliance — the world’s largest clean water advocacy group — and served as its longtime chairman and attorney. In this role, he spearheaded the New York City Watershed Agreement, which has come to be considered an international model for sustainable development and stakeholder consensus negotiation. RFK Jr. was named Time Magazine’s “Hero For The Planet” for his efforts to restore the Hudson River, which along with other achievements has led to more than 300 Waterkeeper organizations taking root across the globe. As nephew of the United States' beloved 35th president, and having dutifully earned his own acclaim across decades of formative work, he is now running for the presidency himself in the 2024 election. - Links - For Robert F. Kennedy Jr: Kennedy 2024 Campaign site: https://www.kennedy24.com/. Robert F. Kennedy on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr

Hello, everyone. Today I'm speaking with writer, attorney, environmentalist and 2024 presidential candidate, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. We discuss how the Democratic party has become one of fear and ideology. It's inexplicable conclusion with legacy media and big pharma. How the COVID-19 pandemic became an issue of tribal allegiance. The use of the Doomsday climate narrative for political gains, what can actually be done with renewable energy, and why the use of the Doomsday climate narrative for political gains, what can actually be done with renewable energy, and why the era of Kennedy Democrats cannot only be revived, but uniting for Americans across boundaries, both physical and philosophical. What made you decide to throw your hat in the ring on the presidency, for the presidency

at this point. Well, I saw the country going in a direction and my political party going in a direction that was very troubling to me. The country won really because it needs a reboot. But the role of my political party, I felt like the Democrats kind of got derailed and became the party suddenly and mysteriously of war. When they were always skeptical of the military and industrial complex, they became the party of censorship, which is a poor and two every definition of liberalism. They became the party of fear, which is against our traditions. Franklin Roosevelt in his 1932 inaugural address said that. The only thing that we have to fear is fear itself.

And he understood that fear is a weapon of totalitarian elements and totalitarian control. It became the party of the Neocons, which again was anithetical. The Neocons were Republican, very, you know, belligerent, pugnacious foreign policy about subduing the world and establishing Hedge Money through Violence. It became the party of Wall Street, President Biden has surrounded himself with Wall Street. And the party that had forgotten

its roots in the middle class of our country and started regarding people, the cops, the firefighters, uh... people you know the cops the firefighters uh... union members of people who were the bedrock of the of the democratic party is deplorables uh... and all of those trans and others were uh... were disturbing to me and i actually jordan started thinking about running uh... before it was really fire, before I considered it viable, but

just to be able to take advantage of the fact that you're protected somewhat from censorship if you're running for president. There's actually federal rules that make it illegal for the network TV to censor presidential candidates. But my wife would never have let me run for president if it was not a, you know, if I didn't tend to win. And then last spring, a pollster named Jeremy Zogby, who once runs one of the biggest polling houses in North America. And had been polling me without my knowledge for several months, as to see me and he sat down with me and showed me the polling results that showed a very clear path that I could

have to victory. And with those, I was able to over time persuade my wife and my kids that this was have to victory. And with others, I was able to, over time, persuade my wife and my kids that this was a good idea. And I think at this point, they're pretty happy with, you know, the last two months. How are you doing in the polls at the moment as far as you can tell with credible polls? Well, the public poll I average about 20%, which is good. I mean, my candidacy is not being treated as serious by the mainstream media. I think maybe it is a little bit more so, but it was originally dis-as kind of a fringe candidacy. But I'm actually doing much better than dissessantis, Governor Dessantis

against Trump. I'm doing much better against Biden. So I think that that is just a media bias. And my, our internal poll numbers are much, much better. And I think the most significant thing for Democrats over the long term is that our internal polls show that I do much better against President Trump than President Biden. So I beat him by almost double the percentage that President Biden does. And I do even better against Governor DeSantis. So, and I think that, you know, if the public polling reflects that, I think that that's going to be very persuasive to a lot of Democrats who really see the election as just a battle to keep Donald Trump from retaking the White House again. And I think a lot of Democrats who don't like me, I think mainly because of the propaganda

that has dominated the very, very negative propaganda and negative portrayals of me and the misinterpretations of my viewpoints which have dominated the media and the public consciousness over the past several years, that that will begin to recede a little more that people see of me and the more that, you know, if the polling shows that I am more likely to be present Trump than present Biden, I think it will force a lot of Democrats to take a second look at me.

Why do you think that people feel that you might be a better alternative to Trump than Biden is? What is it about what you bring to the table that's making you more credible on that front? Well, I think the reason my numbers show that is that I've been able to bridge the divide between Republicans and Democrats. A lot of my supporters, I think I do better than any candidate with independence, which are now the biggest political party. And I appeal to a lot of Republicans as well.

And so, and I don't think, you know, President, I can do that, and if you just do the math, you know, in the end, it's likely that I'll get almost all the Democrats who vote. If it's me against, say, President Trump, the likelihood is that most Democrats would vote for me in that he will get very little crossover, whereas I will still get a lot of Republican votes, and I'll dominate the independent votes at least. And I think that will continue. I mean, that is not that observation or that is not just an artifact of our polling, but it's, you know, it's reflected in conversations that I have

every single day of people approaching me in airports on airplanes. When I'm doing, when I'm in the countryside, which I have to go to a lot in rural areas, urban areas, I'm getting a strong response and the response across the board. I think it's true. The polling is reflecting something that's really happening. Right. Well, it isn't obvious to me. And this leads into another line of question. Exactly why you're running on the Democrat ticket because as you just pointed out, your policies at least in principle, could appeal to Republicans as well. And that might make you a unique candidate on the Democrat side.

I guess I'm curious about why do you... So there's an analogy, I believe, between what's happened to the universities and what's happened to the Democrats. So what I saw happen in the universities. And what's happened to the Democrats. So what I saw happen in the universities was that the administration took over the faculty. The faculty retreated in 3,000 micro steps and the administration moved forward. And that happened over about a 25-year period until the administration had captured the universities completely. And then the DEI types took over the administration. And it looks to me like something analogous happened within the Democrats. Like I worked with the Democrats for a long time

in California trying to help my teachers, by DEI, I mean, diversity, equity, and the U.S. Okay. Yeah, the social justice warrior types within the universities. And so what I saw among the Democrats that I worked with was that they were unable to draw a dividing line between the moderate types and the radicals. So and this is something maybe I'll push you about.

So for example, I went to Washington. I talked to a lot of Democrats, senators and congressmen about what I saw happening in the broad public sphere, but also in the Democrat Party. And I asked them this question, when does the left go too far? And none of them were able to answer. And even though it's completely obvious that the left can go too far, I mean, that's one of the cardinal lessons of the 20th century. And I suggested that the left goes too far when it pushes equity. And all I got as a response from the Democrats, senators, and congressmen like was, well,

the people who say equity, they just mean equality of opportunity. And that's not what they mean. They mean equality of outcome. And that's not the same thing at all. And I saw in that inability to draw that distinction, part of the reason that the Democrats have shifted in the direction that you described in the direction that seems to be opposed in many ways to the best interests of both the working class and the middle class, but also characterized by this incredible strain of illiberalism and corporate fascist collusion, the sort of thing

that you document, for example, in the relationship between the power elites and big pharma. And so my sense on the Democrat side, I couldn't shift the Democrats to the point, the ones that I was talking to, to the point where they would draw distinction between them and the radicals. It just didn't seem possible. And so why do you think, I don't think the universities are salvageable, by the way. So why do you think the Democrats are salvageable?

Well, I don't think we have a choice. We have a two party system that I, you know, I'm a lifelong Democrat. I feel like my party's being taken away from me in some ways by the, you ways by the kind of ideologies, extreme ideologies, and really the departure of common sense that I think troubles you and a lot of the things that you think about. But I mean, why do I think it's salvageable because I'm talking to people on the street.

You know, there are so many people who have responded to my candidacy positively because they see it as return to you know, being a Kennedy Democrats, the Democratic Party that they loved and that they thought reflected their values, their ideologies, and their best interests in this country. That was likely to build an America that they can be proud of, that their children can be proud of, that as moral authority around the world, and all the things that we'd like to see. I think most people would like to see. I think the Democratic Party has been hijacked, as you say, by some extreme ideologies.

In some cases, it's kind of, thought patterns. And I think the idea of returning it to common sense is appealing to a lot of people. And I'm just thinking those things, but they seem to be reflected both in my bowling and in the kind of reaction I get from people on the street and on Twitter. So it's a mixture of things that makes me feel that way, but, you know, I could be wrong. Well, I mean, part of the reason that I was willing to work with the Democrats to begin with, and I did that for about five years, was because I thought, I think, like you do, according to what you just said, that, well, you kind of have to work with the institutions

that exist, because those are the institutions that exist. And there seems to be some utility in trying to pull the Democrats, let's say, back, back towards the center as much as that's possible. But I found that, I think we had some success in that regard, but it was in particular the, and I see this on the conservative side too, by the way, with the unwillingness to see, this is probably more true in Canada, even what is really at the core of this progressive ideology that stresses equity, for example, because equity is non-believably dangerous doctor. And as far as I can tell, it's indistinguishable from the sort of Marxist ideas that swept across Eastern

Europe and the Soviet Union and China for that matter in the 20th century and that still prevail certainly in China. And it isn't obvious to me at all that the Democrats have taken this with any degree of seriousness. And that's producing all sorts of strange pathologies on the culture of front. You've documented've documented a fair bit, and this brings us into another area that's adjacent to that. I guess you've spent a lot of time, your last book, Letter to Liberals. I think I've got that title right.

Concentrated on the strange collusion that has occurred between the Democrats and the and big pharma. And this is also something I find completely inexplicable. Like 20 years ago, if you would have said that in 2020, the leftist types and the liberals, including the Democrats, would be colluding with big pharma. People would have thought you were completely out of your mind because for an endless amount of time, the number one corporate enemies of people who were liberal

or on the left were big pharma and big energy. And so how do you explain what happened in relationship to the liberal attitude towards big pharma during the COVID epidemic? Because I haven't been able to sort that out at all. What do you think's behind that? Well, I watched that happen kind of like a slow-motion train wreck and you write that traditionally pharmaceutical industries are, you know, it is a criminal enterprise produced, for example, all the vaccines in America, have paid $35 billion collectively over the last decade in criminal penalties and damages for lying to doctors for defrauding regulators for falsifying science. And for killing hundreds of thousands of people, I mean the ol' opioid crisis was engineered by the SACClers and by the other big pharmaceutical companies along with corrupt FDA officials.

And that is a crisis and now kills hundreds, this year killed 106,000 American kids, twice the number of kids that died during the 20-year Vietnam War. Viox is another good example. That was another symptom of the corrupt collusion between Farma and the regulatory agencies. And the capture of those agencies by that industry, which is becoming the agencies themselves have become sock puppets for that industry. And they killed between 120,000, 500,000 people with a drug they marketed as a headache medicine and an arthritis medicine, when they knew that it caused heart attacks.

And they didn't tell the public that. They concealed that from the public. So, you know, a lot of people would have said, oh, it caused heart attacks while I was taking an aspirin, but they weren't allowed to make that choice because the pharma and the collusion with the collusion of the regulators took that information, deprived the public of informed consent. Now, the question is, a Democrats knew that there's more pharmaceutical lobbyists on Capitol Hill than there are congressmen senators and Supreme Court justice combined more than any other industry. They give double in terms of lobbying, what the next biggest industry gives. And it's easy for them to own Congress still. There was an ideological resistance among Democrats until a decade ago.

And or really a decade. What happened was that during Democrats are always star for money, for campaign money, because Republicans can take money from dirty industries and from you know, sort of people Disreputable people You know from what it whether it's the oil industry the tobacco industry the NRA or you know things that a lot of Democrats consider Disreputable. And they have unlimited money. The Democrats traditionally could only get big money, reliable big money from two sources. One was the labor unions, and the other was the trial lawyers, and they don't have anywhere near the kind of money that

you know, these industries have to give away. And so something changed during Obamacare. And that was that you know, I'm administration. And my uncle Ted Kennedy was headed, it was chairing a Senate health committee at this time. So I watched this whole thing very, you know, very carefully and was disturbed at that time. In order because of the lobbying power of Farma,arma, Obama could not get Obamacare passed without the collaboration of pharmaceutical industry.

So he basically had to make a golden handshake with the devil. And the agreement they made was that number one, Obamacare will is going to benefit you because it's going to pay for all of your products, the pharmaceutical drugs to Americans. But here was the key. We will not bargain over prices with you, which Medicare used to do, the Canadian government bargains when it provides health care to Canadians. It bargains against really good deals, which is why Americans go to Canada

to buy drugs because they're much cheaper there. But here they could pay, they could charge the top rate, and the Obamacare would have to pay. And that is how Obama got the pharmaceutical industry's support. And after that, it became permissible for Democrats to accept pharmaceutical money. The pharmaceutical money began pouring into the Democratic

party, but on issues like vaccines, the Democrats and Republicans were pretty evenly split up to 2016. And then you had these, then you had a drum run for presidency. And during his campaign, he, on several occasions, he mentioned that he believed that vaccines were causing autism. And this was anecdotal to him. He had three friends who were women, who were mothers, whose children had been completely healthy and then had regressed into, you know, a lot of their language and regressed into

stereotypical behavior about his associate with autism after receiving MMR vaccines. And so he and his belief was that the link was real. And he said it out loud on several occasions, I think three separate occasions. And at that time, anything that Trump said was immediately the reaction to the Democratic Party is whatever he says we got to do the opposite. So even though we've had an NAFTA for our entire existence for a party, if Trump now says he hates NAFTA, we've got to start liking NAFTA. So that was kind of what happened was those pronouncements by Trump were put by the Democratic Party doyons into the same, any science dumpster as his climate denial, and it became a tribal issue. And so that it was a culture-worry issue if you thought vaccines caused some of the

U.S. Republican and if you thought they definitely did not, and that's been proven beyond any doubt, you're a Democrat, and there was no in-between, there was no dialogue, there was no room for dissent or debate, it was a tribal issue, and it was life or death. And that's the way that I saw that history happen, because I watched the change in 2016. Okay, so you saw two things happen. You saw a collusion emerged because of the agreement that Obama made with big pharma companies. And then there was this twist that was thrown into it

as a consequence of the Trump candidacy. So also, I'm wondering, it wasn't that long ago, oh wow, I guess it's 20 years now, so it's some reasonable amount of time, that the laws in the United States were changed so that Big Pharma could advertise their products directly to the consumer. That was actually a revolution in messaging. And now, as you pointed out in your last book, Big Pharma controls about 75% of the advertising on legacy media and even more on the news shows. And so I think it's about 75% on the news shows.

I'm not sure. I think there are even bigger advertisers. If you look at the entire sort of landscape, I mean, automobiles may be bigger. But certainly on the evening news shows, the evening news is the perfect landscape to advertise pharmaceuticals because everybody who watches the evening news essentially the entire demographic is over 60.

My kids would not dream of turning on the evening news. They get their news from their screens. The people who are sitting down and watching the evening news are your age and they're my age. And as you know, when you get to our age, you spend a lot of time at doctors and your on. And those people are on a lot of drugs. And so they're watching it.

And Roger Ailes told me, I think, was in 2014, and he, of course, was the founder and CEO of Fox News, and I was trying to get, I had it made a documentary, or participated in the making of a documentary about the impacts of mercury in vaccines on neurodevelopmenttmental disorders in children. This is a sudden epidemic that had begun in 1989 of neurodevelopmental disorders. And he had a relative who had been affected that he believed was vaccine injured.

And he always would put me on his shows. I had this weird relationship with Roger Hales because I had spent three months in a tent with him in when I was 19 years old in Africa. And we had this friendship. You know, he was a very clever, witty guy. And he had not started Fox News. He had just left the running the Nixon campaign communications. And he had stepped down from the Murf Griffin show. But I had this lasting friendship with him. And he was very loyal friend. And he had stepped down from the Murf Griffin show, but I had this lasting friendship with him, and he was very loyal friend,

and he would always make the hosts of Fox TV to put me on to talk about environmental issues. So I was the only environmentalist for a decade that was going on Fox News, and I looked at him kind of as a Darth Vader, you know, of what he had done to American television and communications, but I still had this strange friendship with him. So he would always went beyond and I went to him to try to get on to talk about this documentary.

He looked at it, his assistant, Mike Clemente, was running the station at that time. The network looked at it and both of them loved it, but he said, we can't let you on. And he told me at that time, he said, if any of my oaths independently let you on to talk about this, I would fire them. I would have to fire them. And he said, if I didn't fire them, I would get a call from Rupert with in 10 minutes, meaning Rupert Murdoch. And he said to me, at that time, he said 75% of my evening news division advertising revenues

are coming from pharmaceutical companies. And he told me that of the 22 ads on the typical evening news show that typically 17 or 18 of those were pharmaceutical ads. And so that tells it all, and I've seen again and again and again, and people like Jake Tapper, who worked with me for three weeks doing this incredible documentary on an article that I published in 2005 about a secret meeting at DEC sponsored with 75 vaccine makers about how to hide from the American public the links between autism and vaccines.

And I obtained the transcript from these from those meetings and I published them in Rolling Zone. And Jake Tapper, prior as the Rolling Zone publication data approached, he spent three weeks with me doing an exclusive rabies, which he was then working for, on my article, A Companion Peace, and the night before the piece was supposed to run, he called me up and he said, the piece just got killed by corporate. He said, in all my career, I have never had a peace killed by corporate. I'm so mad. And then after that, I called him the next day and he went dark.

And I've never spoken to him again, but he's become kind of this shill for farma since then. So, and I've watched that happen to so many, you know, an out search on TV. Think that's what happened to Tucker Carlson? Well, I think it might be, I mean, the timing is good, but there was a lot of reasons they may have wanted to get rid of Tucker. You know, the strange movie because I think Fox probably got rid of Fox news by getting rid of Tucker.

You know, it's a, they, they, they seem to have lost a big audience. And it is weird. I mean, he Tucker was getting 4.5 million viewers a night and compare that to CNN. CNN gets about the prime time CNN has 345,000 viewers. So Tucker was getting more than 10 times with CNN. He dwarfed anybody else on Fox. I mean, he was clearly the breadwinner. He was the anchor. And they fired him. They were making some kind of a point. And maybe he just pissed off Rubard by being, you know, a Fox News is important to us in this country. but to Rupert Murdoch's empire is just a drop in the bucket. Who knows?

It may have been Farma. It may have been Rupert Murdoch's ego. I don't know what it was. Well, I wonder if a policy transformation that made it illegal for Big Pharma to market direct to consumer would go some distance to rectifying this pharma problem. Yeah, I mean, well, that's right. And I looked into that and, you know, the change happened

Jordan in 1997. And that's when FCC changed its rules and FDA approved, which was the rule before that was that there could be no direct consumer advertising of pharmaceutical products on TV or anywhere. And the only other nation in the world that allows that is New Zealand. And you know, because we have that rule, it's one of the reasons that we use three times the number of pharmaceutical drugs as any other European country. The average American today is on four pharmaceutical drugs, and it has not helped public health.

It is, you know, pharmaceutical drugs are now the third largest killer of Americans after cancer and heart attacks, and we pay more for public health than any other country in the world. And I think- So that means that that's the third leading cause of death is medical error. Is it third? I think it actually pharmaceutical drugs. I think it actually pharmaceutical drugs. I think it's pharmaceutical drugs. And the source for that is the Cochrane Group collaboration. It's a report by Peter Gosha, I think,

of the group who is the founder of the Cochrane Groupation, which is kind of the ultimate armeter of, you know, a pharmaceutical company. Well, they're also the company that produced the recent report, the Cargum Review, showing that masks are completely ineffective in relationship to COVID transmission. Yeah. Of course, that's being debated now, although I can't see how, because as you pointed out, the Cargum Reviews are people have accepted them as gold standard for conservative reviews, careful scientific reviews for years.

Yeah, you know, the thing is that Gates, Bill Gates, has played a huge role in trying to take over Cochrane. And they've got, you know, the big founders of Cochrane, Thomas Jefferson, was, you know, percent was, you know, the leading clinical trial expert in Europe. And Peter Gojo, who is the other co-founder, have both been run out of Cochrane. And the Gates Foundation has been pumping tens of millions of dollars in. So I don't know what's going to become of Cochrane now. Well, the whole thing is very serious. But it might so people know. So the people know what we're losing is these were a group of very independent scientists who started looking at what was happening to the medical journals.

The medical journals get most of their money from pharmaceutical companies for both advertising and preprints. Preprints are the, you know, the pharmaceutical companies have these phony studies that they use their financial cloud to get the Lancet New English Journal medicine or JAMA Journal American Medical Association to publish. And then they get a preprint, so they get the journal then to print out just that article but with the cover of the journal in it which gives it this imprimature of total legitimacy. They print out two or three hundred thousand of them and they pay a lot of money, millions of dollars for

that print, that printing run from a Lancet and then they're pharmaceutical wraps. You know the former playboy models who go around to each doctor's office take the doctor out of a laundry room, give one of these preprints and say, look, the drug I'm doing, Lance, it says, it's a great thing. That's where the, these journals make all their money. Well, so, and I think it was the 80s, 70, 80s, 90s, these groups of scientists got together who were independent scientists and said, well, we're seeing now coming out of the journal

as it's not real in science, it's pharmaceutical propaganda, even the journal editor, Erzlite Marsha, Angle for the New England Journal Medicine, Richard Horton from the Lancet, said you cannot believe anything in the journals anymore. We are vessels for pharmaceutical propaganda. This group of scientists said we're going to get volunteer scientists from all over the world who will now look over the journal articles and see whether it actually was

good science or whether lying to us and do and critically read it, do it basically a second round of peer appear review that's real. And they put together this extraordinary organization of over 30,000 volunteer scientists, top scientists, independent scientists from around the world who systematically review journal articles to see whether the science is real or fake and inform the public. And it was a absolutely critical organization. And you know, Gates has gone in there trying to undermine it. And it's, it's very, very troubling.

A couple of questions. What we talked here a little bit now about, let's say, the corruption of the legacy media on the news front by Big Farman, you just made reference to the same thing happening in the scientific domain, which is really it awful to see journals like New England Journal of Medicine at Lancet and so forth, DGN and science for that matter, and you're seeing it with nature as well, degenerate into organs that are no longer producing trustworthy science. That's a real catastrophe. You saw recently, like yesterday, that Decentis basically bypassed the legacy media and Pierre Pauliev

didn't did that in Canada when he ran for the leader of the conservative party. By the way, he just skipped over the legacy media entirely and Decentis announced his presidency on Twitter. And here you are also talking to me on YouTube, right? And so that's not exactly a standard political, that's not standard political practice. And so what do you think of, why did you decide to talk to me today on my YouTube channel? And what do you think of DeSantis use of Twitter? Has your campaign also been considering, for example, utilizing Twitter, because obviously Musk has made that open to any candidate? And how are you guys

because obviously, Musk has made that open to any candidate. And how are you guys conceptualizing your move forward on the presidential campaign front in relationship to non-traditional media? Well, you know, Jordan, I've been censored and they in the corporate media for 18 years. So since 2005, I've been actively censored, you know, not just for vaccine articles, but for all of my articles.

And I was very, very active on those media fronts for decades, but I've been slowly censored now to complete wall to wall censorship. And particularly during the last three years, we've had to figure out ways to get around that censorship. And so, you know, we've done that by using nontraditional media. I was on Instagram. I had almost a million followers on Instagram at one point, but then in the end of the A.D. platform, may so on. You're still banned. You're still banned on Instagram. Is that the case?

Instagram and ban on TikTok. You know, I'm interested to see what happens to you with YouTube. Well, you know, they've left me alone. YouTube is left me alone. It's quite surprising because I've said things many times that in principle should have got me in trouble on YouTube, but they haven't even put any strikes against my channel. They demonetized my daughter for a whole year,

for reasons we never did, discovered, but they've been completely hands off with me. You know, they've added those warnings or clarifications now, and then especially when I talk to people like Bjorn Lomburg, and we'll get to that later, but I don't know what it is, YouTube is being hands off. In answer to your question, when my uncle ran in 1960, television was a new phenomena, and he recognized the power of television that that would have a play of key role in that presidential campaign for the first time in history. And, you know, he was able to exploit that and to win that election. In the 2016 election, Twitter played a key role in getting Donald Trump elected, you know, absolutely critical. He probably, if he didn't have that Twitter,

he probably would not have been elected. Who knows, but I would say there's a good chance he wouldn't. Today Twitter is still important, and I have now 1.2 million followers on Twitter. I really didn't start actively doing Twitter until Elon freed it up, because during the pandemic I was mainly postingusting, you know, kitty cats and rainbows and unicorns, because if I said anything that was, that was, if I talked about what I was thinking about, I would have been de platformed. But once Elon took over, I started, you know, they unshackled me. But also, I think this year is going to be the political campaign that will be decided on by podcasts, and particularly because the candidates are not wanting to debate.

Not only is Biden not debating, but I think Trump may not debate. I think people like me are going to end up going to, you know, we're going to really test whether these podcasts. And you know, I was talking about Tucker having 4.5 million nightly views. Well, the podcast that Joe Rogan did with Peter McCulloch got 40 million views. So yeah, well, Rogan's a force of nature. Yeah, so Tucker is 10 times what CNN is, you know, gets and and a Rogan's audience potentially tant times with Tuckerwiz Kennedy. So I think the, I think the podcast has the capacity, this election for reaching people

and allowing, you know, sort of distant and insurgent candidates like myself to end run the corporate media monoliths and to reach large numbers of Americans without going to onto the networks. I'm hoping that works. Now you asked about DeSantis. I felt bad for DeSantis, badly for DeSantis because of what happened on his Twitter announcement where it went off. I'm kind of rooting for Elon, so I don't obviously want

to say to him, but I do. I liked how he handled COVID in Florida. There's other things that he's doing now that I don't like. But I do. Politics is hard for everybody. And it would be, I think it's unfortunate if somebody wants to speak to the American people and doesn't get that chance because the media vessel vector is not, for some reason is not able to reach them. I think he may have made a mistake in going on with Elon,

but I don't know, maybe, maybe, maybe not. I think President Trump is portraying this artist as a tool of the Jeb Bush. That's his strategy for characterizing the sands as a tool of wall street and the billionaire class and the bushes, et cetera, and it may not have been. I think it probably would have been better for the sands if he had, I'm sure he thinks on how if he had done a more traditional announcement where he would have gotten a lot of media coverage.

Yeah, well, like you said, like you said, well, time will tell, like you said, because it is a new technology and it is extraordinarily powerful in the way you described. I mean, Rogan's podcast is number one in 97 countries. He's clearly the most powerful journalist who's ever lived. And so I think that big, I think the legacy media in the United States will die first. And I think legacy media will die everywhere, but I already think it's probably dead in the United States. It's a walking corpse and turning to podcasts and non-traditional media seems to me to be entirely appropriate for people who are forward looking. I said in Canada, Pierre Paulier, who now runs the Conservative Party and who's the most likely next Prime Minister, he ran his entire campaign for leadership on non-traditional

media. He was producing ads on his own that were generating 500,000 views. People were voluntarily watching his ads, which was like 100 times the view count he would have got on our state-funded media, 69% state-funded media, CBC. And so, you know, I think the tide has already turned and the US is at the forefront of that. Now, here, I'm going to return to an eruditorial question I had. You've been on the receiving end of cancel culture, and one of the things I really have noticed is that, you know, I have colleagues and compatriots, friends, across the political spectrum.

And one of the things I really have noticed that differentiates the left from the right is that the left will engage in council culture behavior to a degree that is virtually unheard of on the right. Now, that may change, but at the moment, that seems to be the case. Now, you've been on the receiving end of cancellation, as, but at the moment that seems to be the case. Now you've been on the receiving end of cancellation, as you said for almost 20 years. And this begs the same question

that I brought up earlier is that why do you think under those conditions given the treatment that you've received that the the left is salvageable or do you revert to the idea, well that's what we have to work with and you're going to do what you can to revitalize the Democrat Party. Because it isn't obvious to me that this cancel culture phenomenon has gone so far that it isn't obvious to me how it can be turned around. I don't think everybody on the left is, you know, as cosine counterculture. I think that's, you know, it's a, it's a focal. I would, I think it's probably a focal my learning.

I don't know, you know, I have no reason, I have no, I have no reason to say that other than just that's my feeling. But I, you know, I just, I don't think most people think that way that you should. I mean, it's very, it's any American, you don't. We should be courageous enough and confident enough of our viewpoint that we can argue them and have them triumph in the marketplace of ideas and the way that you deal with viewpoints

that you don't like or you believe are inaccurate is not through censorship, but, you know, with argument and more information and facts. And that's how we've always functioned. It's a critical foundation, son, for democracy. This idea that the free flow of information is the water, it's the sunlight, it's the fertilizer, or democracy. And if you cut it off, democracy itself will weather and die. There's just never been a time in history

when the good guys were the people who were censoring stuff. They're always the bad guys. And we know that. We read, we're well, and we read out this Huxley and we read, you know, all of the great thinkers that were warning us from, you know, from when we were little kids that, you know, the sensors are bad.

And when you start censoring people, then you're on the slippery slope to the totalitarianism. I mean, in 1977, liberals in our country strongly supported the ACLU for going to bad for the Nazis who were walking through Skokiel and Neulay on a march through a Jewish neighborhood. And we understood that we could be appalled by the things they were saying, but at the same time, you know, that it was more that it was important for them to be able to say it because if somebody can shut them up, they can shut us up. Well, you know, I think, I think you're, you're claimed that it's a minority of radicals on

left to side. I think the data supports that quite clearly. But, but okay, so let me tell you two stories and tell me what you think about this. So, when the Democrats I worked with in the US and California, I had a conversation with them one day, very intelligent people, by the way, about Antifa. And they were on about QAnon and about right-wing radical groups, and they regarded them as entirely real and entirely credible threats. And that was partly as a consequence of the January 6th occurrences, let's say. And so I said, well, what do you guys think of Antifa? And they said, well, you know, they don't really exist.

And I thought, well, that's interesting because you think the right wing conspirators exist, but you don't think the left wing. But like I said, they were smart people. So I investigated further. And they said, well, you know, it has no centralized organization. It's, it's not a formal group. It's a very small minority of people. And, and it's extremely, it's, it's extremely loosely structured. And it isn't representative of even the radical left much, much less the centrist Democrats. And I thought, okay, that's interesting.

So then I went and talked to Andy Know, who's journalist, who's covered Antifa in more detail than anyone else in the world, and who knows their organizational structure and their routines inside. Now, and who's put his life on the line to cover this sort of this Antifa activity. And I asked him, how many antifa cells do you think there are

in the United States? And he said, well, there's probably about 20. And I said, well, how many full-time equivalent employees, so to speak, how many people do you think are in each cell that are dedicating themselves to the antifa cause. And he said, well, maybe 40. And I said, oh, so that's 800 people. So that's one in 400,000. And well, that's almost none. And so you could take that data and you could take the case, you could make the case the Democrats made, which is well, the Antifa doesn't even exist. It's one in 400,000, you know, in the city of a million, there'd be two Antifa members who were full-fledged, you know, committed, full-time advocates. But then you think, well, look at all the damage those people did.

And then you think, well, maybe it only takes a trivial minority of people who are off the rails to cause a tremendous amount of damage. That's what happened when the Soviets took over the Russian society in the aftermath of the monarchies after World War I. It was a tiny percentage of people. And this is what made me worried on the Democrat side. So this is why when I went to Washington, I pushed the Democrats that I talked to. He said, well, when do you think the left goes too far? And so let me ask you that question, like fairly bluntly, you're trying to pull the Democrats to the center.

You think it's a salvageable enterprise and you think it's necessary to salvage it, it's a two party system, it's half the country. When do you think the left goes too far? And how would you, in your administration, draw a line between those who are reasonable and who show common sense and those who have like gone off the rail. Where is off the rail on the leftist side? Under what circumstance would I be called upon to make that determination? Well, okay, I can, okay, so when the Biden administration took office, when the Biden administration took office. One of the things I also discussed with the Democrats I knew was how the positions that

were going to be filled, that were now vacant because of the transition and the presidency, how those positions would be filled and who would they be filled with. And one of the things I was told was that there was a dearth of available bodies on the Democrat side. And you know, it's hard to get people involved in politics. And so that many of the positions were filled by people whose views were quite radical in comparison to the centrist, into, say, mainstream centrist Democrat ideal. And so, and I see this as, like I would say, Kamala Harris is a good example of that,

because I think Kamala Harris is unsuit... what inexcusably radical. She tweets out support for the notion of equity non-stop. An equity is not equality of opportunity. And so, I mean, I think you'll be called on to make those decisions, for example, when if you did establish a presidency, when you were trying to figure out who was going to make up the bulk of your administration, you know, and I your administration. I know Democrats because they like the free flow of ideas have a hard time drawing distinguishing lines. And so they have a hard time distinguishing the centrists from the radicals, but they

have been captured in many ways by the radical viewpoint. And it's very dangerous. I mean, you've been subject to that to some degree on the censorship side. And so I've not seen the Democrats contend seriously with the problem of how to differentiate the mainstream centrists from the dangerous radicals and they seem to continue enabling them. I've seen that right now on the Transfront, for example, Norway and Finland and Sweden and Holland and the UK have now banned gender transition surgery for minors. And yet it's still being promoted, assiduously, for example, in California by Gavin Newsom. And I think that's

criminal personally. I think it's inexcusable, and that's a good example of the capture of the Democrats by the radicals in my estimation. So it's a curious problem. I have so many people right now who are flocking to my campaign that are I I quality people that I've those views about life and politics I respect some of them are Republicans some of them are independent some of them are Democrats and I don't have any anxiety about being able to fill all the key positions in my administration with people who have, you know, I think, have a common sense approach to life. Okay, so you think you have a talent pool at hand that is broad enough so that you can find

people who are qualified enough to occupy the centrist position appropriately and pull the Democrats back to something more approximating the ideals, let's say, of the latter part of the 20th century as opposed to now. Okay, so let me ask another question. Then there are these ideas on the left that are troublesome, let's say. What do you think the central ideas on the left, what are the central ideas on the left that are troublesome in your estimation? You know what I try to focus on Jordan is the values that Americans hold in common rather than, you know, getting caught up in these issues that

drive people apart. So that, you know, I don't want to do finger pointing. If you ask me what I believe about certain issues, I'll tell you. But I'm not, you know, I'm not looking to finger-pointed people or to Haley and eight people, or I'm trying to run a campaign that brings people together rather than a campaign that is based upon that kind of tribalism of condemning people for ideologies that I don't necessarily agree theming people for ideologies that I don't necessarily agree with if they're relevant to something I'm doing I'll take that into consideration. But I don't spend a lot of time sort of, I don't know. I really try to focus on how do you, you know, where are the bridges where people can come together. on how do you, you know, where are the bridges where people can come together, you know.

Well, I can understand that, you know, there's, I have this enterprise starting up in the Great Britain called the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship and we're trying to put together a pause division for the future, as opposed to the apocalyptic vision that's been, well, that's been circulating for some time now and that's demoralizing young people to a degree that's almost incomprehensible. And I can understand your concern about your concern

for putting forward a positive vision rather than for drawing distinctions. But by the same token, you know, for example, in the universities, I've seen the diversity, equity, and inclusivity advocates take the enterprise over and destroy it. And there are some truly pathological ideas circulating in that realm of the ideological space. And I don't, and I'm not saying I know the answer to this because I have some sympathy for your desire to put forward a positive vision. But by the same token, it does seem to me to be incumbent upon the Democrats to draw a line. And I do think that one of the lines that should be drawn is with relationship to the notion of equity because equity is a very pathological idea.

And wherever it's been implemented around the world in the past, it's caused nothing but may have. And so anyways, I won't push that any farther because I have some appreciation for your perspective. I do, I have another set of questions that I want to address. You mentioned at the beginning of our talk, you're concerned that, um, you're concerned in relationship to the use of fear. And we could say on the vaccine front, that the vaccine mandates were pushed forward, especially the lockdown mandates, they were pushed forward with the use of fear and that that was conscious policy.

I know in Canada, for example, that even the conservative types who were just as bad on the lockdown front, they pulled the public, they made the public afraid first. Then they pulled the public to find out what their fears were. Then they produced all sorts of lockdown regulations that were advanced to improve their standing in the polls. Then they told their scientists to justify those with scientific hypotheses post-hawk. And so I've been thinking about that. So here's the conclusion. If there's a crisis that emerges, real or not, but let's say real. And your response to the crisis is that you become a fear-mongering tyrant, then you're the wrong leader for the time, is that no matter what the crisis

is, you are not morally acceptable for you to use fear and compulsion to put your policy platform forward. And so, I wanted to talk about that a bit on the climate front. I was actually concerned about talking to you today because I generally don't give my guests a rough time, but we, I think, have a profound difference of opinion and relationship to the climate issues. And so one of the things that I've seen as I've traveled around the world is that the climate narrative, the apocalyptic climate narrative, we're destroying the planet and doom is nigh, has demoralized young people to a degree that's almost incomprehensible. I mean, you see it in the rising rates of depression and anxiety

that characterize young women, who are and they're more susceptible to such things, but in men, you see it as this widespread dropping out of educational institutions and marriage and sexual relationships and employment. I think it's 20% something like that, 20% of work age men in the United States now haven't had any employment whatsoever in the last year. And so, and I see this particularly paramount in Europe where the climate apocalypse narrative has not only demoralized people on mass, especially young people, but it's produced a plethora of policies and Germany's a canonical example that have been to put it mildly counterproductive.

So Germany has an energy now that's five times as expensive as it should be. It's unreliable. They're dependent on the Russians and other totalitarians on the fossil fuel front. And they pollute more than they did before they started this holy green enterprise. And so I know that you're a long-term environmentalist and you're concerned on the climate front, but I've seen that climate apocalypse use fear to induce something approximating the same kind of level of tyranny as far as I'm concerned that characterized the vaccine lockdown. So, help me sort that out because you put forward a

very interesting candidacy and one of the crucial out, crucial problems that we're facing at the moment is to sort out the environmental issues. I'm a big admirer of people like Lomburg, for example, Bjorn Lomburg, who's put forward a multidimensional view of the environmental issues. Like I'm a big admirer of people like Lomburg, for example, Bjorn Lomburg, who's put forward a multi-dimensional view of the environmental concerns that confront us, not reduced it to carbon excess, and not put forward an apocalyptic nightmare as the most likely scenario.

So help me sort that out and understand where you stand. Let me just start with kind of a footnote. You know, I see these huge levels of depression and despair loneliness in kids and I don't think that there's a single cause to it. And I think blaming it on depression about climate is probably over simplest again. In fact, I think a it on depression about climate is probably over it's simplest. Again, in fact, I think a lot of the problems we see in kids and particularly boys, it's probably underappreciated that, how much of that is coming from chemical exposures, including a lot of the sexual dysphoria that we're seeing. These kids are being overwhelmed by tsunami.

I mean, they're swimming through a soup of toxic chemicals today. Many of those are angic-crime disruptors. There's atrazine throughout our water supply atrazine, by the way. If you in a lab put atrazene in a tank full of frogs, it will chemically castrate and forcibly feminize every frog in there, and 10% of the frogs, the male frogs will turn into fully viable females able to produce viable eggs.

And if you, if, if, if it's doing that to frogs, it could, there's a lot of other evidence that it's doing it to human beings as well. And, you know, I'm happy to talk about that later, but I don't think blaming this, this epidemic of depression and despair on people who are fanning fears of climate is, I think that's over simplistic. I think you're right. You put your finger on a, first of all, let me just say this about climate.

I believe that carbon in the atmosphere and methane does increase warming. Why do I believe that? I believe it because it makes sense one. And I believe it because I read reports in the 1970. I, you know, on issues like vaccines, I read the science myself, I read it critically, I'm able to do that because I, you know, on issues like vaccines, I read the science myself, I read it critically, I'm able to do that because I, you know, I try cases on these issues and I've been

involved, probably more 500 to 600, 700 cases, and almost all of them have some kind of scientific controversy. And so I, you know, I wouldn't be good at my job if I couldn't read science critically and all of my cases involve intense critical reading of science and cross examination of scientists. And you have to have pretty much complete domain knowledge to be able to do that. And if you're going to win cases.

So I'm used to doing that. And I've read, I would say, at least the abstracts for every vaccine study. I did a compilation of all the vaccine science involving thymarisol where I digested 450 studies, the leading studies. I have 1400 references in that book. That book was an earlier book I did called the Imarisol with a seismic. So I know if somebody asks me, I can tell you, you know, this effect is highly likely being produced. I cannot do that with climate

science. There's tens of thousands of studies. most of them say yes. Virtually all of them say yes, not all of them, but virtually all of them say that carbon is contributing to the warming. If you ask me, if your position is the warming's not happening, then that's like somebody saying the autism epidemic is not happening. Look around, you can see it everywhere. The ice caps are melting, et cetera, the greenland ice sheet.

I spend a lot of time outdoors and I see the over 69 years. I've seen the changes, and I've seen the mass migration of animals, of southern animals, like black vultures, and the northern increase in their ranges. I've seen the way that the, I've kept track since I was a kid about when the leaves turned. And it steadily moved up each year. And so I see that all of my senses are telling me that the warming is occurring. Now why is the warming occurring? People out there say the warming is not occurring. There's other people who say the warming is occurring. But it's not from carbon, trapping carbon.

And my opinion is basically, as I said, it's based on common sense, but also I read the science, the, the memos that I have read from the 1970s, from exon scientists, to exon management, exon during that time, had what it bragged were this best scientists in the world, who knew more about the fate of the carbon molecule in the atmosphere, in the environment, in every circumstance than any other scientist. And in the 70s, they were telling their management at Exxon,

if we keep burning oil at this rate, we're gonna warm the globe, it's a high school math to them. They said, and it will be a good thing for the company. It will be a bad thing for humanity and for the wildlife and the planet. It will be a good thing for the company because we're going to melt the Arctic. There's a lot of oil onto the Arctic and we should be getting ready to exploit it because it is going to be melted if we continue doing this.

So what I mean, my feeling is, if those were the top scientists in the world, they had no interest in lying about it. And this is what they were saying. So I think it's probably more likely to be true than false. Now, I also agree, I also wanna say this because you asked me to interrupt you at the beginning. Yes, I don't know. Let's do. So, I wanna respond to what you said. I agree 100% with you that this crisis is being used as a pretext for clamping down to authoritarian controls the same way that the COVID

crisis was, and it's the same people as intelligence agencies. It's the world economic forum. It's the billionaires voice club at Davos, and it's the same kind of cabal of people who will use every crisis of people who will use every crisis to stratify society toward greater power for the super rich and the military power for the intelligence apparatus and less power for everybody else. So my approach to this Jordan is that I have a personal belief that the climate crisis is real. I do not insist that anybody else share my belief. And I feel like Lundgren is correct in saying that the climate orthodoxy gets it wrong. The carbon orthodoxy, the people who are scrapped to that get it wrong, are actually a lot more important things than carbon. That is carbon sequestration.

And geoengineering, there's habitat, a preservation, the most important thing we can do. We forgot and completely about that because of the obsession with reducing carbon. There's regenerative agriculture, I forgot and completely about that because of the obsession with reducing carbon. There is regenerative agriculture, which is absolutely critical, including for carbon sequestration, but also that we have good foods that we preserved for oil. And all of these other impacts from a warming climate, which are the shrinkage of legs and agriculture, the destruction of the soil andisms, we need to do those things.

And that the preservation of fisheries and all of these, which are all tied into climate and the preservation of whales, for example, you know, which in subtle ways also, very certain, but almost unmeasurable ways are part of the overall attack on the living planet, which is really the way that we need to look at this. And if there's not just a war on carbon, it's not going to solve the problem. If we don't have a habitat left to the end, so when I talk about these issues, I rarely talk about climate. I think we need to get rid of coal and oil, but I don't say we need to do that to save the climate because it's not convincing. And even if you say, oh, tens of thousands of scientists agree with me, people today have a good reason to not believe

scientific orthodoxies or pronouncements, right? We went through that in COVID where we were told, oh, the science, you know, the established science has said this is all real. And there's a lot of people who are saying, yeah, but it wasn't real and it isn't real. And showing somebody a graph and saying, this is what's going to happen to you if you don't behave is not a good way to get good behavior, right? And it's going to happen to you in a long way. But the thing is that both Republicans and Democrats, I've found in 40 years, love the environment. They want to keep sacred places. They want to have healthy food. They don't want toxins for their children. They don't want to see 22 story machines cutting down the Appalachian mountains and the 500 biggest

peaks have been cut to the ground, an area of the Appalachian's the size of Delaware has been leveled. These are our purple mountains mad to see where Daniel Boone and David Crockett roamed. We are industrializing these landscapes and nothing will ever grow on them again, 2200 miles of rivers has been filled. We have poisoned every fresh wood efficient north America from discharges of mercury from coal burning power plants. Nobody wants that. The high peaks in the Appalachians, the forest cover is gone from Georgia to North and Quebec because of acid rain. All those high-altitude lakes are now sterile. Nobody wants that.

So how do you think we have an int? Okay, so let me make a couple of things clear on my side, and then I'll ask. And by the way, my approach to climate, I mean, my approach to reducing energy, let's say my approach to energy, is using free markets and that not top down control. So what I would do is I would end subsidies and then I would let market place determine what's going to happen is renewable energies are is going to triumph because you can build a solar plan for one billion dollars a gigawatt today. Wind plant cost about 1.2 billion, a coal plant cost 3.6 billion, and a tool, a tool, cycle gas turbines costs probably a couple billion, a K-GY.

Once you build a wind or solar, it's free energy forever. So it's always gonna be cheaper. The problem with renewable energies like that is we do not have a transportation system to get them to markets. So we need a marketplace, we need a transportation system to get them to market. So we need a marketplace. We need a grid system that can allow every individual in our country to become an energy entrepreneur, produced, ruved up, sold, sell it back to the grid at the same price that the utilities are

getting. Have every farmer in North Dakota be able to put wind turbines on their cornfields. They all want to do it. Cornfield and North Dakota is worth $800. Cornfield with a wind turbine on it's worth $3200. Every farmer in North Dakota wants to put a wind turbine on their property. The problem is they cannot get those electrons to the markets in Cleveland since that a St. Louis, New York, because we do not

have an efficient grid system and we need to build that the same as Eisenhower did with a highway system when I was a kid. We need to build a grid system that will create a marketplace and once we have that marketplace we'll have free energy forever just like when we built the Arborette grid for information, the cost of information went to zero. We built the telecom grid, the cost of phone calls went to zero. When we build an energy grid, the cost of electrons will go to zero, and that will be a huge economic boom for our country, and nobody's going to be using oil and coal anymore.

Okay, so you agreed that there is a danger on the environment apocalypse front that the the same old criminals Let's say will utilize that potential crisis for for tyrannical ants and so let's leave that aside That's something we agree on. I should point out that no, I'm and as Longberg does I accept the IPCC projections that there'll be some temperature increase over the next 100 years, and that some proportion of that is a consequence of manmade activity. Now, Longberg has produced economic projections based on current rates of GDP growth, showing that I'm not going to get the figures exactly, right? But this is close to right, that in 100 years from now, we'll be about 400%

richer than we are now. But with the negative consequences of climate transformation will be 350% richer. And that's not nothing. There's some actual decrement in potential future value as a consequence of that. But it's within the range that we can, that we can actually intelligently manage. And he's also documented quite well, the host of environmental concerns that confront us. In a manner that's very similar to what you just did, it's like we don't have one problem on the environmental front, we have many problems and we should deal with them intelligently.

How do you think that it's possible to have a discussion about the environmental challenges that confront us without opening the door to the people who are going to use fear to introduce tyranny. And is this associated with, in some matter, with your notion of a positive vision? Like, because what is happening, and I've seen this happen in Europe, it's crystal clear, and this is especially the case in Germany, although it's also true in the UK, is that like these more tyrannical policies on the energy front, they're not looming.

They're already in place. And they're really hurting poor people, like really badly and destabilizing the entire power grid and de-industrializing Germany, which is also like part of the plan for some people. Like how can we confront the environmental issues that do in fact loom in front of us without inviting in that top down tyrannical control? Well, I mean, I think that's what I'm trying to do with my candidacy is to reboot some of this so that we can find a common ground that people can understand that you can love the

environment. I mean, the reason that I became an environmentalist, Jordan was not because I was scared of something. You know, scared of the end of the world. It was because I was in love with the Greeks and climbing the trees to get a baby crow when I was a kid and training hawks and doing white water kayaking. And, you know, the little streams and creeks around my home where I could go and turn over rocks and find mudboppies and saltmanders and crayfish and collect them and bring them home or let's just sing the, you know, The tadpoles bubbling in these little mud bottles that became

cultrance in the early spring stuff, my kids will never say the explosion of color on the butterflies when I walked into the garden, that my kids will never see, you know, because those, you know, they're gone now. And that's why I fell in love with the environment. And that, and it was out of love, it was not out of fear. And I think we have to bring people back

to that place of love and say, you know, what kind of world do we want to live in? You know, is it a live, is it a world where we can hear the songbirds, and the weather's amphibians out in the road, but you can still see Park Sturtles. Or is it, you know, are we either side is trying to make us fearful? And fear is not a good, you never get a good response from fear. You never get, you know. So I think we have to appeal to people through that love, through that kind of appeal. And that, you know, my whole career has been

doing that. I had a chance when I was, you know, in 1983, when I switched careers and became a full time, you know, I've always been environmentalist. When I came, became a full-time environmental attorney and advocate, I was given a choice of going to Washington and working for an inside-the-belt way, at a high level, doing lobbying, doing fun raising, and doing maybe land conservation on a grand scale. And I didn't want to do that. I wanted to work with,

you know, communities that were living in the environment and that had been marginalized by environmentalists. My first case, as an environmental lawyer, was for the NAACP blocking a waste transfer station had been cited in the, in the oldest black neighborhood in the Hudson Valley because they didn't have the political power. And I saw that, and I saw that, you know, four out of every five toxic waste dumps in America was in a black neighborhood. The largest toxic waste dump in America is the meal Alabama, which is 85% black, the highest concentration of toxic waste dumps in North America is the south side of Chicago.

The most contaminated zip-gut in California is East LA. It was all Hispanic neighborhoods, black neighborhoods, with these obnoxious, dangerous toxic facilities were being cited. And then I went to work for, you know, what was my passion for most of my life, which was for fishermen on the Hudson River, commercial fishermen and recreational fishermen. Most of these people were Republicans, they're people who were environmentalists,

as radical colleagues you can get, but they didn't call themselves that because they felt a strange from the mainstream environmental community. They were people who was lively, who, you know, depended on a clean environment, who's, you know, who love the fisheries, their property values, their recreation. These are people who were never going to see Yosemite or Yelas in the National Park, but then the environment was their backyard.

It was the bathing beaches, the swimming holes, the fishing halls, the Hudson River. It was there. You know, Richie Garrett, who was the founder of the Hudson River Fisherman Association, which I, you know, joined and later turned into Riverkeeper. He used to say about the Hudson. It's our river area. It's our Monocarlo. He was a combat veteran from Korea, and he was a photon gravedaker.

You know, these were people who were the salt of the earth and they should have been environmentalist, but they felt a strange from the environmental community. And I spent my livelihood with the hook and bullet people, you know, bringing them into the environmental mode and they came in because of love, not because of fear. Right. So you're willing to avoid or would like to avoid using fear as a motivating factor when you're making your case for environmental concerns. Okay. Well, that seems to be a good answer on the motivational front.

The reason that FDR said the only thing that we have to fear is fear itself. And he said that, you know, wasn't during World War II is in 1932. And he said that because the depression had landed, you know, in the United States and Europe. And he saw, we had left wing leaders, demagogues like Hughie Long,

that a third of the country wanted to turn, essentially socialist or communist. The right wing, like Father Charles Cofflin, who wanted to bring the nation fascists, the people with lost faith in democracy. It was a one out of every four Americans was unemployed, 2,200 banks had closed. It was crashing and everybody was convinced that democracy and capitalism had failed. We had to look for a new system.

In Europe, Roosevelt saw the same depression, the reaction in Germany and Spain and Italy was that right wing tyrants were using fear to do engineer shift to far right and to fascism. And the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, left wing tyrants were doing the same thing, but to shift the population towards communism.

And that's why he said the American people, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. We can write this, we can change it, we can recover what we had, but we just have to stay out of fear because that is the weapon of dearer tyrants. Okay, so we're going to run out of time on this side. There's two other questions I'd like to pose. I don't have a lot of time for them and I'll put both questions forward. The first would be why should Democrats prefer you to Biden and the second question is, what are your opinions on the Russia-Ukraine situation? So let's start with, if you don't mind, let's start with the Biden situation.

Why should Democrats, they have an incumbent president, and why should Democrats prefer you to Biden? Well, I mean, philosophically, we're just, we're at other, you know, obscenes of the party. President Biden believes in, you know, the Ukraine war, which I think is, you know, I think it is a huge, what we're doing in the Ukraine now is just a massive assault on Ukrainians.

And that, we have trapped Ukraine in a proxy war against the Soviets, and they are being devoured by the geopolitical machinations of Neocons and the White House who have this comic book depiction that a lot of Americans have swallowed about what is happening in the war, but what's really... And let me just say something about the war. I think Americans support their war for all the right reasons because, you know, the Abraham Lincoln said, we are a great nation because we're a good nation. I think Americans are good people. They have compassion towards Ukrainian people, illegal invasion of, you know, of in Brutal invasion by a man who is a homicidal tyrant. And they had tremendous admiration for the valor and the courage of the Ukrainian people. My son, God, who had 26 years old left of Moscow without telling us and went to the Ukraine and joined the foreign legion and fought in a special forces group

during the machine gunner during the carcube offensive. And he was motivated by that goodness that so many Americans have. But we were told that this was a humanitarian mission. And yet every step that we have taken, every decision we have been made, has been, appears to have been intended to prolong the war and to increase the bloodshed. And President Biden has recently confessed

that our purpose is to oppose Vladimir Putin, which is the two decade aspiration of the Neacons who surround him. They've been saying that for decades, they've also been saying, the big Brzezinski who was their, you know, their dooyen in philosopher said that our US strategy should be to suck Russia into a series of wars in little countries where we can then exhaust them. Lloyd Austin, who is the President Biden's Defense Secretary in April 2022, said our purpose for being in the Ukraine is to degrade the Russian Army to exhaust it and degrade its capacity to fight anywhere in the world.

Well, that is the opposite of a humanitarian mission. That is a war of attrition, and that's what it's turned out to be. We have now turned Ukraine into an abattoir that has devoured 350,000 young Ukrainers. They are lying about how many people have died. They're concealing it from us. They're concealing it from the Pentagon, they're concealing it from the American people. Ukraine is concealing it from them, people about 350,000 people. Russians are killing Ukrainians at a ratio of seven to one. And we have turned that poor little nation into a killing field for these idealistic young kids. And in order to advance a geopolitical agenda that has nothing to do with you, right?

Okay, so it seems to me that your summary, from what I know, your summary of the rationale for the war is accurate, is that the hypothesis on the pro-war with Russia front, let's say, is that it's a worthwhile expenditure of American money to take Russia out as a conventional military power. And I do believe that's what's happening. And there's a side benefit to that, which is the funneling of billions of dollars into Eisenhower's military industrial complex. And so, yeah, it's a money laundering scheme for the military and national complex.

Right, right. Okay. But now, so, I could say, well, what's wrong with the goal of degrading Russia's conventional military policy? Why is that not in the best interests, let's say, of the West? And what do you see it as an alternative? And what would you do in relationship to the Russia, Ukraine conflict, if you had, well, the decision-making power to actually do something about it? I know there's no peace talks going on at the moment, for example, which is quite admirable.

And the Russians have wanted to do peace talks from the beginning, and we've rebuffed them. Great. I will settle this on day one. I will stop killing on day one. I'll stop the killing. And I'll, you know, I mean, the settlement is obvious, right? The Russians have wanted to settle this from the beginning, and they've been very clear about what they want.

They want NATO to make a pledge and not come into Ukraine, which we should have done. We shouldn't have put NATO into 14 countries. We told the Russians when they dismantled the Soviet Union in 1991 and they moved 400,000 troops out of East Germany and they allowed NATO to reunify Germany under NATO. And they said our condition for doing that, this tremendous conciliation that we're making, is that you never move NATO to the east, and George Bush told them we will not move NATO one inch to the east,

and in 1997, Big No Brzezinski laid out the plan, which has then happened, where we moved it not one inch, but a thousand miles to the east, 14 nations, and then we put ages, missile systems in Poland and Romania, which are nuclear capable. So there are a few minutes from Russia, they can decapitate the entire Russian leadership before if we wanted to start a preemptive war.

And that is inexcusable. I mean, the Russian, we wouldn't live with that. My uncle did not live with that in 1962. We would have gone, if they hadn't removed them from Cuba, we would have gone in. And then we overthrew the democratically elected government, a government victory, a kind of COVID in 2014. We spent five bills, a to violently overthrow that government and

which was democratically elected. So we destroyed this democracy and put in our own government which we now know the neocons and the White House, Victoria Nullen, selected two months before in a telephone. So we would hand pick the new government before the coup. We put a new government in that immediately makes a civil war against the Russian population of Dumbass, because bands that Russian language killed 14,000 of them and then, you know, and then starts training with NATO.

And yeah, you know, there were a lot of provocations. You know, it's not just me saying this George Kennan, who is the architect of, you know, the entire Cold War containment policy said in 1998, the year after Bresinski wrote that memo, he said, it is the greatest calamity ever to expand NATO to the east. He said Russia laws the Cold War. The people who are running Russia are the ones who oppose the Cold War. We should be making friends with them. We shouldn't be pushing them into the hands of China. Okay, Mr. Kennedy, let me summarize. We're going to run out of time and I want to be very respectful of your time. I know you have a tight deadline. So I want to summarize

what we've talked about. And if you have any closing remarks and give you an opportunity to do that. So we started out by talking about the necessity for your presidency and the and the twist in the tail of the Democrat Party and Democratic Party, and your notion, which you reiterated later, that you're on the opposite side of the political spectrum within the Democrats from Biden, and that what you would like to do is to pull the party back to its more traditional center. And we talked about the capture of the legacy media and your censorship and the potential movement of political dialogue into alternative forms. We talked about environmental issues and and came to an agreement, for example,

that there are other fish to fry than the carbon fish, let's say, and that the use of fear in the environmental movement is an invitation to totalitarianism. And we essentially concluded with a discussion of the Russia-Ukraine war, which you characterized as an attempt by the Neocons to degrade Russian military capacity. And you made a case for how we, in some ways, set up the Russians to engage in this conflict. And so that, and in doing so, in doing all of that,

you laid out some of the principles of your candidacy and described why you regard yourself as a credible and necessary alternative to Biden. And so two questions, did I summarize that properly? And is there anything else that you would like to bring to the attention of people before we draw this part of this to a close? I don't think I want to start another long discussion with you, but there's plenty more to talk about if you want to have me back another time, and that was a fine summary, Jordan. Okay, well, look, we will definitely continue this discussion, because well, why not? There's lots of other things to talk about. And so, okay, so then I would like to

thank you for sitting down and talking to me today. I would like to talk to you at some point about this vision that we're developing for this arc enterprise in London and trying to put forward a positive vision of the future instead of the apocalypse nightmare. You must turn to tyranny vision, which I think is ruling at the moment. And so we can do that in the future. For everybody who's watching and listening on YouTube, thank you very much for your time and attention. And to the daily wire plus folks for facilitating this conversation, setting up this studio in Edmonton, Alberta. That's where I am today and then the studio. So where are you located at the moment, Mr. Kennedy?

Indianapolis in the out of the home of the Indianapolis Speedway, which is at this moment running their annual race. Well, thank you for everyone setting that up on that front. I'm going to talk to Mr. Kennedy for another half an hour on the daily wire plus platform. We'll do more biographical interview on that end of things. And so if you're interested, please turn, consider turning to that apart from that. Thank you very much for agreeing to talk to me today. And I'm looking forward, hopefully, at some point, to meeting in person person but also to continuing our discussion if you're open to that in the future. Absolutely, anytime. Thank you for having me, Jordan. Hello, everyone. I would encourage you to continue listening to my conversation with my guest

on dailywireplus.com. with my guest on dailywireplus.com.