0
SPEAKER_00
The following is a conversation with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., candidate for the President of the United States, running as a Democrat.
0
SPEAKER_00
Robert is an activist, lawyer, and author who has challenged some of the world s most powerful corporations, seeking to hold them accountable for the harm they may cause.
0
SPEAKER_00
I love science and engineering.
0
SPEAKER_00
These two pursuits are, to me, the most beautiful and powerful in the history of human civilization.
0
SPEAKER_00
Science is our journey, our fight for uncovering the laws of nature and leveraging them to understand the universe and to lessen the amount of suffering in the world.
0
SPEAKER_00
Some of the greatest human beings I ve ever met, including most of my good friends, are scientists and engineers.
0
SPEAKER_00
Again, I love science.
0
SPEAKER_00
But science cannot flourish without epistemic humility, without debate, both in the pages of academic journals and in the public square, in good faith long form conversations.
0
SPEAKER_00
Agree or disagree, I believe Robert s voice should be part of the debate.
0
SPEAKER_00
To call him a conspiracy theorist and arrogantly dismiss everything he says without addressing it diminishes the public s trust in the scientific process.
0
SPEAKER_00
At the same time, dogmatic skepticism of all scientific output on controversial topics like the pandemic is equally, if not more, dishonest and destructive.
0
SPEAKER_00
I recommend that people read and listen to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., his arguments and his ideas.
0
SPEAKER_00
But I also recommend, as I say in this conversation, that people read and listen to Vincent Recaniello from This Week in Virology, Dan Wilson from Debunk the Funk, and the Twitter and books of Paul Offit, Eric Topol, and others who are outspoken in their disagreement with Robert.
0
SPEAKER_00
It is disagreement, not conformity, that bends the long arc of humanity toward truth and wisdom.
0
SPEAKER_00
In this process of disagreement, everybody has a lesson to teach you, but we must have the humility to hear it and to learn from it.
0
SPEAKER_00
And now, a quick few second mention of each sponsor.
0
SPEAKER_00
Check them out in the description.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s the best way to support this podcast.
0
SPEAKER_00
We got House of Macadamias for snacks, Asleep for naps, Insight Tracker for biological data, and AG1 for my go-to daily multivitamin.
0
SPEAKER_00
Choose wisely, my friends.
0
SPEAKER_00
Also, if you want to work with our amazing team, we re always hiring.
0
SPEAKER_00
Go to lexfriedman.com slash hiring.
0
SPEAKER_00
And now onto the full ad reads.
0
SPEAKER_00
As always, no ads in the middle.
0
SPEAKER_00
I try to make these interesting, but if you must skip them, please still check out our sponsors.
0
SPEAKER_00
I enjoy their stuff.
0
SPEAKER_00
Maybe you will too.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is brought to you by House of Macadamias, a company that makes delicious, high quality, healthy, macadamia nut-based snacks.
0
SPEAKER_00
Every single person I have shared this snack with have deeply enjoyed it, and there s been quite a few people, including guests, and they love it, and they love the variety in each individual snack.
0
SPEAKER_00
I don t think there s been a negative response to any of the snacks, because it s whole nuts with all kinds of additions to them, bars with all kinds of additions to them, all kinds of flavors, all of it healthy, all of it is perfectly portioned,
0
SPEAKER_00
It s just a perfect snack.
0
SPEAKER_00
Low in carbs, high in omega-7 fats.
0
SPEAKER_00
There s all kinds of super healthy aspects to this stuff, but I just enjoy it because it s an escape from the mundane.
0
SPEAKER_00
Actually the word mundane makes it seem like it s not deeply fulfilling.
0
SPEAKER_00
But most of my diet is mundane.
0
SPEAKER_00
Most of my diet is in this place of simplicity where I enjoy the minimalism of it.
0
SPEAKER_00
But sometimes
0
SPEAKER_00
a little detour in a small rural town somewhere on a long road trip from New York to San Francisco.
0
SPEAKER_00
Just take a little detour and you re gonna find a gas station with a weird guy who has one hell of an amazing story to tell you.
0
SPEAKER_00
That guy is a macadamia nut snack.
0
SPEAKER_00
and you can meet that guy, just like as I do, by going to howstomecademias.com slash flex to get a free box of their bestseller Namibian sea-salted macadamia nuts, plus 20% off your entire order.
0
SPEAKER_00
That s howstomecademias.com slash flex.
0
SPEAKER_00
This episode is also brought to you by Eight Sleep and its new Pod 3 mattress.
0
SPEAKER_00
It is a source of happiness for me.
0
SPEAKER_00
Naps are a source of happiness for me.
0
SPEAKER_00
You know, I m kind of torn on this, but I think I might be even a bigger fan of naps than a full night s sleep.
0
SPEAKER_00
Full night s sleep is like an essential foundation to life, but naps for me, again, speaking of detours in the middle of nowhere, it s sometimes a stressful day feels like a highway to hell.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s a little reference to ACDC.
0
SPEAKER_00
and one of the most badass songs ever written.
0
SPEAKER_00
But anyway, life sometimes feels like a highway to hell and this is a little detour, again to that gas station, where you meet a person that helps you escape from all the madness of this world and realize how beautiful human beings are.
0
SPEAKER_00
That s what a nap is.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s a reminder of how beautiful life is.
0
SPEAKER_00
insatiably delicious every single moment is.
0
SPEAKER_00
How full of vigor and sensory extravagance every single moment is.
0
SPEAKER_00
Anyway, for me the naps do that.
0
SPEAKER_00
I m sure there s drugs for this too, but to me the healthiest drug is a good nap.
0
SPEAKER_00
And Eight Sleep makes that nap extra special.
0
SPEAKER_00
Check it out and get special savings when you go to eightsleep.com slash Lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is also brought to you by Insight Tracker, a service I use to track biological data.
0
SPEAKER_00
Obviously, this episode is very much about your health.
0
SPEAKER_00
There s a lot of controversial aspects to this episode, but I think
0
SPEAKER_00
what s not discussed in this episode, and what I think is true about the future of medicine, about the future of health and diet and so on, that the decisions you make about your body should be driven by the data that comes from your body.
0
SPEAKER_00
as much raw signal as possible.
0
SPEAKER_00
And that s what Insight Tracker is paving the way on, is getting as much biological data from you as possible to help you make decisions.
0
SPEAKER_00
There s blood data, DNA data, fitness tracker data, all of that, shove that into machine learning algorithms to give you recommendations.
0
SPEAKER_00
Get special savings for a limited time when you go to insighttracker.com slash lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
Get special savings for a limited time when you go to insighttracker.com slash lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is brought to you by the thing I just drank.
0
SPEAKER_00
Athletic Greens, or what it s now called AG1.
0
SPEAKER_00
The name of the drink and the name of the company, AG1.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s an all-in-one daily drink to support better health and peak performance.
0
SPEAKER_00
I drink it twice a day.
0
SPEAKER_00
I m traveling, and they have travel packs.
0
SPEAKER_00
They make me feel like I m at home for a brief moment.
0
SPEAKER_00
I make myself an Athletic Greens.
0
SPEAKER_00
I put it in the fridge.
0
SPEAKER_00
I let it cool for a while.
0
SPEAKER_00
and then I open it up and I drink it and not only do I feel healthier, not only do I feel like I have my life together even when on the surface it seems like the life is falling apart physically and emotionally, I know at least I got my nutritional bases covered.
0
SPEAKER_00
I think it s really important when you travel or at least when I travel
0
SPEAKER_00
to have little reminders, maybe almost subconscious reminders that make you feel like this hotel or this shady place you find yourself in somewhere in the world has a piece of home in it.
0
SPEAKER_00
It makes you kind of feel like you are at home until you realize you re not.
0
SPEAKER_00
But that little break is wonderful.
0
SPEAKER_00
And for me, AG1 is very much that because AG1 makes me think like I m at home and I have my life together.
0
SPEAKER_00
And so when I travel, it s really nice to have it as well.
0
SPEAKER_00
They ll give you a one month supply of fish oil when you sign up at drinkag1.com slash lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
This is the Lex Friedman Podcast.
0
SPEAKER_00
To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description.
0
SPEAKER_00
And now, dear friends, here s Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s the 4th of July, Independence Day.
0
SPEAKER_00
So simple question, simple, big question.
0
SPEAKER_00
What do you love about this country, the United States of America?
0
SPEAKER_01
I would say, well, there s so many things that I love about the country on, you know, the landscapes and the waterways and the people, et cetera, but on the kind of a, you know,
0
SPEAKER_01
of the higher level, you know, people argue about whether we re an exemplary nation.
0
SPEAKER_01
And that term has been given a bad name, particularly by the neocons, the actions of the neocons in recent decades who
0
SPEAKER_01
have turned that phrase into kind of a justification for forcing people to adopt American systems or values at the barrel of a gun.
0
SPEAKER_01
But my father and uncle used it in a very different way, and they were very proud of it.
0
SPEAKER_01
I grew up very proud of this country because we were the exemplary nation in the sense that we were an example of
0
SPEAKER_01
democracy all over the world.
0
SPEAKER_01
When we first launched our democracy in 1780, we were the only democracy on earth.
0
SPEAKER_01
And by the Civil War, by 1865, there were six democracies.
0
SPEAKER_01
today there s probably 190 and all of them in one way or another are modeled on the American experience and it s kind of extraordinary because sort of our first contact with our first serious and sustained contact
0
SPEAKER_01
with the European culture and continent was in 1608 when John Winthrop came over with his Puritans in the Slough Barbella, and Winthrop gave this famous speech where he said, this is going to be a city on a hill.
0
SPEAKER_01
This is going to be an example for
0
SPEAKER_01
you know, all the other nations in the world, and he warned his fellow Puritans.
0
SPEAKER_01
They were, you know, sitting at this great expanse of land, and he said, we can t be seduced by the lure of real estate or by the carnal opportunities of this land.
0
SPEAKER_01
We have to
0
SPEAKER_01
take this country as a gift from God and then turn it into an example for the rest of the world of God s love, of God s will, and wisdom.
0
SPEAKER_01
And then, you know, 200 years later, 250 years later,
0
SPEAKER_01
a different generation, they were mainly deists.
0
SPEAKER_01
They were people who had a belief in God, but not so much a love of particularly religious cosmologies.
0
SPEAKER_01
You know, the Ephraimers, the Constitution,
0
SPEAKER_01
believe that we were creating something that would be replicated around the world, and that it was an example.
0
SPEAKER_01
In democracy, there would be this kind of wisdom from the collective, you know, and the word wisdom means a knowledge of God s will, and that somehow God would speak through the collective in a way that
0
SPEAKER_01
that he or she could not speak through totalitarian regimes.
0
SPEAKER_01
And I think that that s something that even though Winthrop was a white man and a Protestant, that every immigrant group who came after them kind of adopted that belief.
0
SPEAKER_01
And I know my family, when my family came over, all of my grandparents came over in 1848 during the potato famine.
0
SPEAKER_01
And they saw this country as unique in history, as something that was part of kind of a broader spiritual mission.
0
SPEAKER_01
And so I d say that from a 30,000 foot level, I grew up so proud of this country and believing that it was the greatest country in the world, and for those reasons.
0
SPEAKER_00
Well, I immigrated to this country, and one of the things that really embodies America to me is the ideal of freedom.
0
SPEAKER_00
Honest Thompson said, freedom is something that dies unless it s used.
0
SPEAKER_00
What does freedom mean to you?
0
SPEAKER_01
To me, freedom does not mean chaos, and it does not mean anarchy.
0
SPEAKER_01
It means that it has to be accompanied by restraint if it s going to live up to its promise and self-restraint.
0
SPEAKER_01
What it means is the capacity for human beings to exercise and to fulfill their creative energies unrestrained as much as possible by government.
0
SPEAKER_00
So this point that Hannah Rastanson has made is dies unless it s used.
0
SPEAKER_00
Do you agree with that?
0
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, I do agree with that.
0
SPEAKER_01
He was not unique in saying that.
0
SPEAKER_01
Thomas Jefferson said that the tree of liberty had to be watered with the blood of each generation.
0
SPEAKER_01
And what he meant by that is that we can t live off the laurels of the American Revolution.
0
SPEAKER_01
that we had a group, we had a generation where between 25,000 and 70,000 Americans died.
0
SPEAKER_01
They gave their lives, they gave their livelihoods, they gave their status, they gave their property, and they put it all on the line to give us our Bill of Rights.
0
SPEAKER_01
But those Bill of Rights, the moment that we signed them, there were forces within our society
0
SPEAKER_01
that began trying to chip away at them.
0
SPEAKER_01
And that happens in every generation, and it is the obligation of every generation to safeguard and protect those freedoms.
0
SPEAKER_00
The blood of each generation.
0
SPEAKER_00
You mentioned your interest, your admiration of Albert Camus, of Stoicism, perhaps your interest in existentialism.
0
SPEAKER_00
Camus said, I believe in myth of Sisyphus, the only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.
0
SPEAKER_00
What do you think he means by that?
0
SPEAKER_01
I suppose the way that Camus...
0
SPEAKER_01
viewed the world and the way that the Stoics did and a lot of the existentialists was that it was so absurd and that the problems and the tasks that we re given just to live a life are so insurmountable.
0
SPEAKER_01
that the only way that we can kind of get back the gods for giving us this, you know, this impossible task of living life was to embrace it and to enjoy it and to do our best at it.
0
SPEAKER_01
I mean, to me, I
0
SPEAKER_01
You know, I read Camus, and particularly in The Myth of Sisyphus, as a kind of, as a parable that, and it s the same lesson that I think he writes about in The Plague, where we re all given these insurmountable tasks in our lives, but that by doing our duty, by being of service to others,
0
SPEAKER_01
we can bring meaning to a meaningless chaos, and we can bring order to the universe.
0
SPEAKER_01
And Sisyphus was kind of the iconic hero of the Stoics.
0
SPEAKER_01
And he was a man because he did something good.
0
SPEAKER_01
He delivered a gift to humanity.
0
SPEAKER_01
He angered the gods, and they condemned him to push a rock up the hill every day, and then it would roll down.
0
SPEAKER_01
When he got to the top, it would roll down, and he d spend the night going back down the hill to collect it and then rolling it back up the hill again.
0
SPEAKER_01
And the task was absurd.
0
SPEAKER_01
It was insurmountable.
1
SPEAKER_01
can never win.
1
SPEAKER_01
But the last line of that book is one of the great lines, which is, which is something to the extent that, you know, I can picture Sisyphus smiling, because Camus  belief was that even though he, his task was insurmountable, that he was a happy man.
1
SPEAKER_01
and he was a happy man because he put his shoulder to the stone.
1
SPEAKER_01
He took his duty, he embraced the task and the absurdity of life, and he pushed the stone up the hill.
1
SPEAKER_01
And that if we do that, and if we find ways of being of service to others, that is the ultimate, that s the key to the lock, that s the solution to the puzzle.
1
SPEAKER_00
each individual person in that way can rebel against absurdity by discovering meaning to this whole messy thing.
1
SPEAKER_01
And we can bring meaning not only to our own lives, but we can bring meaning to the universe as well.
1
SPEAKER_01
We can bring some kind of order to life.
1
SPEAKER_01
The embrace of those tasks and the commitment to service resonates out from us to the rest of humanity in some way.
1
SPEAKER_00
So you mentioned The Plague by Camus.
1
SPEAKER_00
There s a lot of different ways to read that book, but one of them, especially given how it was written, is that The Plague symbolizes Nazi Germany and the Hitler regime.
1
SPEAKER_00
What do you learn about human nature?
1
SPEAKER_00
from a figure like Adolf Hitler, that he s able to captivate the minds of millions, rise to power, and take on pulling the whole world into a global war.
1
SPEAKER_01
I was born nine years after the end of World War II, and I grew up in a generation that was, you know, with my parents who were fixated on that, on, you know, what happened.
1
SPEAKER_01
And my father,
1
SPEAKER_01
At that time, the resolution in the minds of most Americans, and I think people around the world, is that there had been something wrong with the German people, that the Germans had been particularly susceptible to this kind of demagoguery and to following a powerful leader and to industrializing cruelty and murder.
1
SPEAKER_01
And my father always differed with that.
1
SPEAKER_01
My father said, this is not a German problem.
1
SPEAKER_01
This could happen to all of us.
1
SPEAKER_01
We re all just inches away from barbarity.
1
SPEAKER_01
And the thing that keeps us safe in this country are the institutions of our democracy, our constitution.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s not our nature.
1
SPEAKER_01
Our nature
1
SPEAKER_01
has to be restrained, and that comes through self-restraint, but it also, you know, the beauty of our country is that we devise these institutions that are designed to allow us to flourish.
1
SPEAKER_01
but at the same time, not to give us enough freedom to flourish, but also create enough order to keep us from collapsing into barbarity.
1
SPEAKER_01
One of the other things that my father talked about from when I was little, he would ask us this question, if you were the family,
1
SPEAKER_01
and Anne Frank came to your door and asked you to hide her, would you be one of the people who hit her, risked your own life, or would you be one of the people who turned her in?
1
SPEAKER_01
And of course we would all say, well, of course we would hide Anne Frank and take the risk.
1
SPEAKER_01
But that s been something kind of a lesson and a challenge that has always been near the forefront of my mind, that if a totalitarian system ever,
1
SPEAKER_01
occurs in the united states which my father thought was quite possible he was conscious about how fragile democracy actually is when i be one of the ones who would resist the totalitarianism or would i be one of the people who
1
SPEAKER_01
who went along with it, but I d be one of the people who was at the train station in Krakow or even Berlin and saw people being shipped off to camps.
1
SPEAKER_01
and just put my head down and pretend I didn t say it because talking about it would be destructive to my career and maybe my freedom and even my life.
1
SPEAKER_01
So, you know, that has been a challenge that my father gave to me and all of my brothers and sisters.
1
SPEAKER_01
And it s something that I ve never forgotten.
1
SPEAKER_00
A lot of us would like to believe we would resist in that situation, but the reality is most of us wouldn t, and that s a good thing to think about.
1
SPEAKER_00
that human nature is such that we re selfish, even when there s an atrocity going on all around us.
1
SPEAKER_01
And we also, you know, we have the capacity to deceive ourselves.
1
SPEAKER_01
And all of us tend to kind of judge ourselves by our intentions and our actions.
1
SPEAKER_00
What have you learned about life from your father, Robert F. Kennedy?
1
SPEAKER_01
First of all, I ll say this about my uncle because I m going to apply that question to my uncle and my father.
1
SPEAKER_01
My uncle was asked when he first met Jackie Bouvier, who later became Jackie Kennedy, she was a reporter for a newspaper and she had a column where she d do these pithy interviews with both famous people and men in the street interviews.
1
SPEAKER_01
And she was interviewing him and she asked him what he believed his best quality was, his strongest virtue.
1
SPEAKER_01
And she thought that he would say courage because he had been a war hero.
1
SPEAKER_01
He was the only president who, and this is when he was senator, by the way,
1
SPEAKER_01
kind of famous story of him as a hero in World War II and then he had come home and he had written a book on moral courage among American politicians and won the Pulitzer Prize.
1
SPEAKER_01
That book, Profiles in Courage, which was a series of incidents where
1
SPEAKER_01
American political leaders made decisions to embrace principle even though their careers were at stake and in most cases were destroyed by their choice.
1
SPEAKER_01
She thought he was going to say courage, but he didn t.
1
SPEAKER_01
He said curiosity.
1
SPEAKER_01
I think looking back at his life, that it was true and that was the quality that allowed him
1
SPEAKER_01
to put himself in the shoes of his adversaries.
1
SPEAKER_01
And he always said that if you, the only way that we re gonna have peace is if we re able to put ourselves in the shoes of our adversaries, understand their behavior and their context.
1
SPEAKER_01
And that s why he was able to, you know, during the, he was able to resist the intelligence apparatus and the military
1
SPEAKER_01
during the Bay of Pigs when they said, you ve got to send in the Essex, the aircraft carrier.
1
SPEAKER_01
And he said, no, even though he d only been in two months in office, he was able to stand up to them because he was able to put himself in the shoes of both Castro and Khrushchev and understand there s gotta be another solution to this.
1
SPEAKER_01
And then during the Cuban Missile Crisis, he was able to do it.
1
SPEAKER_01
The narrative was, okay, Khrushchev acted
1
SPEAKER_01
in a way, as an aggressor, to put missiles in our hemisphere.
1
SPEAKER_01
How dare he do that?
1
SPEAKER_01
And Jack and my father were able to say, well, wait a minute, he s doing that because we put missiles in Turkey and Italy that were right on, you know, the Turkish ones right on the Russian border.
1
SPEAKER_01
And they then made a secret deal with Dobranin, with Ambassador Dobranin, and with Khrushchev to remove the missiles in Turkey, if he moved the Jupiter missiles from Turkey, so long as Khrushchev removed them from Cuba.
1
SPEAKER_01
There were 13 men on the end,
1
SPEAKER_01
what they call the Ancon Committee, which was the group of people who were deciding what the action was, what they were going to do to end the Cuban Missile Crisis.
1
SPEAKER_01
And of those men, 11 of them wanted to invade and wanted to bomb and invade.
1
SPEAKER_01
And it was Jack and then
1
SPEAKER_01
and then Bob McNamara, who were the only people who were with him, because he was able to see the world from Khrushchev s point of view, he believed that there was another solution.
1
SPEAKER_01
And then he also had the moral courage.
1
SPEAKER_01
So my father, you know, to get back to your question,
1
SPEAKER_01
famously said that moral courage is the most important quality and it s more rare than courage on the football field or courage in battle than physical courage.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s much more difficult to come by, but it s the most important quality in a human being.
1
SPEAKER_00
And you think that kind of empathy that you referred to, that requires moral courage?
1
SPEAKER_01
It certainly requires moral courage to act on it.
1
SPEAKER_01
You know, and particularly, you know,
1
SPEAKER_01
You know, anytime that a nation is at war, there s kind of a momentum or an inertia that says, okay, let s not look at this from the other person s point of view.
1
SPEAKER_01
And that s the time we really need to do that.
1
SPEAKER_00
Well, if you can apply that style of empathy, style of curiosity to the current war in Ukraine, what is your understanding of why Russia invaded Ukraine in February, 2022?
1
SPEAKER_01
Vladimir Putin could have avoided the war in the Ukraine.
1
SPEAKER_01
His invasion was illegal.
1
SPEAKER_01
It was unnecessary, and it was brutal.
1
SPEAKER_01
But I think it s important for us
1
SPEAKER_01
to move beyond these kind of comic book depictions of this insane, avaricious Russian leader who wants to restore the Soviet empire, and that that s why, and who made an unprovoked invasion of the Ukraine.
1
SPEAKER_01
He was provoked.
1
SPEAKER_01
And we were provoking him, and we were provoking him since 1997.
1
SPEAKER_01
And it s not just me that s saying that.
1
SPEAKER_01
I mean, when, and before Putin ever came in, we were provoking Russians in this way unnecessarily.
1
SPEAKER_01
And to go back that time in 1992, when the Russians moved out of, when the Soviet Union was collapsing, the Russians moved out of East Germany,
1
SPEAKER_01
And they did that, which was a huge concession to them.
1
SPEAKER_01
They had 400,000 troops in East Germany at that time, and they were facing NATO troops on the other side of the wall.
1
SPEAKER_01
Gorbachev made this huge concession where he said to George Bush,
1
SPEAKER_01
I m going to move all of our troops out, and you can then reunify Germany under NATO, which was a hostile army to the Soviet.
1
SPEAKER_01
It was created with hostile intent toward the Soviet Union.
1
SPEAKER_01
And he said, you can take Germany, but I want your promise that you will not move NATO to the east.
1
SPEAKER_01
And James Baker, who was the Secretary of State, famously said,
1
SPEAKER_01
I will not move NATO, we will not move NATO one inch to the east.
1
SPEAKER_01
So then, five years later in 1997, the big Nobrizinski, who was kind of the father of the neocons, who was a Democrat at that time, served in the Carter administration.
1
SPEAKER_01
He said, he published a paper, a blueprint,
1
SPEAKER_01
for moving NATO right up to the Russian border, 1,000 miles to the east, and taking over 14 nations.
1
SPEAKER_01
And at that time, George Kennan, who was kind of the deity of American diplomats, he was probably, arguably, the most important diplomat in American history.
1
SPEAKER_01
He was the architect of the containment policy during World War II.
1
SPEAKER_01
And he said,
1
SPEAKER_01
Insane and it s unnecessary and if you do this, it s going to provoke the Russians to a violent response and we should be making friends with the Russians.
1
SPEAKER_01
They lost the Cold War.
1
SPEAKER_01
We should be treating them the way that we treated our adversaries after
1
SPEAKER_01
World War II, like with a Marshall Plan to try to help them incorporate into Europe and to be part of the brotherhood of, you know, of man and of Western nations.
1
SPEAKER_01
We shouldn t continue to be treating them as an enemy and particularly surrounding them at their borders.
1
SPEAKER_01
William Perry, who was then the Secretary of Defense
1
SPEAKER_01
under Bill Clinton threatened to resign.
1
SPEAKER_01
He was so upset by this plan to move NATO to the east.
1
SPEAKER_01
And William Burns, who was then the U.S.
1
SPEAKER_01
ambassador to the Soviet Union, who s now at this moment the head of the CIA, said at that time the same thing.
1
SPEAKER_01
if you do this, it is going to provoke the Russians toward a military response.
1
SPEAKER_01
And we moved it, we moved all around Russia, we moved to 14 nations, a thousand miles to the east, and we put Aegis missile systems in two nations, in Romania and Poland.
1
SPEAKER_01
So we did what, you know, what the Russians had done to us in 1962 that would have provoked an invasion of Cuba.
1
SPEAKER_01
We put those missile systems back there and then we walk away unilaterally, walk away from the two nuclear missile treaties, the intermediate nuclear missile treaties that we had with Russia.
1
SPEAKER_01
And neither of us would put those missile systems on the borders.
1
SPEAKER_01
We walk away from that and we put Aegis missile systems, which are nuclear capable.
1
SPEAKER_01
They can carry the Tomahawk missiles, which have nuclear warheads.
1
SPEAKER_01
So the last country that they didn t take was the Ukraine.
1
SPEAKER_01
And the Russians said, and in fact, Bill Perry said this, or William Byrne said it, so now the head of the CIA.
1
SPEAKER_01
It is a red line.
1
SPEAKER_01
If we go into, if we bring NATO into Ukraine, that is a red line for the Russians.
1
SPEAKER_01
They cannot live with it.
1
SPEAKER_01
They cannot live with it.
1
SPEAKER_01
Russia has been invaded three times through the Ukraine.
1
SPEAKER_01
The last time it was invaded, we killed, or the Germans killed one out of every seven Russians.
1
SPEAKER_01
They destroyed, my uncle described what happened to Russia in his famous American University speech in 1963, 60 years ago this month, or last month, 60 years ago in June, June 10th, 1963.
1
SPEAKER_01
He told, that speech was telling the American people, put yourself in the shoes of the Russians.
1
SPEAKER_01
We need to do that if we re gonna make peace.
1
SPEAKER_01
And he said, all of us have been taught that we won the war, but we didn t win the war.
1
SPEAKER_01
The Russians, if anybody won the war against Hitler, it was the Russians.
1
SPEAKER_01
Their country was destroyed.
1
SPEAKER_01
All of their cities, and he said, imagine if all of the cities on the east coast of Chicago were reduced to rubble, and all of the fields burned, all of the forests burned.
1
SPEAKER_01
That s what happened to Russia.
1
SPEAKER_01
That s what they gave so that we could get rid of Adolf Hitler.
1
SPEAKER_01
And he had them put themselves in their position.
1
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, today there s none of that happening.
1
SPEAKER_01
We have refused repeatedly to talk to the Russians.
1
SPEAKER_01
We ve broken up, there s two treaties, the Minsk agreements, which the Russians were willing to sign.
1
SPEAKER_01
And they said, we will stay.
1
SPEAKER_01
The Russians didn t want the Ukraine.
1
SPEAKER_01
They showed that when the Donbas region voted 90 to 10,
1
SPEAKER_01
to leave and go to Russia.
1
SPEAKER_01
Putin said, no, we want Ukraine to stay intact, but we want you to sign the Minsk Accords.
1
SPEAKER_01
The Russians were very worried because of the U.S.
1
SPEAKER_01
involvement in the coup in Ukraine in 2014.
1
SPEAKER_01
And then the oppression and the killing of 14,000
2
SPEAKER_01
ethnic Russians and Russia hasn t that the same reason the same way that if Mexico would Aegis missile systems from China or Russia on our border and then killed 14,000 expats American we would go in there oh he does have a national security interest in the Ukraine he has an interest in protecting the Russian-speaking people of the Ukraine yeah I think Russians and
2
SPEAKER_01
The Minsk Accords did that.
2
SPEAKER_01
It left Ukraine as part of Russia.
2
SPEAKER_01
It left them as a semi-autonomous region that could continue to use their own language, which is essentially banned by the coups, by the government we put in in 2014.
2
SPEAKER_01
And we sabotaged that agreement.
2
SPEAKER_01
And we now know in April of 2022,
2
SPEAKER_01
Zelensky and Putin had inked a deal already to another peace agreement, and that the United States sent Boris Johnson, the neocons in the White House, sent Boris Johnson over to the Ukraine to sabotage that agreement.
2
SPEAKER_01
So what do I think?
2
SPEAKER_01
I think this is a proxy war.
2
SPEAKER_01
I think this is a war that the neocons in the White House wanted.
2
SPEAKER_01
They ve said for two decades they wanted this war.
2
SPEAKER_01
and that they wanted to use Ukraine as a pawn in a proxy war between United States and Russia, the same as we used Afghanistan.
2
SPEAKER_01
And in fact, they say it, this is the model, let s use the Afghanistan model, that was said again and again, and to get the Russians to overextend their troops and then fight them using local fighters and US weapons.
2
SPEAKER_01
And when President Biden was asked, why are we in the Ukraine?
2
SPEAKER_01
He was honest.
2
SPEAKER_01
He says to depose Vladimir Putin, regime change for Vladimir Putin.
2
SPEAKER_01
And when his defense secretary, Lloyd Austin, in April 2022 was asked, you know, why are we there?
2
SPEAKER_01
He said to degrade the Russians  capacity to fight anywhere, to exhaust the Russian army and degrade its capacity to fight elsewhere in the world.
2
SPEAKER_01
That s not a humanitarian mission.
2
SPEAKER_01
That s not what we were told.
2
SPEAKER_01
We were told this was an unprovoked invasion.
2
SPEAKER_01
and that we re there to bring humanitarian relief to the Ukrainians.
2
SPEAKER_01
But that is the opposite.
2
SPEAKER_01
That is a war of attrition that is designed to chew up, to turn this little nation into an abattoir of death for the flower of Ukrainian youth in order to advance a geopolitical ambition of certain people within the White House.
2
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, I think that s wrong.
2
SPEAKER_01
We should be talking to the Russians the way that, you know, Nixon talked to Brezhnev.
2
SPEAKER_01
the way that Bush talked to Gorbachev, the way that my uncle talked to Khrushchev, we need to be talking with the Russians, we should, and negotiating, and we need to be looking about how do we end this and preserve peace in Europe.
2
SPEAKER_00
Would you, as president, sit down and have a conversation with Vladimir Putin and Vladimir Zelensky separately and together to negotiate peace?
2
SPEAKER_01
Absolutely, absolutely.
2
SPEAKER_00
What about Vladimir Putin?
2
SPEAKER_00
He s been in power since 2000.
2
SPEAKER_00
So as the old adage goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
2
SPEAKER_00
Do you think he has been corrupted by being in power for so long?
2
SPEAKER_00
If you think of the man, if you look at his mind.
2
SPEAKER_01
Listen, I don t know exactly.
2
SPEAKER_01
I can t say because I just, I don t know enough about him or about, you know, the evidence that I ve seen is that he is homicidal.
2
SPEAKER_01
He kills his enemies or poisons them.
2
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, the reaction I ve seen to that, to those accusations from him have not been to deny that, but to kind of laugh it off.
2
SPEAKER_01
I think he s a dangerous man and that, of course, you know, there s probably corruption in his regime.
2
SPEAKER_01
But having said that, it s not our business.
2
SPEAKER_01
to change the Russian government.
2
SPEAKER_01
And anybody who thinks it s a good idea to do regime change in Russia, which has more nuclear weapons than we do, is, I think, irresponsible.
2
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, Vladimir Putin himself has said, you know, we will not live in a world without Russia.
2
SPEAKER_01
And it was clear when he said that that he was talking about himself.
2
SPEAKER_01
And he has his hand on a button that could bring Armageddon to the entire planet.
2
SPEAKER_01
So why are we messing with this?
2
SPEAKER_01
It s not our job to change that regime.
2
SPEAKER_01
And we should be making friends with the Russians.
2
SPEAKER_01
We shouldn t be treating them as an enemy.
2
SPEAKER_01
Now we ve pushed them into the camp with China.
2
SPEAKER_01
That s not a good thing for our country.
2
SPEAKER_01
And by the way, you know,
2
SPEAKER_01
What we re doing now does not appear to be weakening Putin at all.
2
SPEAKER_01
Putin now, if you believe the polls that are coming out of Russia, they show him, the most recent polls that I ve seen, show him with an 89% popularity that people in Russia support the war in Ukraine, and they support him as an individual.
2
SPEAKER_01
And I understand there s problems with polling and you don t know what to believe, but the polls consistently show that.
2
SPEAKER_01
And it s not America s business to be the policemen of the world and to be changing regimes in the world.
2
SPEAKER_01
That s illegal.
2
SPEAKER_01
We shouldn t be breaking international laws.
2
SPEAKER_01
we should actually be looking for ways to improve relationships with Russia, not to destroy Russia and not to choose its leadership for them.
2
SPEAKER_01
That s up to the Russian people, not us.
2
SPEAKER_00
So step one is to sit down and empathize with the leaders of both nations to understand their history, their concerns, their hopes, just to open the door for conversation so they re not back to the corner.
2
SPEAKER_01
And I think the U.S.
2
SPEAKER_01
can play a really important role, and a U.S.
2
SPEAKER_01
president can play a really important role by reassuring the Russians that we re not going to consider them an enemy anymore, that we want to be friends.
2
SPEAKER_01
And it doesn t mean that you have to let down your guard completely.
2
SPEAKER_01
The way that you do it, which was the way President Kennedy did it, is you do it one step at a time.
2
SPEAKER_01
You take baby steps.
2
SPEAKER_01
We do a unilateral move.
2
SPEAKER_01
reduce our, you know, our hostility and aggression and see if the Russians reciprocate.
2
SPEAKER_01
And that s the way that we should be doing it.
2
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, we should be easing our way into a positive relationship with Russia.
2
SPEAKER_01
We have a lot in common with Russia and we should be friends with Russia and with the Russian people.
2
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, apparently there s been 350,000 Ukrainians
2
SPEAKER_01
who have died at least in this war.
2
SPEAKER_01
And there s probably been 60 or 80,000 Russians, and that should not give us any joy.
2
SPEAKER_01
It should not give us any, you know, I saw Lindsey Graham on TV saying, you know, anything we can, something to the extent that anything we can do to kill Russians is a good use of our money, that it is not.
2
SPEAKER_01
You know, those are somebody s children.
2
SPEAKER_01
We should have compassion for them.
2
SPEAKER_01
This war is an unnecessary war.
2
SPEAKER_01
We should settle it through negotiation, through diplomacy, through statecraft, and not through weapons.
2
SPEAKER_00
Do you think this war can come to an end purely through military operations?
2
SPEAKER_01
No, I mean, I don t think there s any way in the world that the Ukrainians can beat the Russians.
2
SPEAKER_01
I don t think there s any appetite in Europe.
2
SPEAKER_01
I think Europe is now, you know, having severe problems in Germany, Italy, France.
2
SPEAKER_01
You re seeing these riots.
2
SPEAKER_01
There s internal problems in those countries.
2
SPEAKER_01
There is no appetite in
2
SPEAKER_01
in Europe for sending men to die in Ukraine.
2
SPEAKER_01
And the Ukrainians do not have anybody left.
2
SPEAKER_01
The Ukrainians are using press gangs to fill the ranks of their armies.
2
SPEAKER_01
Military-age men are trying as hard as they can to get out of the Ukraine right now to avoid going to the front.
2
SPEAKER_01
The Russians apparently have been killing Ukrainians at a 7 to 1 ratio.
2
SPEAKER_01
My son fought over there and he told me, he had firefights with the Russians mainly at night, but he said most of the battles were artillery wars during the day.
2
SPEAKER_01
And the Russians now outgun the NATO forces 10 to one in artillery.
2
SPEAKER_01
They re killing at a horrendous rate.
2
SPEAKER_01
Now, my interpretation of what s happened so far is that
2
SPEAKER_01
Putin actually went in early on with a small force because he expected to meet somebody on the other end of a negotiating table once he went in, and when that didn t happen,
2
SPEAKER_01
They did not have a large enough force to be able to mount an offensive.
2
SPEAKER_01
And so they ve been building up that force up till now, and they now have that force.
2
SPEAKER_01
And even against this small original force, the Ukrainians have been helpless.
2
SPEAKER_01
all of their offenses have died.
2
SPEAKER_01
They ve now killed the head of the Ukrainian special forces, which was probably, arguably, by many accounts, the best elite military unit in all of Europe.
2
SPEAKER_01
The commandant, the commander of that special forces group,
2
SPEAKER_01
gave a speech about four months ago saying that 86% of his men are dead or wounded and will cannot return to the front.
2
SPEAKER_01
He cannot rebuild that force.
2
SPEAKER_01
The troops that are now headed, that are now filling the gaps of all those 350,000 men who ve been lost,
2
SPEAKER_01
are scantily trained, and they re arriving green at the front.
2
SPEAKER_01
Many of them do not want to be there.
2
SPEAKER_01
Many of them are giving up and going over the Russian side.
2
SPEAKER_01
We ve seen this again and again and again, including platoon-sized groups that are defecting to the Russians.
2
SPEAKER_01
And I don t think it s possible to win.
2
SPEAKER_01
And anybody, you know, I saw, of course, I ve studied World War II history exhaustively, but I saw a
2
SPEAKER_01
There s a new, I think it s a Netflix series of documentaries that I highly recommend to people.
2
SPEAKER_01
They re colorized versions of the black and white films from the battles of World War II, but it s all the battles of World War II.
2
SPEAKER_01
So I watched Stalingrad the other night, and the willingness of the Russians to fight on
2
SPEAKER_01
against any kind of allies and to make huge sacrifices of Russians, the Russians themselves, who are making the sacrifice with their lives.
2
SPEAKER_01
The willingness of them to do that for their motherland is almost inexhaustible.
2
SPEAKER_01
It is incomprehensible to think that Ukraine can beat Russia in a war.
2
SPEAKER_01
It would be like Mexico beating the United States.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s just, it s impossible to think that it can happen.
2
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, Russia has deployed
2
SPEAKER_01
a tiny, tiny fraction of its military so far.
2
SPEAKER_01
And now it has China with its mass production capacity supporting its war effort.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s a hopeless situation and we ve been lied to.
2
SPEAKER_01
The press in our country and our government are just promoting this lie that the Ukrainians are about to win and that everything s going great.
2
SPEAKER_01
Putin s on the run, and there s all this wishful thinking because of the Wagner group, you know, the Bogosian and the Wagner group, that this was an internal coup, and it showed dissent and weakness of Putin, and none of that is true.
2
SPEAKER_01
That insurgency, which wasn t even an insurgency, he only got 4,000 of his men to follow him out of 20,000.
2
SPEAKER_01
And they were quickly stopped, and nobody in the Russian military, the oligarchy, the political system, nobody supported it.
2
SPEAKER_01
And we re being told, oh yeah, it s the beginning of the end for Putin.
2
SPEAKER_01
He s weakened, he s wounded, he s on his way out, and all of these things are just lies that we are being fed.
2
SPEAKER_00
So to push back on a small aspect of this that you kind of implied, so I ve traveled to Ukraine, and one thing that I should say, similar to the Battle of Stalingrad, it is not only the Russians that fight to the end.
2
SPEAKER_00
I think Ukrainians are very willing to fight to the end.
2
SPEAKER_00
And the morale there is quite high.
2
SPEAKER_00
I ve talked to nobody, this was a year ago in August with her son.
2
SPEAKER_00
Everybody was proud to fight and die for their country.
2
SPEAKER_00
And there s some aspect where this war unified the people, gave them a reason and an understanding that this is what it means to be Ukrainian and I will fight to the death to defend this land.
2
SPEAKER_01
I would agree with that and I should have,
2
SPEAKER_01
said that myself at the beginning.
2
SPEAKER_01
That s one of the reasons my son went over there to fight, because he was inspired by the valor of the Ukrainian people and this extraordinary willingness of them.
2
SPEAKER_01
And I think Putin thought it would be much easier to sweep into Ukraine, and he found a stone wall of Ukrainians ready to put their
2
SPEAKER_01
their lives and their bodies on the line.
2
SPEAKER_01
But that, to me, makes the whole episode even more tragic, is that, you know, I don t believe, you know, I think that the U.S.
2
SPEAKER_01
role in this has been, you know, that there were many opportunities to settle this war and the Ukrainians wanted to settle it.
2
SPEAKER_01
Vladimir Zelensky, when he ran in 2019, here s a guy who s a comedian
2
SPEAKER_01
He s an actor.
2
SPEAKER_01
He had no political experience, and yet he won this election with 70% of the vote.
2
SPEAKER_01
Why?
2
SPEAKER_01
He won on a peace platform.
2
SPEAKER_01
And he won promising to sign the Minsk Accords.
2
SPEAKER_01
And yet something happened when he got in there that made him suddenly pivot.
2
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, I think it s a good guess what happened.
2
SPEAKER_01
I think he was, you know, he came under threat by ultra-nationalist nationalists within his own administration.
2
SPEAKER_01
and the insistence of neocons like Victoria Nuland in the White House that, you know, we don t want peace with Putin, we want a war.
2
SPEAKER_00
Do you worry about a nuclear war?
2
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, I worry about it.
2
SPEAKER_00
It seems like a silly question, but it s not.
2
SPEAKER_00
It s a serious question.
2
SPEAKER_01
Well, the reason it s not, you know, the reason it might, it s not, it s just because people seem to be in this kind of dream state about that it ll never happen.
2
SPEAKER_01
And yet, you know, we re,
2
SPEAKER_01
It can happen very easily and it can happen at any time.
2
SPEAKER_01
And if we push the Russians too far, I don t doubt that Putin, if he felt like his regime or his nation was in danger, that the United States was gonna be able to place a quizzling into the Kremlin, that he would use nuclear torpedoes.
2
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, these strategic weapons that they have, and that could be the be it.
2
SPEAKER_01
Once you do that, nobody controls the trajectory.
2
SPEAKER_01
By the way, you know, I have very strong memories of the Cuban Missile Crisis and those 13 days when we came closer to nuclear war, you know, and particularly I think it was when the U-2 got shot down over
2
SPEAKER_01
Cuba had, you know, and nobody in this country, there s a lot of people in Washington, D.C.
2
SPEAKER_01
who at that point thought that they very well may wake up dead, that the world may end at night, 30 million
2
SPEAKER_01
million Russians.
2
SPEAKER_01
This is what our military brass want.
2
SPEAKER_01
If they saw a war with Russia, a nuclear exchange with Russia as not only inevitable but also desirable because they wanted to do it now, we still had a superiority.
2
SPEAKER_00
Can you actually go through the feelings you ve had about the Cuban Missile Crisis?
2
SPEAKER_00
Like what
3
SPEAKER_01
What are your memories of it?
3
SPEAKER_00
What are some interesting kind of- I was going to school in Washington, D.C.
3
SPEAKER_00
to our Lady of Victory, which is in Washington, D.C.
3
SPEAKER_00
I lived in Virginia, across the Potomac, and we would cross the bridge every day into D.C.
3
SPEAKER_00
And during the crisis, U.S.
3
SPEAKER_00
Marshals came to my house to take us, I think around day eight,
3
SPEAKER_00
My father was spending the night at the White House.
3
SPEAKER_00
He wasn t coming home.
3
SPEAKER_00
He was staying with the EXCOMM committee and sleeping there, and they were up, you know, 24 hours a day.
3
SPEAKER_00
They were debating and trying to figure out what was happening.
3
SPEAKER_00
But we had U.S.
3
SPEAKER_00
Marshals come to our house to take us down.
3
SPEAKER_00
They were going to take us down to
3
SPEAKER_00
White Sulphur Springs in Southern Virginia, in the Blue Ridge Mountains, where there was an underground city, essentially a bunker that was like a city, and apparently it had McDonald s in it and a lot of other, you know, it was a full city for the US government and their families.
3
SPEAKER_00
U.S.
3
SPEAKER_00
Marshals came to our house to take us down there, and I was very excited about doing that.
3
SPEAKER_00
And this was at a time, you know, when we were doing the drills, we were doing the duck and cover drills once a week at our school.
3
SPEAKER_00
where they would tell you when the alarms go off, then you put your head under the table, you remove the sharps from your desk, put them inside your desk, you put your head under the table and you wait and the initial blast will take the windows out of the school and then we all stand up and
3
SPEAKER_00
and file in an orderly fashion into the basement where we re going to be for the next six or eight months or whatever.
3
SPEAKER_00
But in the basement, where we went occasionally in those corridors, were lined with freeze-dried food canisters up to the ceiling from floor to ceiling.
3
SPEAKER_00
So people were, you know, we were all preparing for this.
3
SPEAKER_00
And it was, you know, Bob McNamara, who was a friend of mine and, you know, was my father, one of my father s close friends, the Secretary of Defense.
3
SPEAKER_00
He later called it mass psychosis.
3
SPEAKER_00
And my father deeply regretted participating in the bomb shelter program because he said it was part of a psychological psy-op trick to teach Americans that nuclear war was acceptable, that it was survivable.
3
SPEAKER_00
But my father, anyway, when the marshals came to our house to take me and my brother Joe away, and we were the ones who were home at that time,
3
SPEAKER_00
My father called and he talked to us on the phone and he said, I don t want you going down there because if you disappear from school, people are going to panic.
3
SPEAKER_00
I need you to be a good soldier and go to the school.
3
SPEAKER_00
He said something to me during that period, which was that if a nuclear war happened, it would be
3
SPEAKER_00
living, which I did not believe.
3
SPEAKER_00
I had already prepared myself for the dystopian future, and I spent every day in the woods.
3
SPEAKER_00
I knew that I could survive by
3
SPEAKER_00
puppies and do whatever I had to do.
3
SPEAKER_00
But I felt like, okay, I can handle this.
3
SPEAKER_00
I really wanted to see this set up down in this underground city.
3
SPEAKER_00
But anyway, that was part of it for me.
3
SPEAKER_00
My father was away in the last days of it.
3
SPEAKER_00
My father got this idea because Khrushchev had sent two letters.
3
SPEAKER_00
He sent one letter that was conciliatory, and then he sent a letter that after his Joint Chiefs and the warmongers around him saw that letter and they disapproved of it, they sent another letter that was extremely belligerent.
3
SPEAKER_00
And my father had the idea, let s just pretend we didn t get the second letter and reply to the first one.
3
SPEAKER_00
And then he went down to Dobrynin, and he met Dobrynin in the Justice Department.
3
SPEAKER_00
And Dobrynin was the Soviet ambassador, and they proposed this settlement, which was a secret settlement.
3
SPEAKER_00
where Khrushchev would withdraw the missiles from Cuba.
3
SPEAKER_00
Khrushchev had put the missiles in Cuba because we had put missiles, nuclear missiles in Turkey and Italy.
3
SPEAKER_00
And my uncle s secret deal was that if Khrushchev removed the missiles from Cuba, within six months he would get rid of the Jupiter missiles in Turkey.
3
SPEAKER_00
But if Khrushchev told anybody about the deal, it was off.
3
SPEAKER_00
So if news got out about that secret deal, it was off.
3
SPEAKER_00
That was the actual deal.
3
SPEAKER_00
And Khrushchev complied with it, and then my uncle complied with it.
3
SPEAKER_01
How much of that part of human history turned on the decisions of one person?
3
SPEAKER_00
I think that s one of the, you know, because that, of course, the perennial question, right?
3
SPEAKER_00
But it is history kind of on an automatic pilot and, you know, human decisions and the decisions of leaders really only have, you know, a marginal or incremental bearing on what is going to happen anyway.
3
SPEAKER_00
But I think that is the, and historians argue about that all the time.
3
SPEAKER_00
I think that that is a really good example of a place in human history that literally the world could have ended if we had a different leader in the White House.
3
SPEAKER_00
And the reason for that is that there were, as I recall, 64 gun emplacements, you know, missile emplacements.
3
SPEAKER_00
Each one of those missile emplacements had a crew of about 100 men, and they were Soviets.
3
SPEAKER_00
We had a couple of questions that my uncle asked.
3
SPEAKER_00
Alan Dulles, or asked the CIA, and he asked, Dulles was already gone, but he asked the CIA, and he asked his military brass, because they all wanted to go in.
3
SPEAKER_00
Everybody wanted to go in, and my uncle said, my uncle asked to see the aerial photos, and he examined those personally, and that s why it s important to have a leader in the White House who can push back on their bureaucracies.
3
SPEAKER_00
He, and then he asked them,
3
SPEAKER_00
You know, who s manning those missile sites?
3
SPEAKER_00
And are they Russians?
3
SPEAKER_00
And if they re Russians and we bomb them, isn t it going to force Khrushchev to then go into Berlin?
3
SPEAKER_00
And that would be the beginning of a cascade effect that would highly likely end in nuclear confrontation.
3
SPEAKER_00
And the military brass said to my uncle, oh, we don t think he ll have the guts to do that.
3
SPEAKER_00
So my uncle was like, that s what you re betting on?
3
SPEAKER_00
And they all wanted him to go in.
3
SPEAKER_00
They wanted him to bomb the sites and then invade Cuba.
3
SPEAKER_00
And he said, if we bomb those sites, we re gonna be killing Russians.
3
SPEAKER_00
And it s gonna force, it s gonna provoke Russia into some response.
3
SPEAKER_00
And the obvious response is for them to go into Berlin.
3
SPEAKER_00
But the thing that we didn t know then, and we didn t find out until, I think,
3
SPEAKER_00
It was like a 30-year anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis in Havana.
3
SPEAKER_00
And what we learned then was that from the Russians who came to that event, it was like a symposium where everybody on both sides talked about it.
3
SPEAKER_00
And we learned a lot of stuff that nobody knew before.
3
SPEAKER_00
One of the insane things, the most insane thing that we learned was that the weapons were already, the nuclear warheads were already in place, they were ready to fire, and that the authorization to fire was made, was delegated to each of the gun crew commanders.
3
SPEAKER_00
So there were 60 people who had all had authorization to fire if they felt themselves under attack.
3
SPEAKER_00
So you have to believe that at least one of them would have launched, and that would have been the beginning of the end.
3
SPEAKER_00
And if anybody had launched, we knew what would happen.
3
SPEAKER_00
My uncle knew what would happen, because he asked again and again, what s going to happen?
3
SPEAKER_00
And they said, 30 million Americans will be killed, but we will kill 130 million Russians.
3
SPEAKER_00
So we will win.
3
SPEAKER_00
And that was a victory for them.
3
SPEAKER_00
And my uncle later said, he told Arthur Schlesinger and Kenny O Donnell, he said, those guys, he called them the salad brass, the guys with all of this stuff on their chest.
3
SPEAKER_00
And he said, those guys, they don t care, because they know that if it happens,
3
SPEAKER_00
that they re gonna be in the charge of everything.
3
SPEAKER_00
They re the ones who are gonna be running the world after that.
3
SPEAKER_00
So for them, there was an incentive to kill 130 million Russians and 30 million Americans by my uncle.
3
SPEAKER_00
He had this correspondence with Khrushchev.
3
SPEAKER_00
They were secretly corresponding with each other.
3
SPEAKER_00
And that is what saved the world, is that they had, that both of them had been men of war.
3
SPEAKER_00
Eisenhower famously said, it will not be a man of war
3
SPEAKER_00
who will not be a soldier who starts World War III, because a guy who s actually seen it knows how bad it is.
3
SPEAKER_00
And my uncle, you know, had been in the heat of the South Pacific.
3
SPEAKER_00
His boat had been cut in two by a Japanese destroyer.
3
SPEAKER_00
Three of his crewmen had been killed, one of them badly burned.
3
SPEAKER_00
He pulled that guy with a lanyard in his teeth.
3
SPEAKER_00
six miles to an island in the middle of the night, and then they hid out there for 10 days.
3
SPEAKER_00
And he came back, like I said, he was the only president of the United States that earned the Purple Heart.
3
SPEAKER_00
Meanwhile, Khrushchev had been at Stalingrad, which was the worst place to be on the planet, probably in the 20th century, other than in Auschwitz or one of the death camps.
3
SPEAKER_00
It was the most ferocious, horrific war with people starving, people committed cannibalism, eating the dogs, the cats, eating their shoe leather, freezing to death by the thousands, et cetera.
3
SPEAKER_00
Khrushchev did not want, the last thing he wanted was a war, and the last thing my uncle wanted was a war.
3
SPEAKER_00
But the CIA did not know anything about Khrushchev.
3
SPEAKER_00
And the reason for that
3
SPEAKER_00
is there was a mole at Langley, so that every time the CIA got a spy in the Kremlin, he would immediately be killed.
3
SPEAKER_00
So they had no eyes in the Kremlin.
3
SPEAKER_00
There were literally hundreds of Russian spies who had defected to the United States and were in the Kremlin who were killed during that period.
3
SPEAKER_00
They had no idea anything about Khrushchev, about how he saw the world, and they saw the Kremlin itself as a monolith.
3
SPEAKER_00
This kind of you know the same way that we look at putin today that you know it s all that they have this ambition of world conquest and that it s driving them and there s nothing else i think about there are absolutely single minded about it.
3
SPEAKER_00
But actually there was a big division.
3
SPEAKER_00
between Khrushchev and his Joint Chiefs and his intelligence apparatus, and they both at one point discovered they were both in the same situation.
3
SPEAKER_00
They were surrounded by spies and military personnel who were intent on going to war, and they were the two guys resisting it.
3
SPEAKER_00
So when my uncle had this idea of being the peace president from the beginning, he told Ben Bradley, one of his best friends, who was the publisher of the Washington Post,
3
SPEAKER_00
or the editor-in-chief at that time, he said, Ben Bradley asked him, what do you want on your gravestone?
3
SPEAKER_00
And my uncle said, he kept the peace.
3
SPEAKER_00
He said, the principal job of a president of the United States is to keep the country out of war.
3
SPEAKER_00
And so when he first became president,
3
SPEAKER_00
He anxiously agreed to meet Khrushchev in Geneva to do a summit.
3
SPEAKER_00
And by the way, Eisenhower had wanted to do the same thing.
3
SPEAKER_00
Eisenhower wanted peace, and he was gonna meet in Vienna.
3
SPEAKER_00
But that peace summit was blown up.
3
SPEAKER_00
He was gonna try to do, you know, he was gonna try to end the Cold War.
3
SPEAKER_00
Eisenhower was in the last year of his, in May of 1960, but that was torpedoed by the CIA during the U-2 crash.
3
SPEAKER_00
You know, they sent a U-2 over the Soviet Union, it got shot down, and then they told, and then Allen Dulles,
3
SPEAKER_00
told Eisenhower to deny that we had a program.
3
SPEAKER_00
They didn t know that the Russians had captured Gary Francis Powers.
3
SPEAKER_00
And that blew up the peace talks between Eisenhower and Khrushchev.
3
SPEAKER_00
There was a lot of tension.
3
SPEAKER_00
My uncle wanted to break that tension.
3
SPEAKER_00
He agreed to meet with
3
SPEAKER_00
with Khrushchev in Vienna early on in his term.
3
SPEAKER_00
He went over there and Khrushchev snubbed him.
3
SPEAKER_00
Khrushchev lectured him imperiously about the, you know, the terror of American imperialism and rebuffed any, you know, they did agree not to go into Laos.
3
SPEAKER_00
They made an agreement that kept the United States, kept my uncle from sending troops to Laos, but,
3
SPEAKER_00
It had been a disaster, Vienna.
3
SPEAKER_00
So then we had a spy that used to come to our house all the time, a guy called Georgi Bolshegoi.
3
SPEAKER_00
He was this Russian spy my parents had met at the embassy.
3
SPEAKER_00
They had gone to a party or a reception at the Russian embassy and he had approached them and they knew he was a GRU agent and KGB, it was both.
3
SPEAKER_00
Oh, he used to come to our house.
3
SPEAKER_00
They really liked him.
3
SPEAKER_00
He was very attractive.
3
SPEAKER_00
He was always laughing and joking.
3
SPEAKER_00
He would do rope climbing contests with my father.
3
SPEAKER_00
He would do push-up contests with my father.
3
SPEAKER_00
He could do the Russian dancing, the Cossack dancing.
3
SPEAKER_00
And he would do that for us and teach us that.
3
SPEAKER_00
And we knew he was a spy too.
3
SPEAKER_00
And this was at the time of, you know, the James Bond films were first coming out.
3
SPEAKER_00
So it was really exciting for us to have an actual Russian spy in our house.
3
SPEAKER_00
The State Department was horrified by it.
3
SPEAKER_00
But anyway, when Khrushchev, after Vienna, and after, you know, the bigs, Khrushchev had second thoughts.
3
SPEAKER_00
And he sent this long letter to my uncle, and he didn t want to go through his state department or his embassy.
3
SPEAKER_00
He wanted to Enron them, and he was friends with Bolshevik.
3
SPEAKER_00
So he gave Georgie the letter, and Georgie brought it and handed it to Pierre Salinger, folded it in the New York Times, and he gave it to my uncle.
3
SPEAKER_00
And it was this beautiful letter, which he said, you know,
3
SPEAKER_00
My uncle had talked to him about the children who were played.
3
SPEAKER_00
We played 29 grandchildren who were playing in his yard.
3
SPEAKER_00
And he s saying, what is our moral basis for making a decision that could kill these children so they ll never write a poem, they ll never participate in an election, they ll never run for office?
3
SPEAKER_00
How can we morally make a decision that is going to eliminate life for these beautiful kids?
3
SPEAKER_00
And he had said that to,
3
SPEAKER_00
to Khrushchev, and Khrushchev wrote them this letter back saying that he was now sitting as his dacha on the Black Sea, and that he was thinking about what my Uncle Jack had said to him at Vienna, and he regretted very deeply not having taken the olive leaf that Jack had offered him.
3
SPEAKER_00
And then he said, you know, it occurs to me now that we re all on an arc, and that there is not another one, and that the entire fate of the planet
3
SPEAKER_00
and all of its creatures and all of the children are dependent on the decisions we make.
3
SPEAKER_00
And you and I have a moral obligation to go forward with each other as friends.
3
SPEAKER_00
And immediately after that, this was, you know, he said that right after the Berlin crisis in 1968.
4
SPEAKER_00
General Curtis LeMay had tried to provoke a war with an incident at Checkpoint Charlie, which was the entrance and exit through the Berlin Wall in Berlin.
4
SPEAKER_00
And the Russian tanks had come to the wall, the U.S.
4
SPEAKER_00
tanks had come to the wall, and there was a standoff.
4
SPEAKER_00
And my uncle had sent a message to Khrushchev then through Dobrynin saying, my back is at the wall.
4
SPEAKER_00
I cannot, I have no place to back, to please back off.
4
SPEAKER_00
And then we will back off.
4
SPEAKER_00
And Khrushchev took his word, act his tanks off first.
4
SPEAKER_00
And then my uncle ordered LeMay to back,
4
SPEAKER_00
LeMay had mounted bulldozer plows on the front of the tanks to plow down the Berlin Wall, and the Russians had come, so it was just, you know, it was the, his generals trying to provoke a war.
4
SPEAKER_00
But they started talking to each other, and then after he wrote that letter, they agreed that they would install a hotline so they could talk to each other, and they wouldn t have to go through intermediaries.
4
SPEAKER_00
And so at Jack s house in the Cape, there was a red phone that we knew if we picked it up, Khrushchev would answer.
4
SPEAKER_00
And there was another one in the White House.
4
SPEAKER_00
But they knew it was important to talk to each other.
4
SPEAKER_00
And you just wish that we had that kind of leadership today.
4
SPEAKER_00
i can you know that just understands our job look i know you know what about a right and you know how dangerous it is potentially humanity and what opportunity is it also offers.
4
SPEAKER_00
it could kill us all.
4
SPEAKER_00
I mean, Elon said, first it s gonna steal our job, then it s gonna kill us, right?
4
SPEAKER_00
And it s probably not hyperbole.
4
SPEAKER_00
Actually, you know, if it follows the laws of biological evolution, which are just the laws of mathematics, that s probably a good end point for it, you know, a potential end point.
4
SPEAKER_00
So we need, it s gonna happen, but we need to make sure it s regulated, and it s regulated properly for safety.
4
SPEAKER_00
in every country, and that includes Russia and China and Iran.
4
SPEAKER_00
Right now, we should be putting all the weapons of war aside and sitting down with those guys and saying, how are we going to do this?
4
SPEAKER_00
There s much more important things to do.
4
SPEAKER_00
This stuff is going to kill us if we don t figure out how to regulate it.
4
SPEAKER_00
And leadership needs to look down the road at what what is the real risk here and the real risk is that you know i will it will you know we can slave us for one thing.
4
SPEAKER_00
And then destroy us and do all this other stuff and have a biological weapons.
4
SPEAKER_00
We re now all working on these biological weapons and we re doing biological weapons from.
4
SPEAKER_00
Ebola and dengue fever and all of these other bad things.
4
SPEAKER_00
And we re making ethnic bioweapons.
4
SPEAKER_00
Bioweapons that can only kill Russians.
4
SPEAKER_00
Bioweapons that the Chinese are making that can kill people who don t have Chinese genes.
4
SPEAKER_00
So all of this is now within reach.
4
SPEAKER_00
We re actively doing it.
4
SPEAKER_00
And we need to stop it.
4
SPEAKER_00
And we can easily, a biological weapons treaty is the easiest thing in the world to do.
4
SPEAKER_00
We can verify it, we can enforce it, and everybody wants to agree to it.
4
SPEAKER_00
Only insane people do not want to continue this kind of research.
4
SPEAKER_00
There s no reason to do it.
4
SPEAKER_00
So there are these existential threats to all of humanity now out there, like AI and biological weapons.
4
SPEAKER_00
We need to stop fighting each other, start competing on economic,
4
SPEAKER_00
game fields playing fields instead of military playing fields which will be good for all of humanity and that we need to sit down with each other and negotiate reasonable treaties on how we regulate AI and biological weapons and nobody s talking about this in this political race right now nobody s talking about it in a government.
4
SPEAKER_00
They get fixated on these little wars and these comic book depictions of good versus evil.
4
SPEAKER_00
And we all go and go off and give them the weapons and enrich the military industrial complex.
4
SPEAKER_00
But we re on the road to perdition if we don t end this.
4
SPEAKER_01
And some of this requires to have this kind of
4
SPEAKER_01
phone that connects Khrushchev and John F. Kennedy that cuts through all the bureaucracy to have this communication between heads of state, and in the case of AI, perhaps heads of tech companies, where you can just pick up the phone and have a conversation.
4
SPEAKER_01
Because a lot of it, a lot of the existential threats of artificial intelligence, perhaps even bioweapons, is unintentional.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s not even strategic intentional effects.
4
SPEAKER_01
So you have to be transparent and honest about, especially with AI, that people might not know what s the worst that s going to happen once you release it out into the wild.
4
SPEAKER_01
And you have to have an honest communication about how to do it so that companies are not terrified of regulation.
4
SPEAKER_01
overreach regulation, and then government is not terrified of tech companies of manipulating them in some direct or indirect ways.
4
SPEAKER_01
So there s a trust that builds versus a distrust.
4
SPEAKER_01
So basically that old phone where Khrushchev can call John F. Kennedy is needed.
4
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, and you know, I don t think, listen, I don t understand AI, okay?
4
SPEAKER_00
I do know, I can see from all this technology how it s this kind of turnkey totalitarianism that once you put these systems in place, you know, they can be misused to enslave people and they can be misused in wars and, you know, to subjugate, to kill, to do all of these bad things.
4
SPEAKER_00
And I don t think there s anybody on Capitol Hill who understands this.
4
SPEAKER_00
You know, we need to bring in the tech community and say, tell us what these regulations need to look like, you know, so that there can be freedom to innovate, so that we can milk AI for all of the good things, but not, you know, fall into these traps that are gonna, you know, that are these existential threats to, that pose existential threats to humanity.
4
SPEAKER_01
It seems like John F. Kennedy is a singular figure in that he was able to have the humility to reach out to Khrushchev and also the strength and integrity to resist the, what did you call them, the salad brass and institutions like the CIA.
4
SPEAKER_01
So that makes it particularly tragic that he was killed.
4
SPEAKER_01
To what degree was CIA involved or the various bureaucracy involved in his death?
4
SPEAKER_00
The evidence that the CIA was involved in my uncle s murder and that they were subsequently involved in the coverup and continue to be involved in the coverup, I mean, there s still 5,000 documents that they won t release 60 years later, is, I think, so insurmountable and so mountainous and overwhelming that it s beyond any reasonable doubt
4
SPEAKER_00
including dozens of confessions of people who were involved in the assassination, but every kind of document.
4
SPEAKER_00
And I mean, it came as a surprise recently to most Americans, I think, the release of these documents in which the press, the American media finally acknowledged that, yeah,
4
SPEAKER_00
Lee Harvey Oswald was a CIA asset and he was recruited, you know, in 19...
4
SPEAKER_00
In 1957, he was a Marine working at the Addis Ababa Air Force Base, which was the CIA Air Force Base, with the U-2 flights, which was a CIA program.
4
SPEAKER_00
He was recruited by James Jesus Angleton, who was the Director of Counterintelligence, and then sent on a fake defection to Russia.
4
SPEAKER_00
and then brought back, you know, to Dallas.
4
SPEAKER_00
And people didn t know that.
4
SPEAKER_00
Even though it s been known for decades, it never percolated into the mainstream media because they have such a, you know, they have such an allergy to anything that challenges the Warren Report.
4
SPEAKER_00
And when Congress investigated my uncle s murder,
4
SPEAKER_00
In the 1970s, the Church Committee did, and they did two and a half year investigation, and they had many, many more documents and much more testimony available to them than the Warren Commission had.
4
SPEAKER_00
And this was a decade after the Warren Commission.
4
SPEAKER_00
They came to the conclusion that my uncle was killed by a conspiracy.
4
SPEAKER_00
And there was a division where essentially one guy on that committee
4
SPEAKER_00
believed it was primarily the mafia.
4
SPEAKER_00
But Richard Schweitzer, the senator who was head of the committee, said, you know, straight out, the CIA was involved in the murder of the President of the United States.
4
SPEAKER_00
Oh, and I ve talked to most of the staff on that committee, and they said, yeah, and the CIA was stonewalling us the whole way through.
4
SPEAKER_00
And the actual people that the CIA appointed, George Johannides, who the CIA appointed as a liaison to the committee, they brought him out of retirement.
4
SPEAKER_00
He had been one of the masterminds of the assassination.
4
SPEAKER_00
Oh, there s no, I mean, it s impossible to even talk about a tiny fraction of the evidence here.
4
SPEAKER_00
And what I suggest to people, there are hundreds of books written about this,
4
SPEAKER_00
that assemble this evidence and mobilize the evidence.
4
SPEAKER_00
The best book to me for people to read is James Douglas s book, which is called The Unspeakable.
4
SPEAKER_00
And Douglas does this extraordinary, he s an extraordinary scholar and he does this
4
SPEAKER_00
does an amazing job of digesting and summarizing and mobilizing all of the probably a million documents and the evidence from all these confessions that have come out into a coherent story.
4
SPEAKER_00
And it s riveting to read.
4
SPEAKER_00
And I recommend people who do not take my word for it and don t take anybody else s word for it.
4
SPEAKER_00
Go ahead and do the research yourself.
4
SPEAKER_00
And one way to do that
4
SPEAKER_00
is probably the most efficient way is to read Douglas  books.
4
SPEAKER_00
He has all the references there.
4
SPEAKER_01
So if it s true that CIA had a hand in this assassination, how is it possible for them to amass so much power?
4
SPEAKER_01
How is it possible for them to become corrupt?
4
SPEAKER_01
And is it individuals or is it the entire institution?
4
SPEAKER_00
No, it s not the entire institution.
4
SPEAKER_00
My daughter-in-law,
4
SPEAKER_00
who s helping to run my campaign, was a CIA, you know, in the clandestine services for all of her career.
4
SPEAKER_00
She was a spy in the weapons of mass destruction program in the Mideast and in China.
4
SPEAKER_00
And there s 22,000 people who work for the CIA.
4
SPEAKER_00
Probably 20,000 of those are, you know, are patriotic Americans and really good public servants, and they re doing important work for our country.
4
SPEAKER_00
I m but the institution is corrupt and because the higher ranks the institution.
4
SPEAKER_00
And in fact, Mike Pompeo said something like this to me the other day.
4
SPEAKER_00
He was the director of the CIA.
4
SPEAKER_00
He said, when I was there, I did not do a good job of cleaning up that agency.
4
SPEAKER_00
And he said, the entire upper bureaucracy of that agency are people who do not believe in the institutions of democracy.
4
SPEAKER_00
That s what he said to me.
4
SPEAKER_00
So I don t know if that s true, but I know that, you know, that s significant.
4
SPEAKER_00
He s a smart person and he ran the agency and he was the Secretary of State.
4
SPEAKER_00
But it s no mystery how that happened.
4
SPEAKER_00
We know the history.
4
SPEAKER_00
The CIA was originally, first of all, there was great reluctance in 1947 that we had, for the first time, we had a secret spy agency in this country during World War II called the OSS.
4
SPEAKER_00
That was disbanded after the war because Congress said having a secret spy agency is incompatible
4
SPEAKER_00
with a democracy.
4
SPEAKER_00
Secret spy agencies are things like the KGB, Stasi in East Germany, CIVAC in Iran, and PEEP in Chile, whatever, all over the world.
4
SPEAKER_00
They all have to do with totalitarian governments.
4
SPEAKER_00
They re not something that you can have.
4
SPEAKER_00
It s antithetical to democracy to have that.
4
SPEAKER_00
In 1947 we created, Truman signed it in, but it was initially an espionage agency, which means information gathering, which is important.
4
SPEAKER_00
It s to gather and consolidate information from many, many different sources from all over the world and then put those in reports so the White House, so the president can make good decisions based upon valid information, evidence-based decision-making.
4
SPEAKER_00
But Allen Dulles, who was essentially the first head of the agency, made a series of legislative machinations and political machinations that gave additional powers to the agency and opened up what they called then the Plans Division, which is the Plans Division is the dirty tricks, it s the black ops, fixing elections,
4
SPEAKER_00
murdering what they call executive action, which means killing foreign leaders and, you know, making small wars and bribing and blackmailing people, stealing elections and that kind of thing.
4
SPEAKER_00
And the reason at that time, you know, we were in the middle of the Cold War and Truman and Eisenhower did not want to go to war.
4
SPEAKER_00
They didn t want to commit troops.
4
SPEAKER_00
And it seemed to them that, you know, this was a way of kind of
4
SPEAKER_00
fighting the Cold War secretly without, and doing it at minimal cost by changing events sort of invisibly.
4
SPEAKER_00
And so it was seductive to them.
4
SPEAKER_00
But everybody, you know, Congress, when they first voted it in place, Congress, both political parties said,
4
SPEAKER_00
If we create this thing, it could turn into a monster and it could undermine our values.
4
SPEAKER_00
And today, it s so powerful and nobody knows what its budget is.
4
SPEAKER_00
Plus, it has its own investment fund.
4
SPEAKER_00
Incudel, which is invested, made, I think, 2,000 investments in Silicon Valley.
4
SPEAKER_00
Oh, it has ownership of a lot of these tech companies and a lot of the CEOs of those tech companies have signed state secrecy agreements with the CIA, which if they even reveal that they have signed that, they can go to jail for 20 years and have their assets removed, et cetera.
4
SPEAKER_00
The influence that the agency has, the capacity to influence events at every level in our country, is really frightening.
4
SPEAKER_00
And then for most of its life, the CIA was banned from propagandizing Americans.
4
SPEAKER_00
But we learned that they were doing it anyway.
4
SPEAKER_00
So in 1973, during the church committee hearings, we learned that the CIA had a program called Operation Mockingbird,
4
SPEAKER_00
where they had at least 400 members, leading members of the United States Press Corps, The New York Times, The Washington Post, ABC, CBS, NBC, et cetera, who were secretly working for the agency and steering news coverage to support CIA priorities.
4
SPEAKER_00
And they agreed at that time to disband Operation Mockingbird in 73,
4
SPEAKER_00
But there s indications they didn t do that and they still, the CIA today is the biggest funder of journalism around the world.
5
SPEAKER_01
biggest funder is through USAID.
5
SPEAKER_01
The USA, the United States funds journalism in almost every country in the world.
5
SPEAKER_01
It owns newspapers, it has journalists, thousands and thousands of journalists on its payroll.
5
SPEAKER_01
They re not supposed to be doing that in the United States, but in 2016, President Obama changed the law to make it legal now for the CIA to propagandize Americans, and I think we can t look at the
5
SPEAKER_01
you know, has been, how the narrative has been formed in the minds of Americans and say that the CIA had nothing to do with that.
5
SPEAKER_00
What is the mechanism by which the CIA influences the narrative?
5
SPEAKER_00
Do you think it s indirectly?
5
SPEAKER_01
Through the press.
5
SPEAKER_00
Indirectly through the press or directly by funding the press?
5
SPEAKER_01
Directly through
5
SPEAKER_01
I mean, there s certain press organs that have been linked, you know, to the agency that the people who run those organs, things like the Daily Beast, now Rolling Stone, you know, editor of Rolling Stone, Noah Schlackman, has deep relationships with the intelligence community, Salon, Daily Kos.
5
SPEAKER_00
but i wonder why they would do it so from my perspective it just seems like the job of a journalist is to have an integrity where your opinion cannot be influenced or bought i agree with you but i actually think that the entire field of journalism has uh has uh you know
5
SPEAKER_01
because it s become, you know, the principal newspapers in this country and the television station, the legacy media have abandoned their tradition of, you know, which was, when I was a kid, listen, my house was filled with the greatest journalists alive at that time.
5
SPEAKER_01
People like Ben Bradley, like Anthony Lewis, Mary McClory, Pete Hamill, Jack Newfield, Jimmy Breslin,
5
SPEAKER_01
and many, many others.
5
SPEAKER_01
And after my father died, they started the RFK Journalism Awards to recognize integrity and courage, you know, journalistic integrity and courage.
5
SPEAKER_01
And for that generation of journalism, they thought, they believed that that
5
SPEAKER_01
The function of a journalist was to maintain this posture of fierce skepticism toward any aggregation of power, including government authority.
5
SPEAKER_01
That people in authority lie, and that they always have to be questioned, and that their job was to speak truth to power and to be guardians of the First Amendment right to free expression.
5
SPEAKER_01
But if you look what happened during the pandemic, it was the inverse of that kind of journalism,
5
SPEAKER_01
The major press organs in this country were, instead of speaking truth to power, they were doing the opposite.
5
SPEAKER_01
They were broadcasting propaganda.
5
SPEAKER_01
They became propaganda organs for the government agencies.
5
SPEAKER_01
They were actually censoring the speech of anybody who dissents of the powerless.
5
SPEAKER_01
Oh, and in fact, it was an organized conspiracy.
5
SPEAKER_01
And it was the name of, it was the Trusted News Initiative, and some of the major press organs in our country signed onto it, and they agreed not to print stories or facts that departed from government orthodoxy.
5
SPEAKER_01
So the Washington Post was the signature of the UPI,
5
SPEAKER_01
The ap and then leave for media for social media groups microsoft twitter.
5
SPEAKER_01
of Facebook and Google all signed on to the Trusted News Initiative.
5
SPEAKER_01
It was started by the BBC, organized by them, and the purpose of it was to make sure nobody could print anything about government that departed from governmental orthodoxy.
5
SPEAKER_01
The way it worked is the UPI and the AP, which are the news services that provide most of the news around the country, and the Washington Post would decide what news was permissible to print
5
SPEAKER_01
And a lot of it was about COVID, but also Hunter Biden s laptops, where it was impermissible to suggest that those were real or that they had stuff on there that was compromising.
5
SPEAKER_01
And by the way, what I m telling you now is all well-documented and I m litigating on it right now.
5
SPEAKER_01
So I m part of a lawsuit against the DNI.
5
SPEAKER_01
And so I know a lot about what happened, and I have all this documented.
5
SPEAKER_01
And people can go to our website.
5
SPEAKER_01
There s a letter on my sub stack now to Michael Scherer of the Washington Post that outlines all this and gives all my sources.
5
SPEAKER_01
Because Michael Scherer accused me of being a conspiracy theorist when he was actually part of a conspiracy, a true conspiracy.
5
SPEAKER_01
to suppress anybody who is departing from government orthodoxies by either censoring them completely or labeling them conspiracy theorists.
5
SPEAKER_00
I mean you can understand the intention
5
SPEAKER_00
And the action, the difference between, as we talked about, you can understand the intention of such a thing, being good, that in a time of a catastrophe, in a time of a pandemic, there s a lot of risk to saying untrue things, but that s a slippery slope that leads into a place where the journalistic integrity that we talked about is completely sacrificed.
5
SPEAKER_00
And then you can deviate from truth.
5
SPEAKER_01
If you read their internal memorandum, including the statements of the leader of the Trusted News Initiative, I think her name s Jennifer Cecil, and you can go on our website and see her statement.
5
SPEAKER_01
She says,
5
SPEAKER_01
The purpose of this is that we re now, she says, when people look at us, they think we re competitors, but we re not.
5
SPEAKER_01
The real competitors are coming from all these alternative news sources now all over the network, and they re hurting public trust in us, and they re hurting our economic model, and they have to be choked off and crushed.
5
SPEAKER_01
And the way that we re going to do that is to
5
SPEAKER_01
make an agreement with the social media sites that if we say if we label their information misinformation the social media sites will de-platform it or they will throttle it or they will shadow ban it.
5
SPEAKER_01
Which destroys the economic model of those alternative competitive sources of information so that s true but the point you make is an important point.
5
SPEAKER_01
that the journalists themselves, who probably didn t know about the TNI agreement, certainly I m sure they didn t, they believe that they re doing the right thing by suppressing information that may challenge, you know, government proclamations on COVID.
5
SPEAKER_01
But I mean, there s a danger to that.
5
SPEAKER_01
And the danger is that, you know, once you appoint yourself an arbiter of what s true and what s not true,
5
SPEAKER_01
that you have now assumed for yourself because now your job is no longer to inform the public.
5
SPEAKER_01
Your job now is to manipulate the public.
5
SPEAKER_01
And if you end up manipulating the public in collusion with powerful entities, then you become the instrument of authoritarian rule rather than the opponent of it.
5
SPEAKER_01
inverse of journalism in a democracy.
5
SPEAKER_00
You re running for president as a Democrat.
5
SPEAKER_00
What to you are the strongest values that represent the left-wing politics of this country?
5
SPEAKER_01
I would say protection of the environment and the commons, you know, the air, the water, wildlife, fisheries, public lands, you know, those assets that cannot be reduced to private property ownership, you know, the landscapes, our Purple Mountain majesty.
5
SPEAKER_01
the protection of the most vulnerable people in our society, people who, which would include children and minorities, the restoration of the middle class, and protection of labor, dignity, and decent pay for labor, bodily autonomy, a woman s right to choose
5
SPEAKER_01
or an individual s right to endure unwanted medical procedures.
5
SPEAKER_01
Peace.
5
SPEAKER_01
You know, the Democrats have always been anti-war.
5
SPEAKER_01
The refusal to use fear as a governing tool.
5
SPEAKER_01
FDR said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, because he recognized that tyrants and dictators could use fear to disable critical thinking and overwhelm the desire for personal liberty.
5
SPEAKER_01
The freedom of government from untoward influence by corrupt corporate power, the end of this corrupt merger of the state and corporate power that is now, I think, dominating our democracy is what Eisenhower warned about.
5
SPEAKER_01
against the emergence of the military-industrial complex.
5
SPEAKER_01
And then I prefer to talk about kind of the positive vision of what we should be doing in our country and globally, which is, you know, I see that the corporations are commoditizing us, are poisoning our children, are strip-mining the wealth from our middle class.
5
SPEAKER_01
and treating America as if it were a business in liquidation, converting assets to cash as quickly as possible and creating or exacerbating this huge disparity in wealth in our country, which is eliminating the middle class and creating kind of a Latin American style feudal model.
5
SPEAKER_01
There s these huge aggregations of wealth above and widespread poverty below.
5
SPEAKER_01
And that s a configuration that is too unstable to support democracy sustainably.
5
SPEAKER_01
And we re supposed to be modeling democracy, but we re losing it.
5
SPEAKER_01
And I think we ought to have a foreign policy that restores our moral authority around the world, restores America as the embodiment of moral authority, which it was when my uncle was president, and as a purveyor of peace rather than a war-like nation.
5
SPEAKER_01
My uncle said he didn t want people in Africa and Latin America and Asia to think of
5
SPEAKER_01
When they think of America, to picture a man with a gun and a bayonet.
5
SPEAKER_01
He wanted them to think of a Peace Corps volunteer.
5
SPEAKER_01
and he refused to send combat soldiers abroad.
5
SPEAKER_01
He never sent a single soldier to his death abroad and into combat.
5
SPEAKER_01
He sent 16,000.
5
SPEAKER_01
He resisted in Berlin in 62.
5
SPEAKER_01
He resisted in Laos in 61.
5
SPEAKER_01
He resisted in 62.
5
SPEAKER_01
In Vietnam, you know, Vietnam, they wanted him to put 250,000 troops.
5
SPEAKER_01
He only put 16,000 advisors, which was fewer troops.
5
SPEAKER_01
And he sent to get James Meredith into the, into the, to Ole Miss in Oxford, Mississippi, one black man.
5
SPEAKER_01
He sent 16,000, and a month before he died, he ordered them all home.
5
SPEAKER_01
He actually, I think it was October 2nd of 1963, he heard that a Green Beret had died.
5
SPEAKER_01
And he asked his aide for a combat, for a list of combat fatalities.
5
SPEAKER_01
And the aide came back and there was 75 men had died in Vietnam at that point.
5
SPEAKER_01
And he said, that s too many.
5
SPEAKER_01
We re going to have no more.
5
SPEAKER_01
And he ordered, he signed a national security order, 263, and awarded all of those men, all Americans home from Vietnam by 1965, with the first thousand coming home by December 63.
5
SPEAKER_01
And then in November, he, of course, just before that evacuation began, he was killed.
5
SPEAKER_01
And a week later, President Johnson remanded that order.
5
SPEAKER_01
And then a year after that, the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, we sent 250,000, which is what they wanted my uncle to do, which he refused.
5
SPEAKER_01
And then, and it became an American war.
5
SPEAKER_01
And then Nixon, you know, topped it off at 560,000.
5
SPEAKER_01
56,000 Americans never came home, including my cousin, George Skakel, who died at the Tet Offensive.
5
SPEAKER_01
And we killed a million Vietnamese and we got nothing for it.
5
SPEAKER_01
So America should be the symbol of peace.
5
SPEAKER_01
And you know, today my uncle really focused on putting America on the side of the poor instead of our tradition of fortifying oligarchies that were anti-communism.
5
SPEAKER_01
That was our major criteria.
5
SPEAKER_01
If you said you were against communists, and of course the people were, were the rich people.
5
SPEAKER_01
Our aid was going to the rich people in those countries, and they were going to the military to hunt us.
5
SPEAKER_01
Our weapons were going to hunt us to fight against the poor.
5
SPEAKER_01
And my uncle said, no, you know, America should be on the side of the poor.
5
SPEAKER_01
And so he launched the Alliance for Progress.
5
SPEAKER_01
and USAID, which were intended to bring aid to the poorest people in those and build middle classes and take ourselves away.
5
SPEAKER_01
In fact, his most, his favorite trip, his two favorite trips while he was president, his most favorite trip was to Ireland.
5
SPEAKER_01
just incredible emotional homecoming for all of the people of Ireland.
5
SPEAKER_01
But his second favorite trip was when he went to Columbia.
5
SPEAKER_01
He went to Latin America, but Columbia was his favorite country.
5
SPEAKER_01
And I think there were two million people came into Bogota to see him, this vast crowd, and they were just delirious cheering for him.
5
SPEAKER_01
And the president of Colombia, Jerez Carmargo, said to him, do you know why they love you?
5
SPEAKER_01
And my uncle said, why?
5
SPEAKER_01
And he said, because they think you ve put America on the side of the poor against the oligarchs.
5
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, when my uncle, after he died today,
5
SPEAKER_01
There are more avenues and boulevards and hospitals and schools and statues named after and commemorating in parks, commemorating John Kennedy in Africa and Latin America.
5
SPEAKER_01
than any other president in the United States, and probably more than all the other presidents combined.
5
SPEAKER_01
And it s because he put America on the side of the poor, and that s what we ought to be doing.
5
SPEAKER_01
We ought to be projecting economic power abroad.
5
SPEAKER_01
The Chinese have essentially stolen his playbook.
5
SPEAKER_01
And we ve spent $8 trillion on the Iraq war and its aftermath, the wars in Syria, Yemen, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan.
5
SPEAKER_01
And what do we get for that?
5
SPEAKER_01
We got nothing for that money, $8 trillion.
5
SPEAKER_01
We killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein.
5
SPEAKER_01
Iraq today is much worse off than it was when Saddam was there, I d say.
5
SPEAKER_01
It s an incoherent violent war between Shia and Sunni death squads.
5
SPEAKER_01
We pushed Iraq into the embrace of Iran.
5
SPEAKER_01
It s now become essentially a proxy for Iran, which is exactly the outcome that we were trying to prevent for the past, you know, 20 or 30 years.
5
SPEAKER_01
We created ISIS.
5
SPEAKER_01
We sent two million refugees into Europe
5
SPEAKER_01
destabilizing all of the nations in Europe for generations.
5
SPEAKER_01
We re now seeing these riots in France, and that s a direct result from the Syrian war that we created and our creation of ISIS.
5
SPEAKER_01
Brexit is another result of that.
5
SPEAKER_01
So for $8 trillion, we wrecked the world.
6
SPEAKER_01
And during that same period that we spent $8.1 trillion bombing bridges, ports, schools, hospitals, the Chinese spent $8.1 trillion building schools, ports, hospitals, bridges, and universities.
6
SPEAKER_01
And now, you know, the Chinese are out competing us everywhere in the world.
6
SPEAKER_01
Everybody wants to deal with the Chinese because they, you know, they come in, they build nice things for you and they, and there s no strings attached and they re pleasant to deal with.
6
SPEAKER_01
And as a result of that, Brazil is switching the Chinese currency.
6
SPEAKER_01
Argentina is switching.
6
SPEAKER_01
Saudi Arabia, our greatest partner, we put trillions of dollars into protecting our oil pipelines there.
6
SPEAKER_01
And now they re saying, we don t care what the United States think.
6
SPEAKER_01
That s what Mohammed bin Salam said.
6
SPEAKER_01
He said, we don t, he dropped
6
SPEAKER_01
oil production in Saudi Arabia in the middle of a US inflation spiral.
6
SPEAKER_01
They ve never done that to us before, to aggravate the inflation spiral.
6
SPEAKER_01
And two weeks later, and then they signed a deal, a unilateral peace deal with Iran, which has been the enemy that we ve been telling them to be a bulwark against for 20 years.
6
SPEAKER_01
And two weeks after that, he said, we don t care what the United States thinks anymore.
6
SPEAKER_01
So that s what we got for spending all those trillions of dollars there.
6
SPEAKER_01
We got short-term friends.
6
SPEAKER_01
And the United States, you know, policy abroad, and we have not made ourselves safer.
6
SPEAKER_01
We ve made Americans, we ve put Americans in more jeopardy all over the world.
6
SPEAKER_01
You know, you have to wait in lines to get through the airport.
6
SPEAKER_01
You have to, you know, the security state is now costing us $1.3 trillion.
6
SPEAKER_01
And America is unsafer and poorer than it s ever been.
6
SPEAKER_01
So, you know, we re not getting, we should be doing what President Kennedy said we ought to do and what China, the policy that China has now adopted.
6
SPEAKER_00
So that s a really eloquent and clear and powerful description of the way you see U.S.
6
SPEAKER_00
should be doing geopolitics and the way you see U.S.
6
SPEAKER_00
should be taking care of the poor in this country.
6
SPEAKER_00
Let me ask you a question from Jordan Peterson that he asked when I told him that I m speaking with you.
6
SPEAKER_00
Given everything you ve said, when does the left go too far?
6
SPEAKER_00
I suppose he s referring to cultural issues, identity politics.
6
SPEAKER_01
Well, you know, Jordan trying to get me to badmouth the left the whole time I was in.
6
SPEAKER_01
I really enjoyed my talk with him.
6
SPEAKER_01
But he seemed to have that agenda where he wanted me to say bad things about the left.
6
SPEAKER_01
And I just don t, you know, that s not what my campaign is about.
6
SPEAKER_01
I want to do the opposite.
6
SPEAKER_01
I m not gonna badmouth the left.
6
SPEAKER_01
I was on a show this week with David Remnick from The New Yorker, and he tried to get me to badmouth Donald Trump and Alex Jones and a lot of other people, and baiting me to do it.
6
SPEAKER_01
And of course, there s a lot of bad things I could say about all those people, but I m trying to find values that hold us together.
6
SPEAKER_01
that we can share in common rather than to focus constantly on these disputes and these issues that drive us apart.
6
SPEAKER_01
So me sitting here bad-mouthing the left or bad-mouthing the right is not going to advance the ball.
6
SPEAKER_01
I really want to figure out ways that, you know, what do these groups hold in common that we can all, you know, have a shared vision of what we want this country to look like.
6
SPEAKER_00
Well, that s music to my ears.
6
SPEAKER_00
But in that spirit, let me ask you a difficult question then.
6
SPEAKER_00
You wrote a book harshly criticizing Anthony Fauci.
6
SPEAKER_00
Let me ask you to steel man the case for the people who support him.
6
SPEAKER_00
What is the biggest positive thing you think Anthony Fauci did for the world?
6
SPEAKER_00
What is good that he has done for the world, especially during this pandemic?
6
SPEAKER_01
You know, I don t want to sit here and speak on Charlie by saying the guy,
6
SPEAKER_01
didn t do anything, but I don t, I can t think of anything.
6
SPEAKER_01
I mean, if you, if you tell me something that you think he did, you know, maybe there was a drug that got licensed while he was at NIH that, you know, benefited people, that s certainly possible.
6
SPEAKER_01
He was there for 50 years.
6
SPEAKER_01
And I, in terms of his, of his principal programs of the,
6
SPEAKER_01
AIDS programs and his COVID programs, and I think that the harm that he did vastly outweighed the benefits.
6
SPEAKER_00
Do you think he believes he s doing good for the world?
6
SPEAKER_01
I don t know what he believes.
6
SPEAKER_01
In fact, in that book, which is, I think, 250,000 words, I never try to look inside of his head.
6
SPEAKER_01
I deal with facts.
6
SPEAKER_01
I deal with science.
6
SPEAKER_01
And every factual assertion in that book is,
6
SPEAKER_01
cited in source to government databases or peer-reviewed publications, and I try not to speculate about things that I don t know about or I can t prove, and I cannot tell you what his motivations were.
6
SPEAKER_01
I mean, all of us, he s done a lot of things that I think are really very, very bad things for humanity and very deceptive.
6
SPEAKER_01
But we all have this capacity for self-deception.
6
SPEAKER_01
As I said at the beginning of this podcast, we judge ourselves on our intentions rather than our actions.
6
SPEAKER_01
have an almost infinite capacity to convince ourselves that what we re doing is right.
6
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, not everybody kind of lives an examined life, and examining the
6
SPEAKER_01
might experience their professions of goodness.
6
SPEAKER_00
Let me ask about the difficulty of the job he had.
6
SPEAKER_00
Do you think it s possible to do that kind of job well?
6
SPEAKER_00
Or is it also a fundamental flaw of the job of being the centralized figure that s supposed to have scientific policy?
6
SPEAKER_01
No, I think he was a genuinely bad human being.
6
SPEAKER_01
and that there were many, many good people in that department over the years.
6
SPEAKER_01
Bernice Eddy is a really good example.
6
SPEAKER_01
John Anthony Morris, many people whose careers he destroyed because they were trying to tell the truth.
6
SPEAKER_01
One after the other, the greatest scientists in the history of NIH were run out of that agency.
6
SPEAKER_01
But people listening to this probably in hearing me say that will think that I m bitter or that I m doctrinaire about him, but you should really go and read my book.
6
SPEAKER_01
It s hard to summarize.
6
SPEAKER_01
I tried to be really methodical, to not call names, to just say what happened.
6
SPEAKER_00
You are, the bigger picture of this is you re an outspoken critic of pharmaceutical companies, Big Pharma.
6
SPEAKER_00
What is the biggest problem with Big Pharma and how can it be fixed?
6
SPEAKER_01
Well, the problem could be fixed through regulation, you know, the problems, but the pharmaceutical industry is, is,
6
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I don t want to say, because this is going to seem extreme, that a criminal enterprise, but if you look at the history, that is an applicable characterization.
6
SPEAKER_01
For example, the four biggest vaccine makers, Sanofi, Merck, Pfizer, and Glaxo, four companies that make all of the 72 vaccines that are now mandated for, effectively mandated for American children.
6
SPEAKER_01
Collectively, those companies have paid $35 billion in criminal penalties and damages in the last decade.
6
SPEAKER_01
And I think since 2000, about 79 billion.
6
SPEAKER_01
So these are the most corrupt companies in the world.
6
SPEAKER_01
And the problem is that they re serial felons.
6
SPEAKER_01
They do this again and again and again.
6
SPEAKER_01
They did, Merck did Vioxx, which Vioxx, they killed people by falsifying science.
6
SPEAKER_01
And they did it, they lied to the public.
6
SPEAKER_01
They said this is a headache medicine and an arthritis painkiller, but they didn t tell people that it also gave you heart attacks.
6
SPEAKER_01
And they knew, we ve found when we sued them,
6
SPEAKER_01
You know, the memos from their bean counters saying, we re going to kill this many people, but we re still going to make money.
6
SPEAKER_01
So they make those calculations and those calculations are made very, very regularly.
6
SPEAKER_01
And then when they get caught, they pay a penalty, and I think they paid about $7 billion for Vioxx, but then they went right back that same year that they paid that penalty, they went back into the same thing again with Gardasil and with a whole lot of other drugs.
6
SPEAKER_01
So the way that the system is set up, the way that it s sold to doctors, the way that
6
SPEAKER_01
Nobody ever goes to jail.
6
SPEAKER_01
So there s really no penalty that it all becomes part of the cost of doing business.
6
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, you can see other businesses that if they re not, if they don t, if there s no penalty, if there s no real, I mean, look, these are the companies that gave us the opioid epidemic, right?
6
SPEAKER_01
they knew what was going to happen.
6
SPEAKER_01
And we, you know, you go and see there s a documentary, I forget what the name of it is, but it shows exactly what happened.
6
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, they corrupted FDA.
6
SPEAKER_01
They knew that this, that oxycodone was addictive.
6
SPEAKER_01
They got FDA to tell doctors that it wasn t addictive.
6
SPEAKER_01
they pressured FDA to lie and they got their way and they ve so far they live this year you know those they got a whole generation addicted to oxycodone and now you know when they got caught and they made it we made it harder to get oxycodone and now all those addicted kids are going to fentanyl and dying and this year it killed 106 106 000
6
SPEAKER_01
That s twice as many people who were killed during the 20-year Vietnam War, but in one year.
6
SPEAKER_01
Twice as many American kids.
6
SPEAKER_01
And they knew it was gonna happen.
6
SPEAKER_01
And they did it to make money.
6
SPEAKER_01
So I don t know what you call that, other than saying that s a criminal enterprise.
6
SPEAKER_00
Was it possible to have, within a capitalist system, to produce medication, to produce drugs at scale, in a way that is not corrupt?
6
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, of course it is.
6
SPEAKER_01
How?
6
SPEAKER_01
Through a solid regulatory regimen where drugs are actually tested.
6
SPEAKER_01
I mean, the problem is
6
SPEAKER_01
Not the capitalist system.
6
SPEAKER_01
The capitalist system, I have great admiration for the capitalist system.
6
SPEAKER_01
It s the greatest economic engine ever devised.
6
SPEAKER_01
But it has to be harnessed to a social purpose.
6
SPEAKER_01
Otherwise, it leads us down the wrong path.
6
SPEAKER_01
of oligarchy, environmental destruction, and commoditizing, poisoning, and killing human beings.
6
SPEAKER_01
That s what it will do in the end.
6
SPEAKER_01
You need a regulatory structure that is not corrupted by entanglements, financial entanglements with the industry.
6
SPEAKER_01
And we ve set this up the way that the system is set up today, has created this system of regulatory capture on steroids.
6
SPEAKER_01
So almost 50% of FDA s budget comes from pharmaceutical companies.
6
SPEAKER_01
The people who work at FDA, their money is coming, their salaries are coming from pharma, half their salaries.
6
SPEAKER_01
So they know who their bosses are, and that means getting those drugs done, getting them out the door and approved as quickly as possible.
6
SPEAKER_01
It s called fast-track approval, and they pay 50% of FDA s budget.
6
SPEAKER_01
That goes, about 45% actually goes to fast-track approval.
6
SPEAKER_00
Do you think money can buy integrity?
6
SPEAKER_01
Oh yeah, of course it can.
6
SPEAKER_01
That s not something that is controversial, of course it will.
6
SPEAKER_00
It s slightly controversial to me.
6
SPEAKER_01
I would like to think that scientists that work at FDA... It may not be able to buy urine, I m talking about population-wide, I m not talking about the individual.
6
SPEAKER_00
But I d like to believe that scientists
6
SPEAKER_00
I mean, in general, a career of a scientist is not a very high paying job.
6
SPEAKER_00
I d like to believe that people that go into science, that work at FDA, that work at NIH, are doing it for a reason that s not even correlated with money, really.
6
SPEAKER_01
And I think probably that s why they go in there.
6
SPEAKER_01
But scientists are corruptible.
6
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, the way that I can tell you that is that I ve brought over 500 lawsuits, and almost all of them involve scientific controversies.
6
SPEAKER_01
And there are scientists on both sides in every one.
6
SPEAKER_01
When we sued Monsanto, on the Monsanto side, there was a Yale scientist, a Stanford scientist, and a Harvard scientist, and on our side, there was a Yale, Stanford, and Harvard scientist, and they were saying exactly the opposite things.
6
SPEAKER_01
In fact, there s a word for those kind of scientists who take money for their opinion, and the word is biostitutes.
6
SPEAKER_01
and they are very, very common, and I ve been dealing with them my whole career.
6
SPEAKER_01
I think it was Upton Sinclair who said that it s very difficult to persuade a man of a fact if the existence of that fact will diminish his salary.
6
SPEAKER_01
And I think that s true for all of us.
6
SPEAKER_01
We find a way of reconciling ourselves to truths that actually end worldviews.
6
SPEAKER_01
that actually benefit our salaries.
6
SPEAKER_01
Now, NIH has probably the worst system, which is that scientists who work for NIH.
6
SPEAKER_01
NIH itself, which used to be the premier gold standard scientific agency in the world, everybody looked at NIH.
6
SPEAKER_01
Today, it s just an incubator for pharmaceutical drugs.
6
SPEAKER_01
That is the gravity of economic self-interest.
6
SPEAKER_01
Because if NIH itself collects royalties, they have margin rights for the patents on all the drugs that they work on.
6
SPEAKER_01
So with the Moderna vaccine, which they promoted incessantly and aggressively,
6
SPEAKER_01
NIH on 50% of that vaccine is making billions and billions of dollars on it.
6
SPEAKER_01
And there are at least four scientists that we know of and probably at least six at NIH who themselves have merchant rights for those patents.
6
SPEAKER_01
So if you are a scientist who work at NIH, you work on a new drug,
6
SPEAKER_01
you then get margin rights and you re entitled to royalties of $150,000 a year forever from that, forever.
6
SPEAKER_01
Your children, your children s children, as long as that product s on the market, you can collect royalties.
6
SPEAKER_01
So you have, you know, the Moderna vaccine is paying for the top people at NIH, you know, some of the top regulators.
6
SPEAKER_01
It s paying for their boats.
6
SPEAKER_01
It s paying for their mortgages.
6
SPEAKER_01
It s paying for their children s education.
6
SPEAKER_01
And you have to expect that in those kind of situations, the regulatory function would be subsumed beneath the mercantile ambitions of the agency itself and the individuals who stand to profit enormously from getting a drug to market.
6
SPEAKER_01
Those guys are paid.
6
SPEAKER_01
by us, the taxpayer, to find problems with those drugs before they get to market.
6
SPEAKER_01
But if you know that drug is going to pay for your mortgage, you may overlook a little problem, or even a very big one.
6
SPEAKER_01
And that s the problem.
6
SPEAKER_00
You ve talked about that the media slanders you by calling you an anti-vaxxer, and you ve said that you re not anti-vaccine.
7
SPEAKER_01
your pro-safe vaccine.
7
SPEAKER_01
Difficult question.
7
SPEAKER_01
Can you name any vaccines that you think are good?
7
SPEAKER_00
I think some of the live virus vaccines are probably averting more problems than they re causing.
7
SPEAKER_00
There s no vaccine that is safe and effective.
7
SPEAKER_01
Those are big words.
7
SPEAKER_01
What about the polio?
7
SPEAKER_00
Those are big words.
7
SPEAKER_01
Can we talk about the polio?
7
SPEAKER_00
Let s start with that.
7
SPEAKER_00
Here s the problem.
7
SPEAKER_00
Yes.
7
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, here s the problem.
7
SPEAKER_00
The polio vaccine contained a virus called simian virus 40, SV40.
7
SPEAKER_00
It s one of the most carcinogenic materials that is known to man.
7
SPEAKER_00
In fact, it s used now by scientists around the world to induce tumors in rats and guinea pigs in labs.
7
SPEAKER_00
But it was in that vaccine, 98 million people who got that vaccine in my generation got it.
7
SPEAKER_00
And now you ve had this explosion.
7
SPEAKER_00
of soft tissue cancers in our generation that kill many, many, many, many, many more people than polio ever did.
7
SPEAKER_00
So if you say to me, did the, you know, the polio vaccine, was it effective against polio?
7
SPEAKER_00
I m going to say yes.
7
SPEAKER_00
If I say, if you say to me, did it kill more people than it did cause more deaths than I ve heard?
7
SPEAKER_00
I would say, I don t know, because we don t have the data on that.
7
SPEAKER_01
But let s talk, well, you know, we kind of have to narrow in on, is it effective against the thing it s supposed to fight?
7
SPEAKER_00
Oh, well, a lot of them are.
7
SPEAKER_00
Let me give you an example.
7
SPEAKER_00
The most popular vaccine in the world is the DTP vaccine, diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis.
7
SPEAKER_00
It was introduced in this country around 1980.
7
SPEAKER_00
That vaccine caused so many injuries.
7
SPEAKER_00
that Elias, which was the manufacturer, said to the Reagan administration, we are now paying $20 in downstream liabilities for every dollar that we re making in profits, and we are getting out of the business unless you give us permanent immunity from liability.
7
SPEAKER_00
So the vaccine companies then were given, and by the way, Reagan said at that time, why don t you just make the vaccine safe?
7
SPEAKER_00
And why is that?
7
SPEAKER_00
Because vaccines are inherently unsafe.
7
SPEAKER_00
They said unavoidably unsafe.
7
SPEAKER_00
You cannot make them safe.
7
SPEAKER_00
And so when Reagan wrote the bill and passed it, the bill says in its preambles, because vaccines are unavoidably unsafe.
7
SPEAKER_00
And the Bruce Woods case, which was a Supreme Court case that upheld that bill, used that same language.
7
SPEAKER_00
Vaccines cannot be made safe.
7
SPEAKER_00
They re unavoidably unsafe.
7
SPEAKER_00
So this is what the law says.
7
SPEAKER_00
Now, I just want to finish this story, because this illustrates very well your question.
7
SPEAKER_00
The DTP vaccine was discontinued in this country and it was discontinued in Europe because so many kids were being injured by it.
7
SPEAKER_00
However, the WHO and Bill Gates gives it to 161 million African children every year.
7
SPEAKER_00
And Bill Gates went to the Danish government
7
SPEAKER_00
and asked them to support this program saying, we ve saved 30 million kids from dying from diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis.
7
SPEAKER_00
The Danish government said, can you show us the data?
7
SPEAKER_00
And he couldn t.
7
SPEAKER_00
So the Danish government paid for a big study with Novo Nordisk, which is a Scandinavian vaccine company in West Africa.
7
SPEAKER_00
And they went to West Africa and they looked at the DPV vaccine for 30 years of data.
7
SPEAKER_00
And they hired, they retained the best vaccine scientists in the world, these kind of deities of African vaccine program, Peter AAB, Sigrid Morgensen, and a bunch of others.
7
SPEAKER_00
And they looked at 30 years of data for the DTP vaccine, and they came back, and they were shocked by what they found.
7
SPEAKER_00
They found that the vaccine was
7
SPEAKER_00
preventing kids from getting diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis.
7
SPEAKER_00
But the girls who got that vaccine were 10 times more likely to die over the next six months than children who didn t.
7
SPEAKER_00
Why is that?
7
SPEAKER_00
And they weren t dying from anything anybody ever associated with a vaccine.
7
SPEAKER_00
They were dying of anemia, heart disease, malaria, sepsis, and mainly pulmonary and respiratory disease, pneumonia.
7
SPEAKER_00
And it turns out, this is what the researchers found, who were all pro-vaccine, by the way, they said that this vaccine is killing more children.
7
SPEAKER_00
and diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis prior to the introduction of the vaccine.
7
SPEAKER_00
And for 30 years, nobody ever noticed it.
7
SPEAKER_00
The vaccine was providing protection against those target illnesses, but it had ruined the children s immune systems, and they could not defend themselves against random infections that were harmless to most children.
7
SPEAKER_01
But isn t it nearly impossible to prove that link?
7
SPEAKER_00
You can t prove the link.
7
SPEAKER_00
All you can do is, for any particular interest, you can t.
7
SPEAKER_00
illness or death, you can t prove the link.
7
SPEAKER_00
But you can show statistically that if you get that vaccine, you re more likely to die over the next six months than if you don t.
7
SPEAKER_00
And those studies, unfortunately, are not done for any other vaccines.
7
SPEAKER_00
So for every other medicine, in order to get approval from the FDA, you have to do a placebo-controlled trial prior to licensure where you look at health outcomes among an exposed group, a group that gets it,
7
SPEAKER_00
and compare those to a similarly situated group against a placebo.
7
SPEAKER_00
The only medical intervention that does not
7
SPEAKER_00
that does not undergo placebo-controlled trials prior to licensure of vaccines.
7
SPEAKER_00
Not one of the 72 vaccines that are now mandated for our children have ever undergone a placebo-controlled trial prior to licensure.
7
SPEAKER_01
So I should say that there s a bunch, on that point, I ve heard from a bunch of folks that disagree with you, including polio.
7
SPEAKER_01
Testing is a really important point.
7
SPEAKER_01
Before licensure, placebo-controlled, randomized trials,
7
SPEAKER_01
polio received just that against the saline placebo control.
7
SPEAKER_01
So it seems unclear to me, I m confused why you say that they don t go through that process.
7
SPEAKER_01
It seems like a lot of them do.
7
SPEAKER_00
Here s the thing, is that I was saying that for many years, because we couldn t find any.
7
SPEAKER_00
And then in 2016, in March, I met President Trump, ordered Dr. Fauci to meet with me.
7
SPEAKER_00
And Dr. Fauci and Francis Collins, and I said to them during that meeting, you have been saying that I m not telling the truth when I said not one of these has undergone a prior pre-licenser placebo control.
7
SPEAKER_00
And the polio may have had one post-licensing.
7
SPEAKER_00
Most of them haven t.
7
SPEAKER_00
The polio may have, I don t know.
7
SPEAKER_00
But I said, our question was, prior to licensure, do you ever test these for safety?
7
SPEAKER_00
And by the way, I think the polio vaccine did undergo a saline placebo trial prior to licensure, but not for safety, only for efficacy.
7
SPEAKER_00
Oh, I m talking about safety trials now.
7
SPEAKER_00
Fauci told me that he said, I can t find one now.
7
SPEAKER_00
He had a whole tray of files there.
7
SPEAKER_00
He said, I can t find that one now, but I ll send you one.
7
SPEAKER_00
I said, just for any vaccines, send me one, for any of the 72 vaccines.
7
SPEAKER_00
He never did.
7
SPEAKER_00
So we sued the HHS.
7
SPEAKER_00
And after a year of stonewalling us, HHS came back.
7
SPEAKER_00
And they gave us a letter saying we have no pre-licensing safety trial for any of the 72 vaccines.
7
SPEAKER_00
And that letter from HHS, which settled our lawsuit against them, because we had a FOIA lawsuit against them, is posted on CHD s website.
7
SPEAKER_00
So anybody can go look at it.
7
SPEAKER_00
So if CHD, if HHS had any study, I assume they would have given it to us.
7
SPEAKER_00
And they can t find one.
7
SPEAKER_01
Well, let me zoom out because a lot of the details matter here.
7
SPEAKER_01
Pre-licensure, what does placebo-controlled mean?
7
SPEAKER_01
So this is, this probably requires a rigorous analysis.
7
SPEAKER_01
And actually, at this point, it would be nice for me just to give the shout out to other people much smarter than me.
7
SPEAKER_01
that people should follow along with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
7
SPEAKER_01
Use their mind, learn, and think.
7
SPEAKER_01
So one really awesome creator, I really recommend him, is Dr. Dan Wilson.
7
SPEAKER_01
He hosts the Debunk the Funk podcast.
7
SPEAKER_01
Vincent Recaniello, who hosts This Week in Virology, brilliant guy, I ve had him on the podcast.
7
SPEAKER_01
Somebody you ve been battling with is Paul Offit.
7
SPEAKER_01
Interesting Twitter, interesting books.
7
SPEAKER_01
People should read and understand and read your books as well.
7
SPEAKER_01
And Eric Topol has a good Twitter and good books.
7
SPEAKER_01
And even Peter Hotez, I ll ask you about him.
7
SPEAKER_00
And people should, because Paul Offit published a sub stack recently debunking, I think, my discussion with Joe Rogan.
7
SPEAKER_00
And we have published a debunk of his debunking.
7
SPEAKER_00
So if you read his stuff, you should read.
7
SPEAKER_00
Read both, yes.
7
SPEAKER_00
You should read.
7
SPEAKER_00
And I would love to debate any of these guys.
7
SPEAKER_01
So Joe Rogan proposed just such a debate, which is quite fascinating to see how much attention and how much funding it garnered, the debate between you and Peter Hotez.
7
SPEAKER_01
Why do you think Peter rejected the offer?
7
SPEAKER_00
I think it s, again, I m not going to look into his head, but what I will say is if you re a scientist and you re making public recommendations based upon what you say is evidence-based science, you ought to be able to defend that.
7
SPEAKER_00
You ought to be able to defend it in a public forum, and you ought to be able to defend it against all comers.
7
SPEAKER_00
If you re a scientist, science is based on, is rooted in logic and reason, and if you can t use logic and reason to defend your position, and by the way, I know almost all of the studies.
7
SPEAKER_00
I ve written books on them,
7
SPEAKER_00
We ve made a big effort to assemble all the studies on both sides.
7
SPEAKER_00
And so I m prepared to talk about those studies, and I m prepared to submit them in advance for each of the points.
7
SPEAKER_00
And by the way, I ve done that with Peter Hotez.
7
SPEAKER_00
I ve actually, because I had this kind of informal debate with him,
7
SPEAKER_00
several years ago with a referee at that time.
7
SPEAKER_00
And we were debating not only by phone, but by email.
7
SPEAKER_00
And on those emails, every point that he would make, I would cite science.
7
SPEAKER_00
And he could never come back with science.
7
SPEAKER_00
He could never come back with publications.
7
SPEAKER_00
He would give publications that had nothing to do with, for example, thimerosal vaccines, mercury-based vaccines.
7
SPEAKER_00
He sent me one time,
7
SPEAKER_00
16 studies to rebut something I d said about thimerosal and not one of those studies, they were all about the MMR vaccine, which doesn t contain thimerosal.
7
SPEAKER_00
So it wasn t like a real debate where you re using reason and isolating points and having a rational discourse.
7
SPEAKER_00
I don t blame him for not debating me because I don t think he has the science.
7
SPEAKER_01
Are there aspects of all the work you ve done on vaccines, all the advocacy you ve done, that you found out that you were not correct on, that you were wrong on, that you ve changed your mind on?
7
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, there are many times over time that I,
7
SPEAKER_00
I found that I ve made mistakes and we correct those mistakes.
7
SPEAKER_00
I run a big organization and I do a lot of tweets.
7
SPEAKER_00
I m very careful.
7
SPEAKER_00
For example, my Instagram, I was taken down for misinformation, but there was no misinformation on my Instagram.
7
SPEAKER_00
Everything that I cited on Instagram was cited or sourced to a government database or to peer-reviewed sites.
7
SPEAKER_00
But for example, The Defender, which was our organization s
7
SPEAKER_00
newsletter, we summarize scientific reports all the time.
7
SPEAKER_00
That s one of the services that we provide.
7
SPEAKER_00
We watch the PubMed, and we watch the peer-reviewed publications, and we summarize them when they come out.
7
SPEAKER_00
We have made mistakes.
7
SPEAKER_00
When we make a mistake, we are rigorous about acknowledging it, apologizing for it, and changing it.
7
SPEAKER_00
That s what we do.
7
SPEAKER_00
I think we have one of the most robust fact-checking operations anywhere in journalism today.
7
SPEAKER_00
We actually do real science, and you know, listen, I ve put up on my Twitter account, and there are numerous times that I ve made mistakes on Twitter, and I apologize for it.
7
SPEAKER_00
And people say to me, you know, oh, that s weird, I ve never seen anybody apologize on Twitter, but I think it s really important
7
SPEAKER_00
At the only, of course, human beings make mistakes.
7
SPEAKER_00
My book is 230, 40, 50,000 words.
7
SPEAKER_00
There s gonna be a mistake in there.
7
SPEAKER_00
But what I say at the beginning of the book, if you see a mistake in here, please notify me.
7
SPEAKER_00
I give a way that people can notify me.
7
SPEAKER_00
And if somebody points out a mistake, I m gonna change it.
7
SPEAKER_00
I m not gonna dig my feet in and say, I m not gonna acknowledge this.
7
SPEAKER_01
So some of the things we ve been talking about, you ve been an outspoken contrarian on some very controversial topics.
7
SPEAKER_01
This has garnered some fame and recognition, in part for being attacked and standing strong against those attacks.
7
SPEAKER_01
If I may say, for being a martyr.
7
SPEAKER_01
Do you worry about this drug of martyrdom that might cloud your judgment?
7
SPEAKER_00
First of all, yeah, I don t consider myself a martyr, and I ve never considered myself a victim.
7
SPEAKER_00
I make choices about my life, and I m content with those choices and peaceful with them.
7
SPEAKER_00
I m not trying to be a martyr or a hero or anything else.
7
SPEAKER_00
I m doing what I think is right, because I want to be peaceful inside of myself.
7
SPEAKER_00
But the only guard I have is fact-based reality.
7
SPEAKER_00
If you show me a scientific study that shows that I m wrong, for example, if you come back and say, look, Bobby, here s a safety study on polio that was done pre-licensure and used a real saline solution, I m gonna put that on my Twitter and I m gonna say I was wrong.
7
SPEAKER_00
There is one out there.
7
SPEAKER_00
But that s all I can do.
7
SPEAKER_01
All right, I have to ask, you are in great shape.
7
SPEAKER_01
Can you go through your diet and exercise routine?
7
SPEAKER_00
I do intermittent fasting, so I eat between, I start at my first meal at around noon, and then I try to stop eating at six or seven.
7
SPEAKER_00
And then I hike every day.
7
SPEAKER_00
Morning, evening?
7
SPEAKER_00
In the morning.
7
SPEAKER_00
I go to a meeting first thing in the morning, 12-7 meeting, and I go hike, and I hike uphill for a mile and a half up and a mile and a half down with my dogs, and I do my meditations.
7
SPEAKER_00
And then I go to the gym, and I go to the gym for 35 minutes.
7
SPEAKER_00
I do a short time, I ve been exercising for 50 years.
7
SPEAKER_00
And what I found is it s sustainable if I do just a short periods.
7
SPEAKER_00
And I do four different routines at the gym.
7
SPEAKER_00
And I never relax at the gym.
7
SPEAKER_00
I go in there and I have a very intense exercise.
7
SPEAKER_00
I mean, I could tell you what my routine is, but I do backs one day, chest one day,
7
SPEAKER_00
legs and then a miscellaneous.
7
SPEAKER_00
And I do 12.
7
SPEAKER_00
My first set of everything is I try to reach failure at 12 reps.
7
SPEAKER_00
And then my fourth set of everything is a strip set.
7
SPEAKER_00
I take a lot of vitamins.
7
SPEAKER_00
I can t even list them to you here, because I couldn t even remember them all, but I take a ton of vitamins and nutrients.
7
SPEAKER_00
I m on an anti-aging protocol.
7
SPEAKER_00
from my doctor that includes
8
SPEAKER_01
testosterone replacement, but I don t take any steroids.
8
SPEAKER_01
I don t take any anabolic steroids or anything like that.
8
SPEAKER_01
And the DRT I use is bio-identical to what my body produced.
8
SPEAKER_00
What are your thoughts on hormone therapy in general?
8
SPEAKER_01
I talked to a lot of doctors about that stuff, you know, because I m interested in health.
8
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, I ve heard really good things about it, but I don t know.
8
SPEAKER_01
I m definitely not an expert on it.
8
SPEAKER_00
About God, you wrote, God talks to human beings through many vectors, wise people, organized religion, the great books of religions, through art, music, and poetry, but nowhere with such detail and grace and joy as through creation.
8
SPEAKER_00
When we destroy nature, we diminish our capacity to sense the divine.
8
SPEAKER_00
What is your relationship and what is your understanding of God?
8
SPEAKER_00
Who is God?
8
SPEAKER_01
Well, I mean, God is incomprehensible.
8
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I guess most philosophers would say we re inside the mind of God, and so it would be impossible for us Sonders, and actually what God s form is.
8
SPEAKER_01
But I mean, for me, I have a, let s say this, I had, when I was,
8
SPEAKER_01
I was raised in a very, very deeply religious setting.
8
SPEAKER_01
So we went to church in the summer, oftentimes twice a day, the morning mass, and we went to, we definitely went every Sunday.
8
SPEAKER_01
And I went, we prayed in the morning, we prayed before and after every meal, we prayed at night, we said a rosary, sometimes three rosaries a night,
8
SPEAKER_01
And my father read us the Bible whenever he was home.
8
SPEAKER_01
He would read us, you know, we d all get in the bed and he d read us the Bible stories.
8
SPEAKER_01
And I went to Catholic schools, I went to Jesuit schools, I went to the nuns, and I went to a Quaker school at one point.
8
SPEAKER_01
I became a drug addict when I was about 15 years old, about a year after my dad died.
8
SPEAKER_01
I was addicted to drugs for 14 years.
8
SPEAKER_01
During that time, when you re an addict, you re living against conscience.
8
SPEAKER_01
And when you re living, and I never, you know, I was always trying to get off the drugs, never able to, but I never felt good about what I was doing.
8
SPEAKER_01
And when you re living against conscience, you kind of push God to the peripheries of your life.
8
SPEAKER_01
So I ll call me he.
8
SPEAKER_01
It recedes and gets smaller.
8
SPEAKER_01
And then when I, when I got sober, I knew that
8
SPEAKER_01
I had a couple of experiences.
8
SPEAKER_01
One is that I had a friend of my brother s, one of my brothers who died of this disease of addiction, had a good friend who had used to take drugs with us, and he became a Moonie.
8
SPEAKER_01
So he became a follower of Reverend Sun, Young Moon.
8
SPEAKER_01
And he, at that point, his compulsion, he had the same kind of compulsion that I had, and yet it was completely removed from him.
8
SPEAKER_01
And so, and he used to come and hang out with us, but he would not want to take drugs, even if I was taking them right in front of him.
8
SPEAKER_01
He was, he was immune to it.
8
SPEAKER_01
He d become impervious to that impulse.
8
SPEAKER_01
And I, when I was in the, when I first got sober, I was,
8
SPEAKER_01
I knew that I did not want to be the kind of person who was, you know, waking up every day and white knuckling sobriety and just trying to resist through willpower.
8
SPEAKER_01
And by the way,
8
SPEAKER_01
I had iron willpower as a kid.
8
SPEAKER_01
I gave up candy for Lent when I was 12, and I didn t eat it again until I was in college.
8
SPEAKER_01
I gave up desserts the next year for Lent, and I never ate another dessert until I was in college, and I was trying to bulk up for rugby and for sports.
8
SPEAKER_01
So I felt like I could do anything with my willpower, but somehow,
8
SPEAKER_01
this particular thing, the addiction, was completely impervious to it.
8
SPEAKER_01
And it was cunning, baffling, incomprehensible.
8
SPEAKER_01
I could not understand why I couldn t just say no and then never do it again, like I did with everything else.
8
SPEAKER_01
And so I was living against conscience.
8
SPEAKER_01
And I thought about this guy,
8
SPEAKER_01
And I, you know, reflecting my own prejudices at that time in my life, I said to myself, I didn t want to be, I didn t want to be like a drug addict who was wanting a drug all the time and just not being able to do it.
8
SPEAKER_01
I wanted to completely realign my,
8
SPEAKER_01
myself so that I was somebody who got up every day and just didn t want to take drugs, never thought of them.
8
SPEAKER_01
I kissed the wife and children and went to work and was never thought about drugs the whole day.
8
SPEAKER_01
I knew that people throughout history had done that.
8
SPEAKER_01
I d read the lives of the saints.
8
SPEAKER_01
I knew St.
8
SPEAKER_01
Augustine had had a very, very dissolute youth.
8
SPEAKER_01
And then I had this spiritual realignment transformation.
8
SPEAKER_01
I knew the same thing had happened to St.
8
SPEAKER_01
Paul at Damascus.
8
SPEAKER_01
The same thing had happened to St.
8
SPEAKER_01
Francis.
8
SPEAKER_01
St.
8
SPEAKER_01
Francis also had a dissolute and fun-loving youth and had this deep spiritual realignment.
8
SPEAKER_01
And I knew that that happened to people throughout history.
8
SPEAKER_01
And I thought that s what I needed, something like that.
8
SPEAKER_01
I had the example of this friend of mine
8
SPEAKER_01
And I used to think about him and I would think, and this again reflects the bias and probably the meanness of myself at that time, but I said, I d rather be dead than be a Mooney.
8
SPEAKER_01
But I wish I somehow could distill that power that he got without becoming a religious nuisance.
8
SPEAKER_01
And at that time, I picked up a book by Carl Jung called Synchronicity.
8
SPEAKER_01
And Jung, he was a psychiatrist, he was contemporary of Freud s.
8
SPEAKER_01
He was a, Freud was his mentor and Freud wanted him to be his replacement, but Freud was an avowed atheist.
8
SPEAKER_01
And Jung was a deeply spiritual man.
8
SPEAKER_01
He had these very intense and genuine spiritual experiences from when he was a little boy from at least three years old that he remembers.
8
SPEAKER_01
His biography is fascinating about him because he remembers them with such detail.
8
SPEAKER_01
And he was, he had written, he was always, he was interesting to me because he was a very faithful scientist.
8
SPEAKER_01
And I considered myself a science-based person from when I was little.
8
SPEAKER_01
And yet he had this spiritual dimension to him.
8
SPEAKER_01
which infused all of his thinking and really, I think, made him, you know, branded his form of recovery or of treatment.
8
SPEAKER_01
And he thought that he had this experience that he describes in this book where he s sitting up on the third, he ran one of the biggest sanitariums in Europe, in Zurich.
8
SPEAKER_01
And he was sitting up on the third floor of this building
8
SPEAKER_01
And he s talking to a patient who was describing her dream to him, and the fulcrum of that dream was a scarab beetle, which was an insect that is very, very uncommon, if at all, in Northern Europe, but it s a common figure in the iconography of Egypt and the hieroglyphics on the walls of the pyramids, et cetera.
8
SPEAKER_01
And while he was talking to her, he heard this bing, bing, bing on the window behind him.
8
SPEAKER_01
And he didn t want to turn around to take his attention off her, but finally he does it.
8
SPEAKER_01
In exasperation, he turns around, he throws up the window, and a scarab beetle flies in and lands in his hand.
8
SPEAKER_01
And he shows it to the woman and he says, is this what you were thinking of?
8
SPEAKER_01
Is this what you were dreaming about?
8
SPEAKER_01
And he was struck by that experience, which was similar to other experiences he s had like that.
8
SPEAKER_01
And that s what synchronicity means.
8
SPEAKER_01
It s an incident, a coincidence.
8
SPEAKER_01
If you re talking with somebody about somebody that you haven t thought about in 20 years and that person calls on the phone, that s synchronicity.
8
SPEAKER_01
And he believed it was a way that God intervened in our lives that broke all the rules of nature that he had set up.
8
SPEAKER_01
The rules of physics, the rules of mathematics.
8
SPEAKER_01
to reach in and sort of tap us on the shoulder and say, I m here.
8
SPEAKER_01
And so he tried to reproduce that in a clinical setting.
8
SPEAKER_01
And he would put one guy in one room and another guy in another room and have them flip cards and then guess what the other guy had flipped.
8
SPEAKER_01
And he believed that if he could beat the laws of chance, laws of mathematics, that he would approve the existence of an unnatural law, a supernatural law.
8
SPEAKER_01
And that was the first step to proving the existence of a God.
8
SPEAKER_01
He never succeeds in doing it, but he says in the book, even though I can t prove using empirical and scientific tools the existence of a God, I can show through anecdotal evidence, having seen thousands of patients come through this institution, that people who believe in God get better faster.
8
SPEAKER_01
And for me, hearing that was more impactful than if he had claimed that he had proved the existence of God, because I would not believe that.
8
SPEAKER_01
But I was already at a mindset where I would have done anything I could to improve my chances of never having to take drugs again by even 1%.
8
SPEAKER_01
And if believing in God,
8
SPEAKER_01
was gonna help me, whether there s a God up there or not, believing in one itself had the power to help me, I was gonna do that.
8
SPEAKER_01
So then the question is, how do you start believing in something that you can t see or smell or hear or touch or taste or acquire with your senses?
8
SPEAKER_01
And Jung provides the formula for that.
8
SPEAKER_01
And he says, act as if, you fake it till you make it.
8
SPEAKER_01
And so that s what I started doing.
8
SPEAKER_01
I just started pretending there was a God watching me all the time and kind of,
8
SPEAKER_01
Life was a series of tests, and there was a bunch of moral decisions that I had to make every day, and each one, you know, these were all just little things that I did, but each one now, for me, had a moral dimension, like when I, you know, when the alarm goes off, do I lay in bed for an extra 10 minutes with my indolent thoughts, or do I jump right out of bed?
8
SPEAKER_01
Do I make my bed?
8
SPEAKER_01
Most important decision of the day.
8
SPEAKER_01
Do I hang up the towels, you know, or do I,
8
SPEAKER_01
Do I, when I go into the closet and pull out my blue jeans and a bunch of those wire hangers fall on the ground, do I shut the door and say, I m too important to do that?
8
SPEAKER_01
That s somebody else s job or not.
8
SPEAKER_01
And so do I put the water in the ice tray before I put it in the freezer?
8
SPEAKER_01
Do I put the shopping cart back in the place that it s supposed to go in the parking lot of the Safeway?
8
SPEAKER_01
And if I make a whole bunch of those choices right,
8
SPEAKER_01
that I maintain myself in a posture of surrender, which keeps me open to the power of, to my higher power, to my God.
8
SPEAKER_01
And when I do those things right, when I, you know, so much about addiction is about abuse of power, abuse of power.
8
SPEAKER_01
All of us have some power, whether it s good looks or whether it s connections or education or family or whatever.
8
SPEAKER_01
And there s always a temptation to use those to fulfill self-will.
8
SPEAKER_01
And the challenge is how do you use those always to serve instead God s will and the good of our community?
8
SPEAKER_01
to me is kind of the struggle.
8
SPEAKER_01
And when I do that, I feel God s power coming through me and that I can do things.
8
SPEAKER_01
I m much more effective as a human being.
8
SPEAKER_01
that gnawing, you know, anxiety that I lived with for so many years and my God, it s gone.
8
SPEAKER_01
And that I can kind of like put down the oars and hoist the sail and, you know, and the wind takes me and I can see the evidence of it in my life.
8
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, the big thing, you know, the temptation for me is that
8
SPEAKER_01
when all these good things start happening in my life and the cash and prizes start flowing in, how do I maintain that posture of surrender?
8
SPEAKER_01
How do I stay surrendered then when my inclination is to say to God, thanks God, I got it from here and drive the car off the cliff again.
8
SPEAKER_01
So I had a spiritual awakening and my desire for drugs and alcohol was lifted miraculously.
8
SPEAKER_01
And to me, it was as much a miracle as if I d been able to walk on water.
8
SPEAKER_01
Because I had tried everything earnestly, sincerely, and honestly for a decade to try to stop, and I could not do it under my own power.
8
SPEAKER_01
And then all of a sudden, I was lifted effortlessly.
8
SPEAKER_01
So I saw that evidence, early evidence of God in my life, and I m of the power.
8
SPEAKER_01
And I see it now, you know, every day of my life.
8
SPEAKER_00
So adding that moral dimension to all of your actions is how you were able to win that Camus battle against the absurd.
8
SPEAKER_00
Sisyphus with the bull.
8
SPEAKER_00
It s all the same thing.
8
SPEAKER_01
It s the battle to just do the right thing.
8
SPEAKER_00
And now Sisyphus was able to find somehow happiness.
8
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
8
SPEAKER_00
Well, Bobby, thank you for the stroll through some of the most important moments in recent human history and for running for president.
8
SPEAKER_00
And thank you for talking today.
8
SPEAKER_01
Thank you, Lex.
8
SPEAKER_00
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
8
SPEAKER_00
To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description.
8
SPEAKER_00
And now let me leave you with some words from John F. Kennedy.
8
SPEAKER_00
Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer.
8
SPEAKER_00
Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past.
8
SPEAKER_00
Instead, let us accept our own responsibility for the future.
8
SPEAKER_00
Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.