Is it necessarily true that RFK Jr. will pull more from Biden than Trump? You present that as a fact, but I don't think that's factual. Nor do you discuss the value of third party candidacies in maybe opening up the political process in this country, and maybe bringing Dr. Pepper into the mix with Coke and Pepsi. I agree with you about the delusional egos at the core of his campaign, and yet, I'm pretty sure delusional egos lie at the heart of every campaign. The prospect of power tends to attract such people.
If the world wasn't burning down immediately, I would love legit third and fourth party candidates. Or if America could switch to Parliamentary systems or have ranked-choice voting. As it is, all RFK is going to accomplish is to hand the US over to Trump. And I do see value in some of the issues that RFK is raising, particularly around chemicals and food additives and human health, and also about corporate capture. This is a triage situation where we have to deal with Putin and stop him from taking over Ukraine and continuing to push West, and we have to massively accelerate the shift to renewable energy so we don't totally fry ourselves. I think it is quite possible that Biden will move further Left as he will be at the end of his political career, and I also think his accomplishments have been under-promoted. Matt Stoller's piece is quite interesting: https://open.substack.com/pub/mattstoller/p/why-does-the-biden-white-house-hate?r=1mhh1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
The massive shift toward renewable energy is happening and Trump winning won't slow that appreciably, as his first four year term did not slow it appreciably. The forecasts in my 2015 book, Solar: Why Our Energy Future Is So Bright, are coming true in spades. Solar is indeed taking over, and very quickly. Globally we're at 30% renewables now (with an increasing percentage of that from solar) and very likely will hit 80-90% by 2035 or so. https://www.tpr.org/news/2024-05-15/renewable-energy-generation-reaches-30-globally
I strongly agree with your analysis Daniel, on all fronts. In Canada, support for green party candidates is high among voters who value nature and natural living (free from chemicals in the food supply and in pharmaceuticals,). Thus, being "green" comprises a slice of the left's "identity" pie, and may overlap with right-wing ideologies and explains some of RFK Jr.'s appeal). As a result, voters with green cores may cut diagonally through both the conservative/liberal divide. Politicians on either side must consider these complexities. Complex problems require complex solutions, not simple ones (H. Arendt). The issue of what gets put into our bodies, both intentionally and unintentionally, is at the naturalist-green core, (no pun intended:) of a cross-section of well-educated, ideal-type democracy seekers., who are adamantly green and will vote to stop the destruction of local ecosystems. These issues, like ecosystems, are interconnected. Yet, just as nature contains keystone species, politics contains trigger point issues. The job of the democrats is to figure out what these are, and persuade us, that this is the issue we must live or die by. May I suggest: No new oil and gas, as a chance for the future to have a future.
Well... reduced agriculture in Europe due to floods and droughts, Colorado River now a trickle, no water left in Mexico City, huge forest fires every year, once in a century super storms every month... that kind of stuff. We were at 1.7 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels last year, unprecedented warming. Etc.
incredible that people still have to ask this. come and live in Spain (or Greece, or Italy, or loads of other places) this summer to see it burning for yourself
A second major confounding factor is solar forcing, which has been downplayed by IPCC for far too long. It is uncontroversially the case that solar forcing was responsible for almost all previous warming and cooling cycles. The debate has been over the relative role of solar forcing variation in the current cycle. This paper gives a good overview of that debate and I've become somewhat convinced, after following climate science for 30 years and being a green energy policy lawyer for 20 years, that there is a real debate here. https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/11/9/179
But this is likely a significant exaggeration as peer-reviewed scholarship is steadily establishing that 40-50% of this signal is from a data artifact called the urban heat island effect, which stems from far too many global temp gauges being in or near large urban areas, which are much hotter due to activity, concrete, AC, etc. Here's an example for China and I'm happy to share more scholarship looking at the global picture: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/20/jcliD200118.xml
RFK Jr. is the only hope we have right now to break the two party system. Sure Trump is a menace but look at what Biden has done. We are on the verge of creating three regional wars if not a world war. Can anyone deny the takeover of our government by the military industrial complex? How does that make any sense for environmentalists. Take the blinders off. Biden is a disaster.
I don’t think Biden is such a disaster. The Inflation Reduction Act is quite hopeful. Putin attacking Ukraine or Hamas attacking Israel is not “us” creating regional wars.
Yes the military industrial complex is a massive structural problem.
Putin invading Ukraine is very much a direct result of US actions acting through NATO and unilaterally. I don't support what Putin did but it is a very understandable reaction to our encirclement and violation of non-NATO expansion agreements. As for Israel, it is quite reasonable to also lay that war at our feet b/c of unconditional diplomatic/military/financial support for Israel over the last 5 decades, creating a culture of complete denial and discompassion in Israel where they think somehow it's ok to dispossess an entire people of their land, freedom and livelihood for 80 years.
Really? Wikipedia is not an unbiased source or a credible one on political or public health issues. Have a look at this: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early Can you deny Ukraine is a proxy war? The US coup in 2014 and the killing of more than 10,000 ethnic Russians in the Donbass is what started the war in addition to NATO provocations. It's also been clearly stated by US military commanders that the goal is to weaken Russia militarily and politically.
Hi Roland last week I had dinner with two journalists who have been covering the Ukraine war for years, stationed in Kharkiv, Kiev, etc. One of them was captured by Russia in Donbas in 2014 and tortured. Both of them say with full confidence that this is not a proxy war and that the 2014 revolution was an organic expression of the Ukrainian determination to escape Russian influence and control which the vast majority of Ukrainians hate and many are giving their lives to prevent. What would it possibly take to convince you that you are wrong? And if nothing will, you must recognize you have either been brainwashed or you are an ideologue who has been trapped in one perspective.
That’s bullshit Tam! You don’t entrust the future of massive countries to some shoddy agreement that wasn’t written down. No idiot would do that. Meanwhile the Budapest Agreement is written signed and dated. I don’t know what is making people so determined to not see Putin for what he is: a homicidal monster who poisons his opponents or tortures them to death. He runs a giant country with no freedom of speech or dissent. He is actually that kind of dictator who does exactly these kinds of things like unprovoked invasion out of egotism, because he has an ideal of the great Russian empire and sees himself as a historic messianic figure of some sort.
Why was my previous "comment removed"? This is highly disturbing if you removed this. Second, Jeff Sachs gave a tour de force interview recently that clearly and as succinctly as possible explains how the US did indeed, for 30 years, provoke Putin. As he makes clear he does not (and nor do I) in any way support Putin's invasion. But understanding it from Russia's position is quite different than supporting it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS-3QssVPeg&t=2s
It’s not a war because Palestine is not fighting back. Well, sometimes Hamas does. But definitely Israel is the ‘attacker’ in this case. Palestine is not really defending itself. It doesn’t matter how many times Hamas attacks Israel, the Israel dome shield prevents anything from reaching Israeli territory.
Yeah I’ve heard Biden has been more progressive than any of the recent Democrats. The economy is not doing that bad whatever that means, maybe wages have improved hopefully. It seems. The Palestine/Israel issue hasn’t helped and has made him less popular.
Hope of what exactly? He seems better than Trump and Biden, and his vice presidential candidate was born right at the heart of the robot that is killing us.
Really? Want to talk about where people are born. How about the hope for a president not beholden to corporate interests, the medical and military industrial complex and a lifelong environmentalist. Biden is a lost cause. He will lose to Trump all on his own.
So I think rather than being cynical it would be better to get active as nothing is "Set in stone" yet. Biden can certainly still win, but if we act as though a Trump victory is certain, we may help make that horrifying prospect our reality.
I don't think it's really cynical to recognize the reality that Biden has little to offer except that he's not Trump. I don't think a Trump victory is certain, especially if people wake and realize he's no answer to the nation's or the world's problems. But the more time passes, the more I think Biden can't defeat Trump. That's where RFK comes in. Polls among Independents show that he can beat both of them, that is if the a majority of the voting public would actually get out and vote. As for the MS article, those issues are for our representatives, and again for voters to hold their feet to the fire and decide who will represent them if they actually get out and vote.
It’s great that you’re bringing this subject up Daniel because no one seems to want to talk about RFKj.
I would love to argue about this with you and anyone else, but my requirement would be to watch every video that’s on the campaign website, and there are a bunch of videos on his application that you can download. I’ve been listening to The Real Anthony Fauci and the Wuhan cover-up and I am considering Getting the books because of the resources that I would like to have access to. One caveat is that his writing is a little dramatic sometimes, but I’m going for the sources. I believe the books were well researched and there are documents to back them up and he hasn’t been sued so that’s saying something. I am unwilling to talk to anybody about this who hasn’t done their own research or listened to the guy actually speak because so many people hear someone else talk about him and honestly as you know perfectly well, his character is been assassinated, successfully! No longer do you have to take a gun to someone’s head all you have to do is utilize the media. I don’t trust the media. I think there’s a lot more going on under the surface that we are not privy to having to do with oil access and land rights. Another book that I’m reading is called the war on truth 9/11 disinformation and the anatomy of terrorism by Nafeez Mosaddek Ahmed. Also, a lot of good resources attached , You might want to read that one.
While Biden has been doing some good things, I really don’t know if I can vote for him and I’m super tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, as a lot of your people probably are. We need to break out of this two party system. I don’t think Biden is going to win, But I do think that RFKj is going to take a lot of Trump voters away from him so it remains to be seen what kind of an agitator RFKj is really going to be.
The fact that his family doesn’t support him doesn’t surprise me when those speaking out against him work for the government. One of his cousins from the Shriver side has endorsed him since he’s smart capable. He doesn’t agree with everything Bobby says and neither do I especially on Israel Palestine. But I do think he’s antiwar and I do think he would support Palestinian autonomy. RFKj says one of the first things he would do is release Snowden and Julian Assange because he believes that they are heroes-uncovering secret documents that implicate the governments dirty deeds. He believes the CIA killed his uncle and his father and so he’s very dangerous for the US government.
The road that led me to RFK is an interesting one because it’s a personal discovery that I made about my late aunt Diane, who was a campaign worker for RFK in 1968. Five days before the election she was reassigned to babysit Bobby’s kids at the Beverly Hills hotel during the ca primary election. She was with David watching TV when his father was shot. I’m in the midst of developing a screenplay about the story. Anyway, that discovery led me into a deep dive researching all things having to do with the assassination, which lead me to a mountain of interesting material and made me look at the current Bobby running for president. I was like you during Covid, skeptical of him as a person because of what I was hearing but I don’t think he’s as bad and stupid as you’re making out to be. I think he’s smart and speaks truth to power which nobody wants to hear. And I don’t believe the polls and neither should you, look at the Clinton Trump disaster.
Thanks for your thoughts here! I have interviewed RFk and was very surprised by his defensiveness, really didn't like being challenged, and also it turns out he doesn't even support polio and MMR vaccines which I believe to be significant medical advances that saved many lives. I ended up feeling he was oddly delusional. I then read the Fauci book and reviewed it for my newsletter. He makes good points but there is a lot of distortion and as you say dramatization. I would say he definitely will not win so a vote for him in any seriously contested state is a vote for Trump. I would agree this lesser than two evils thing is utter BS but unfortunately we are in a triage situation with Putin and also with the need to move the needle on the shift to renewable energy. RFK's current positions have gotten weired on climate as he is sort of sounding like a climate change denialist, I guess hoping to woo Right Wing votes. I have watched a lot of his talks, listened to his podcasts, etc. I think RFK is a dangerous candidate who will throw the election to Trump unless people wake up quickly.
Aren't you overlooking something of crucial significance?
Trump's probably going to win (unless there's electorial interference), with or without RFK in the mix, because Joe Biden is SENILE. He's clearly suffering from DEMENTIA and has been for some time. People aren't going to vote for someone who clearly and unmistakably isn't even making any of the policy decisions attributed to him as a pure figurehead. Talk about the Biden ADMINISTRATION all you want, but please don't talk about Biden HIMSELF as if he's doing anything but walking on camera and stumblingly reciting lines fed to him. If the Democrats can't find a more suitable presidential candidate than Biden, that's their own fault and failing, not RFK's.
Biden has had a lifelong challenge with stuttering, and of course his challenges with speech are getting more exaggerated as he gets older. I don't find these soundclips of him stumbling over his words to be validation that he is senile.
He's never had a stutter. Listen to him talking decades ago. This is dem-mythology. He's an immoral, mumbly, mentally vacant, ghoul. He doesn't deserve another term, but unfortunately if he doesn't get it, we all get worse, as the president of the US is the leader of the "free world."
Maybe dementia is too extreme a word, but he's clearly experienced a significant cognitive decline in recent years. Bottom line: you can't blame anyone for preferring either RFK or Trump to a candidate who is suffering a marked impairment: the way he is now, he can't possibly be running the country.
I agree completely that if Trump wins it's the Democrat's own fault. But...that's not something we should all be punished for, and that's what will happen. I detest both of them equally, but think Biden would be a better choice for all the reasons Daniel has mentioned. There is hope to turn things around in the future, if Biden wins. If Trump wins, the Orcs have a lock on power...forever!
Either way Daniel our mission doesn't change in fact if Trump is elected our mission will be like rocket fuel and he will probably be removed immediately
Even a greater reason to come forward together with a much a better plan . We truly need to create something like that U on canned goods , a new endorser symbol, that when you see it you truly know good is happening for the greater good.
It truly comes down to how we nurture ourselves, our brains. The Majority never ever get nurtured enough to allow such an experience to occur.
We need to fully expose how we are breeding humans in such an unhealthy way. It's know wonder why , the inhabitants of this earth do the things they do.
"Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is not an environmentalist. He is a dangerous conspiracy theorist and science denier123 whose agenda would be a disaster for our communities and the planet.
He may have once been an environmental attorney, but now RFK Jr. is peddling the term “climate change orthodoxy”4 and making empty promises to clean up our environment with superficial proposals.5 The truth is, by rejecting science, what he offers is no different than Donald Trump.
In the fact-free world that both he and Trump live in, objective reality simply does not exist. Their policy platforms are instead driven by what will benefit Big Oil67 and the greedy corporations that fund them. We know, however, that environmental progress depends on following scientific fact and putting people over politics.
With so much at stake, we stand united in denouncing RFK Jr.’s false environmentalist claims. We can’t, in good conscience, let him continue co-opting the credibility and successes of our movement for his own personal benefit."
"In the fact-free world that both he and Trump live in, objective reality simply does not exist. Their policy platforms are instead driven by what will benefit Big Oil67 and the greedy corporations that fund them. We know, however, that environmental progress depends on following scientific fact and putting people over politics."
I don't believe Charles Eisenstein would happily work on the campaign of a person who doesn't care about the environment at all. Sounds like that quote was taken out of context -- not a claim that he's not concerned about the environment but that he intends to try novel solutions, not failing strategies that haven't worked.
Charles is very naive on one level, on the other level, he is an Ivy League boy - I think Harvard - and they tend to gravitate toward power and influence, even if he has taken a round about route to get there... power is very seductive.
Well, you should have an online discussion with Charles about this! Are you still friends, still in contact with him? It might be a fruitful dialogue as in so many ways you're extremely similar in your worldviews, politics, philosophy, but in other respects are very divergent. I'd happily watch if you set something up. I mean, this is a pretty central thing: the environment (i.e. Gaia) has been Eisenstein's primary concern as a writer from Day One, I simply can't believe he'd still stay on with RFK if RFK is indifferent (especially considering Eisenstein already vehemently disagrees with RFK's stance in regards to Israel/Gaza).
I wholeheartedly concur. Trump forces are behind the RFK candidacy and stand to gain if he is on the ballot. A Trump victory would end American democracy and do grievous harm to all organisms on the planet but for white Russian and American Christian males. Biden is the ecosocialist you seek, just a light version. With him we got a Green New Deal, just not the optimally sized one. All progress begins with the defeat of Trump by Biden in November. Many of your readers are immersed in esoteric belief systems that, without pragmatic oversight, could lead them to seek "alternative" solutions like RFK or even Trump. I reject the Pepsi/Colke faux binary framing you're espousing. Trump is toxic poison, undrinkable, while Biden is watered down ginger ale. With Biden we have a chance. With Trump (or RFK) it's over.
I enjoyed this post. It was a provocation, in a good way. Your views are clearly stated, don’t necessarily align with those of your readers, and elicit debate and discussion.
Your views that I find most confounding surround the Ukraine war. Do you agree that the conflict has a history and cannot simply be reduced to “Putin is evil?” That western leaders have undertaken no serious efforts at negotiations? That a war with Russia right on its border entails a risk of terminal nuclear war, especially if the west ever gets close to a military “victory”? That wars like this accelerate environmental catastrophe? That the billions of dollars we’ve sent to military corporations to fuel this war would have been better spent on any number of domestic projects? That there are other relevant historical precedents to consider besides Nazi germany and the policy of appeasement?
One last thing for your consideration. Below is a link to a very short letter written by 50 foreign policy experts to Bill Clinton in 1997 on the topic of NATO expansion. You’ll find it about half way down this webpage. I find it extraordinarily prescient, do you?
There was no written, signed agreement that NATO would not expand, it is mainly conjecture that this was said. However read about the Budapest Memorandum: Russia guaranteed Ukraine's security in return for its nukes. The Russians are the ones who have broken their obligations etc. Also America guaranteed Ukraine's security if it was attacked, which is where we are now. And America is not coming through.
It's surprising that you didn't address the rest of Dragonfly's comments. Indeed, your overall analysis appears to rest on a contradiction: You say you are fundamentally concerned about the climate emergency, and yet you advocate an interventionist foreign policy that would seem to risk precipitating a new world war, which would of course be the ultimate ecological catastrophe, not to mention the ongoing ecological impact of current wars. At the very least, your analysis should include an articulation of how you think such intervention somehow won't increase the risk of world war, or why you think such risk is acceptable. And I recommend noting well the analyses of Noam Chomsky, who has been clear-eyed about the risks of both climate change and nuclear war. An ecologically sound approach to solving global conflicts wouldn't have to be pure appeasement, but it probably would look significantly different that Biden's approach.
yes I don't think we are at a point where we can be isolationist. So whatever we do, we will be intervening. What I would do if I was Biden is seriously hash things out with China, try to figure out a scenario where we are not at each other's throats. Then isolate Russia until Putin dies or gets deposed. But I still don't think you can let China invade / takeover Taiwan. Another solution has to be found.
Yes. One upshot of the current approach to Russia has been to drive Russia and China together. It is unclear what the long-term game plan is and thus the strategy appears reckless. It's easy to make the case for why we should defeat Putin but harder to outline a long-term game plan for achieving that outcome with minimal collateral damage. The US role has been to favor military engagement over negotiation without a clear strategy for victory.
Thanks for the reply. Yes, nukes in return for security. But since the early 1990s, there was a very clear understanding that NATO would not expand the way it ultimately did.
Yet Russian leadership tolerated nearly all of the subsequent expansion, but has long drawn a very clear line at Ukraine. Russian and western diplomats are completely clear on this matter (see 2008 William Burns memo “nyet means nyet”: https://x.com/wikileaks/status/1755760562946916494).
So what does our leadership do? Keep insisting on NATO membership to Ukraine. And what finally happens? Russia invades Ukraine.
And thats when the true absurdity of the situation was laid bare: now that Russia attacked, have we permitted Ukraine to join NATO? Of course not! Russia has nukes! We’re not about to start world war 3 and a possible nuclear war over Ukraine!
There is NO way Ukraine is winning this war. I think Lucas used the perfect word: contradiction. There are many among those who think we should keep fighting this insane war.
There is only one sane course of action: an immediate ceasefire and negotiations.
You’re hammering the point about a written agreement. I agree it wasn’t written down. You’re right! Is that the whole basis of your argument? Do you think NATO expansion for the last 30+ years was a good thing? If so just say it. Do You think we should have big nuclear armed NATO block on Russias border? Is that good for the world? A world based on apocalyptic weaponry and deterence, good guys and bad guys: Is that your vision for a sustainable future?
There was the possibility of another path, particularly in the 1990s, where peaceful relations could have been developed. Unfortunately the west doubled down on a militaristic approach by expanding NATO.
All of this is doubly insane because both sides can blow up the world, and there’s no amount of force the other side can exert to stop it. Force is simply not the answer.
Finally do you really want to get into an argument over US behavior and written treaties? Including those we’ve signed and those we haven’t?
I think we’re beating this argument to death, so I promise to stop now (if you want the last word). Thanks for engaging.
Obviously I do not think we should have nuclear armed super powers at each other's throats. I do think we are in a global battle between dictatorships / totalitarianism and (flawed, problematic, turbulent) liberal democracy, which protects some of our ability to protest, have free speech, and so on. I don't think we can simply lay down our weapons and weave daisies into the hair-weaves of Putin and Xi Ping, have them sing "Imagine" with us and dissolve all the weapons in a love-puddle. They have agendas and goals which are antithetical to ours.
I do recognize that "liberal" / progressive Democratic society is also trending toward totalitarian surveillance and thought-control via for instance social media and algorithms. The situation is dark, messy, perhaps fatal. I also know about the many disasters of US foreign policy including horrible wars etc. I just don't think any other country would have done better in our shoes after WW2 and many would have done far worse.
As for treaties, think about business: I don't go into business with someone who makes me vague promises to never do something - I get it written down and signed. Otherwise I get screwed as in fact I have in the past because I was too trusting. We are talking about massive countries - Super powers - if the guarantees are not turned into contracts, treaties, they are just meaningless talk. That would be obvious to all participants as even treaties can be violated as Russia has done with the Budapest Memorandum.
Thanks. I grant your point that it was never written down and signed. Maybe we can reasonably debate whether there was a clear cut mutual understanding to not expand NATO. But it’s abundantly clear that US leaders knew how important the matter was to Russia — reasonably so — and didn’t much care.
I happen to agree with the 50 foreign policy experts from 1997 whose memo I linked to. In my humble opinion, NATO expansion created a more militaristic and divided world. The insistence on Ukrainian membership was a crucial factor leading to the current war. And to top it off, the fact that its enemy can blow up the world renders NATO a hollow entity.
No political leader in their right mind would accept a "a clear cut mutual understanding" that wasn't written down as something that is going to be enduring as far as policy goes. NATO exists because all of those countries have a deep historical memory of Russian aggression going back centuries, and in fact, if Ukraine had been in NATO Putin would not have attacked.
I have a simple question for Daniel here. Biden and his administration are presently edging us towards direct war in Ukraine, and war against China, and you can see it plainly enough in articles like this one in Bloomberg where it's being casually laid out that the US and EU will have to spend at an additional $10 TRILLION dollars--beyond what we presently spend--in the next ten years to counter both China and Russia. These are declarations of intense international aggressiveness. If there is one world in which there is even the slightest possibility of dealing with the real emergency of climate change, then it is only a world where there is a modicum of international cooperation. That, I'm afraid is not at all the world that the Biden administration is envisioning. A world at war, or a world angling to be at war, is not a world in which there is going to be any progress in protecting the planet--or do you magically think somehow differently? To me, the aggressiveness of this administration is so clear that I find it actually strange to be so passionately defending it as the last great hope. It's not. It's more of the same, with just a terrifying level government surveillance and censorship thrown in for narrative and crowd control. Or have I been living with a different admnistration than you have for the last four years?
Yes I agree we can’t have these wars anymore and ongoing escalation with China is a bad idea. On the other hand is the US supposed just let China subsume Taiwan and Putin subsume Ukraine? Won’t that mean that we are saying dictators anywhere can just take over democratic countries and rule them? Then there is no longer an international order and whoever has the strength rules as in ancient empire days, but much crueler and powerful with high tech now?
It's not like there's ever been anyone to stop USA from subsuming countries. Is a sly criminal better and different than a regular criminal? Who is going to stop the US? Are we, as Americans, better than the rest of the world to dominate the world with our personal moral values? Why isn't Russia, or China fit to do that? Perhaps no one is fit to do that. You either accept world domination by USA, and in turn globalism to curtain the world, or you accept that heavy diplomacy, not war, is the answer to dealing with "bad neighbors".
Watching from Europe I don't understand why a third party doesn't start with getting rooted firmly in local and then in state parliaments before going after the presidency.
I also grew up in NY and for the life of me can not understand the appeal of Trump- to me he is a disgusting gangster who cares not about the public but for his own pocketbook- it’s so obvious and he can’t even speak well in public- he’s like a cartoon character- i feel like we’re living in a twilight zone episode-
So maybe I’m again in denial that such a creep can win AGAIN although I do think there was some shady shit that lead to his victory… needless to say, I appreciate your organizing and starting good conversations we need a revolution and by the way, it’s in the stars/planets check the astrology🕊️
I totally agree with you apart from the 'shady shit' - unfortunately enough people are just that deluded. And others are just angry enough to press the 'blow it all up' button even though they don't trust DT.
The US has consistently empowered despots who they can easily control. Nothing will fundamentally change under a second Trump presidency.
It's all democracy theater and always has been. Show me where the people have any real voice? Corporate lawyers are writing legislature and politicians barely know what they are voting for. Declaring any of this the will of the people is delusion.
Thank you Daniel for your perspective. Here’s one from Finland. I have been worried about how Americans especially in the Left see current Russia and Putin. If anyone still sees Putin as a sincere man, I highly recommend getting to know Jessikka Aro’s work and latest book Putin’s Trolls (2022). Aro is an immensivly brave Finnish investigative journalist and she has gotten to experience personally the dark tactics that aim to silence and scare people from seeing the truth about his operation to take down Western democracies. I understand that Americans are frustrated with their political system, but please see that this time your enemy’s enemy is not your friend but your worst nightmare. https://www.harvard.com/book/putins_trolls/
Infiltrating the mind-space is very good expression here. What you said also brought back memories from the weeks before the Russian invasion started in 2022. I think there’s also an occult/spiritual dimension to this infiltration. As the tension grew on the Ukrainian borders, I needed to understand things from esoteric perspective. I started reading Gary Lachman’s Return of the Holy Russia and saw a series of precognitive dreams about the invasion. During this time I realized that I had also myself dwelled in a spiritual bubble, that had a very a Russian flavour and symbolism to it. I guess it comes partly from the silver age mystics and philosophers who had much influence in the West, partly from discovering the lost aspects of the Goddess, which I think archetypally governs the ’Russian Soul’. Putin’s attack was a spiritual wake up call for me, time to reckon with the shadow of the divine feminine. It also woke me up to see what is valuable and worth preserving in our western culture. I think Putin can actually be our ”savior”, if we raise to the challenge he has thrown at us.
Representative democracy is and has been for most of US history, a farce. No candidate will change the incentive landscape we currently live in. There is zero correlation between will of the people and legislation. We have used more fossil fuels every year, regardless of renewable growth. We throw away half our food. Every ChatGPT inquiry uses up 16oz of drinking water. This system is on runaway trajectory for self termination, undeniably.
We have to start operating within a new system of human organization, not desperately trying to change a machine that is diametrically opposed to holistic change. No one knows what that new system will be (it won't be anything that has been tried already), but it won't have extractive capitalism as it's main operating function.
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." - Bucky Fuller
I agree. I actually tried to build an alternative social infrastructure over a decade ago with Evolver: We had a media platform, an open-source social network, and 60+ local community groups exploring transformative ideas and implementing stuff like local currencies and permaculture. Sadly we couldn't raise the needed funding and also experienced various other issues that blocked it. I am entirely ready to go for it again as soon as someone offers to support it. So yes let's build a new society outside of the current system but let's also try to slow down the collapse by not voting in Trump who is the stooge of the Heritage Foundation who have a highly developed plan to move us into Fascism ASAP.
@danielpinchbek I believe that you have soaked up a lot of the fear mongering and alarmism over the the state of the world and the effects of climate change.
Unfortunately we live in a world where the government and the mainstream media are promoting fear based sensationalism to keep the populace afraid and compliant.
It might be worth a deeper look, including looking at sources that you don’t tend to always favour. When you get caught up in your echo chamber you rarely get the whole picture.
Hi David, I have looked and continue to explore a wide range of sources including James Corbett, fringe denialists of warming etc. Based on my research and carefully reflection and study, I concur with the vast majority of scientists who agree we are in an ecological emergency with rising CO2 levels causing accelerating warming plus many other feedback loops contributing to breakdown.
Well I think the scientific evidence is extremely convincing. I have experienced the world getting warmer as we all have. We know what ppm of CO2 does to the atmosphere - and we put 1 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every hour. The only reason we are still arguing about this is because of oil company disinformation ,and we know they knew the truth decades ago, decided to hide it for short-term mega-profit and probably now fear being tried for crimes against humanity.
I think your take on the media is almost exactly opposite of what I’ve seen over the last several decades. There has been little to no “fear mongering” at all over global warming oops I meant “climate change.”
Have you seen the movie Don’t Look Up? It’s a pretty accurate (and funny and sad) depiction of how the media has downplayed the existential crisis that we are actually facing.
Only in the last few years, as climate disaster after disaster has hit enough people so that they actually notice with their own senses, has the media started dutifully reporting on it.
If this would have happened in the eighties, if enough people took it seriously and demanded government and corporations do something to transition to green energy, maybe we wouldn’t find ourselves on our current, dire, trajectory.
We don’t need hopium. We need clearheaded leadership to guide a confused and scared population to do what we humans are really good at: survival.
We vote, they count. Three privately-owned computer voting machine companies count 90% of the vote with privately-owned, proprietary software in SECRET, and beyond public inspection. You could not prove voting machines aren't paper shredders. It's faith-based voting, and both parties know and are complicit. The fake election Kabuki theater is meant to distract and divide for the next 8 months. What we are NOT supposed to know about is what Pfizer and the FDA tried to hide for 75 years until a federal judge ordered release of the data:
Well I wouldn’t believe everything you read in Naomi Wolf either. But yes it seems quite likely that the 2016 presidential election was tilted to Trump by rigged voting machines controlled by Right Wing Christian fanatics (I believe the company is called Dominion - kind of gives itself away in the title).
Naomi Wolf assembled a team of thousands of scientists, doctors and statisticians to examine what Pfizer wanted to hide, and a judge ordered released. I sent a video, not something to read. Take a listen - it's short, and devastating.
Hmm I think you may want to look at Wolf through some other perspectives. I recommend Naomi Klein's Doppelganger for a thorough refutation. Here is another look: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/10/naomi-wolf-klein-doppelganger-book/675120/ ... I am sure you recall how she was publicly humiliated and her publisher was forced to pulp her last mainstream effort? After that she has retreated to the conspiratorial shadows where there is no possibility of criticism because, you know, "they" control the media etc. I think she is trash to be honest. Hope you will go deeper.
Naomi Wolf is quoting Pfizer documents. Where are the "conspiratorial shadows"? Won't YOU go deeper and respond to what she revealed in the short video?
So a number of things here can be separated out. I agree the mRNA vaccines were leaky and cause human health consequences in some proportion of the population. I don't like the way people have been cajoled into continuing to take boosters and I think some deaths are a result of this, including among people I know. However I also think Covid has been a real disease and a real killer and I still think it is possible that the vaccines saved more lives than have been lost, particularly among the elderly. However this is not the only vector on which to pick the president. We also have to consider the response to Putin and global despotism / demogoguery, and the need to accelerate renewable energy 100X. RFK is now talking "free market" Libertarian BS as his answer to the ecological catastrophe we are facing. I am not swooning over Biden but I do think he has been better than people think - somehow it is fun to despise him. I recommend re-thinking and reflecting. If Trump wins, the Heritage Foundation (Koch funded) has prepared a thorough takeover plan for America. See other comments for link.
The new fangled "vaccines" are killing more people than all vaccines ever recorded on VAERS. Tens of thousand of injuries, thousands of deaths. Enough disabled to constitute a national emergency.
Biden mandated them to everyone, not just the vulnerable elderly. FFS, the average age of death is around 80, so why experiment on children whose risk is so small as to be unmeasurable. As to how deadly the mRNA shots are you need to look at "excess deaths" (see Edward Dowd) and this is ongoing. You may not have heard - they ones foisted on people against their will have dangerous levels of DNA left over from manufacture. Look at dropping birth rates and they are ongoing. An eight year old died of a heart attack post jab. Can you see how serious this poison is in terms of deaths and unknown long term risks? It has begun, but you perhaps want not to look?
Anti-vaxer? Me, no. I just don't involve myself in corporate-sponsored mass poisoning incidents except to write about them. The death count on the covid shots is absurd — more reported deaths to CDC the first year than for all other vaccine products combined the prior 30 years.
Yes, the mass poisoning incident is troubling, especially since so few know about it thanks to the massive US government/internet censorship exposed in the "Twitter files."
A slow moving global democide is hiding in plain sight. When Slovakia's prime minister decided to investigate the covid psyop, and publicly came out against the new WHO totalitarian takeover - the only Western leader that did - he was shot 5 times (and lives). Little factoids like these are just "conspiracy theories." Like the suspicious deaths of five African leaders who rejected the vaccines that are now maiming and killing millions. Gee, are we messing up this thread? Hah.
Daniel is an erudite person. I'm surprised the "missing virus" problem didn't get as far as his desk. But you have to jump through a hoop of fire to see it for what it is.
Even if there's only terrain, or only viruses or both, the greatest takedown of basic human rights is inescapable to those with open eyes. Most people don't know what's going on yet but the hearings in the House are ripping down the curtains.
I'm a bit troubled about your views on Ukraine/Russia/Putin. Truth is, I'm a bit troubled about my own views, which seem to wobble around.
I'm pretty convinced that the U.S. through NATO provoked this whole crisis. There were opportunities to de-escalate NATO's offensive posturing towards Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union as many foreign policy experts advised. Instead there was continual expansion right up to Russia's borders. You know all that, right?
Then again, Putin is an autocrat and a bully, an awful person with militarist tendencies. He did invade Ukraine.
Is the solution war? Are all alternatives "appeasement?" What's the end game here, as it looks more and more that after all the death and destruction, Ukraine is not "winning" the war?
You can turn this around and see that the reason every eastern country wanted to join NATO is because they have deep historic memory of Russian aggression. It is Putin who wanted this war as he was doing totally fine without it. Nobody was going to invade Russia with their 6000 nukes. Everyone just wanted their gas.
Not wanting weapons aimed at you from close range is something all nations, especially big powers, tend to care a lot about. There were multiple forces wanting this war. War is not the answer.
I haven't followed you for long Daniel, but I have been consuming your recent string of consciousness quite regularly. This post and the response to comments here is a bit of an enigma to me. I can recognize the fear, frustration and anxiety that comes with the uncertainty of the future of the United States (and the planet), and how one might pin their sanity onto some level of predictability that comes with a candidate such as Biden.
Given your recent reflections on the apparent symbols and patterns of systems of power and control, it does read a little awkward for you to paint Putin's Russia in some sort of much darker light to the light of the United States. This isn't be dismissing the dark dealings and assassinations that happen in the Russia, but rather pointing out that the American system doesn't offer much different in that regard? Except maybe the illusion that we are in some "free" and "liberated" sphere due to what we can see with our limited vision.
All that's to say - I think you've cultivated a generally good following here, given the politeness in which your commenters disagree with this post. I personally don't have any dog in the race for the US election, but think the sort of bargaining that comes from "well if we don't vote Biden we get Trump" is the exact same force the dems employed in Hilary's campaign. It's a little awkward to watch it happen again, but hey, the Universe is all endless cycles and we're certainly living the inevitable destiny for the Western mind until that mind get's changed.
Hi Ibn, Thanks for your thoughts... as I always insist, I am open to changing my mind. But I do feel that the capacity to voice dissent as we have here is still a massive differentiator to Russia or China. Perhaps I can explain this via my personal history: I was able to publish Breaking Open the Head, on psychedelics, in 2002, when the subject was still legally and culturally taboo here, with a mainstream publisher. That would have been impossible in Russia or China or other dictatorships that repress freedom of speech etc. That book then helped start the psychedelic movement which is still moving... and impacting the world. This is why dictatorships end up looking to - and stealing - cultural, creative and technical innovations that tend to come from freer societies. I strongly believe from everything I have read that Putin is a psychopath who is happy to torture and kill anyone who stands in his way. He wants to recreate the Soviet Empire, which means eventually taking back Poland etc. I think history shows us that these kinds of people must be met with force. It doesn't mean our society is perfect. We have many problems. But I strongly disagree with RFK that Putin is acting in "good faith," and I think he is quite delusional about this and other topics. Biden is a tepid, sad, wonkish Democrat - I wish we had better options.
"One exciting and positive development, McKibben notes, is that renewable energy has become cheaper than fossil fuels. It is now technically feasible to engineer a rapid transition away from our dependence on fossil fuels....But the fossil fuel companies do not want it, and they own Trump who has promised to do their bidding."
If this is the case, that Western fossil fuel companies are holding back the energy transition, then why are India and China massively expanding coal usage while the US is curtailing it?
Also, I think this overly optimistic take on the ease of going fossil-fuel free needs a critical approach. We're not even close right now, and we need better answer's than McKibben's incessant blaming of oil companies, not to mention technical prototypes that might show how this is done, economically.
Yes, perhaps. But if we get it wrong, in this case, we could end up with shortages of energy as well as huge economic debt, both of which could conceivably cause much human suffering (and ecosystem degradation). And, if or when McKibben's claims prove to be exaggerations, then you further damage the credibility that you need, driving more polarization.
As Wendell Berry writes in his poem, Work Song: A Vision, "This is no paradisal dream.
Its hardship is its possibility." Up front, I think we need to face the hardship of our situation, not pipe dreams.
"dank despotic forces?"
Is it necessarily true that RFK Jr. will pull more from Biden than Trump? You present that as a fact, but I don't think that's factual. Nor do you discuss the value of third party candidacies in maybe opening up the political process in this country, and maybe bringing Dr. Pepper into the mix with Coke and Pepsi. I agree with you about the delusional egos at the core of his campaign, and yet, I'm pretty sure delusional egos lie at the heart of every campaign. The prospect of power tends to attract such people.
If the world wasn't burning down immediately, I would love legit third and fourth party candidates. Or if America could switch to Parliamentary systems or have ranked-choice voting. As it is, all RFK is going to accomplish is to hand the US over to Trump. And I do see value in some of the issues that RFK is raising, particularly around chemicals and food additives and human health, and also about corporate capture. This is a triage situation where we have to deal with Putin and stop him from taking over Ukraine and continuing to push West, and we have to massively accelerate the shift to renewable energy so we don't totally fry ourselves. I think it is quite possible that Biden will move further Left as he will be at the end of his political career, and I also think his accomplishments have been under-promoted. Matt Stoller's piece is quite interesting: https://open.substack.com/pub/mattstoller/p/why-does-the-biden-white-house-hate?r=1mhh1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
As I've mentioned before, AI is truly the Code Red situation in the US and globally and I hope you start shifting gears to focus on that set of issues. https://nautil.us/building-superintelligence-is-riskier-than-russian-roulette-358022/
I agree that AI is also a massive threat that we don't want Trump involved with.
Agreed.
The massive shift toward renewable energy is happening and Trump winning won't slow that appreciably, as his first four year term did not slow it appreciably. The forecasts in my 2015 book, Solar: Why Our Energy Future Is So Bright, are coming true in spades. Solar is indeed taking over, and very quickly. Globally we're at 30% renewables now (with an increasing percentage of that from solar) and very likely will hit 80-90% by 2035 or so. https://www.tpr.org/news/2024-05-15/renewable-energy-generation-reaches-30-globally
Battery storage is growing at an absolutely massive pace in correlation with its plummeting price (in a beautiful virtuous cycle): https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/04/25/california-achieves-major-clean-energy-victory-10000-megawatts-of-battery-storage/
EV sales are zooming and will hit 50-60% of global new car sales probably before 2030 and then probably 80-90% of new car sals by 2035.
I strongly agree with your analysis Daniel, on all fronts. In Canada, support for green party candidates is high among voters who value nature and natural living (free from chemicals in the food supply and in pharmaceuticals,). Thus, being "green" comprises a slice of the left's "identity" pie, and may overlap with right-wing ideologies and explains some of RFK Jr.'s appeal). As a result, voters with green cores may cut diagonally through both the conservative/liberal divide. Politicians on either side must consider these complexities. Complex problems require complex solutions, not simple ones (H. Arendt). The issue of what gets put into our bodies, both intentionally and unintentionally, is at the naturalist-green core, (no pun intended:) of a cross-section of well-educated, ideal-type democracy seekers., who are adamantly green and will vote to stop the destruction of local ecosystems. These issues, like ecosystems, are interconnected. Yet, just as nature contains keystone species, politics contains trigger point issues. The job of the democrats is to figure out what these are, and persuade us, that this is the issue we must live or die by. May I suggest: No new oil and gas, as a chance for the future to have a future.
how is the world "burning down"?
Well... reduced agriculture in Europe due to floods and droughts, Colorado River now a trickle, no water left in Mexico City, huge forest fires every year, once in a century super storms every month... that kind of stuff. We were at 1.7 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels last year, unprecedented warming. Etc.
incredible that people still have to ask this. come and live in Spain (or Greece, or Italy, or loads of other places) this summer to see it burning for yourself
A second major confounding factor is solar forcing, which has been downplayed by IPCC for far too long. It is uncontroversially the case that solar forcing was responsible for almost all previous warming and cooling cycles. The debate has been over the relative role of solar forcing variation in the current cycle. This paper gives a good overview of that debate and I've become somewhat convinced, after following climate science for 30 years and being a green energy policy lawyer for 20 years, that there is a real debate here. https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/11/9/179
Your data are off. Recent data suggest 1.31 degrees above preindustrial: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/global-warming-accelerating-at-unprecedented-pace-study/ar-BB1nFDtw#:~:text=Wednesday%27s%20report%20found%20that%2C%20by%20the%20end%20of,El%20Nino%20weather%20phenomenon%20--%20taken%20into%20account..
But this is likely a significant exaggeration as peer-reviewed scholarship is steadily establishing that 40-50% of this signal is from a data artifact called the urban heat island effect, which stems from far too many global temp gauges being in or near large urban areas, which are much hotter due to activity, concrete, AC, etc. Here's an example for China and I'm happy to share more scholarship looking at the global picture: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/20/jcliD200118.xml
Hi Chris... I think RFK will pull more voters from Biden but will also pull voters from Trump... Trump agrees: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4589352-trump-seeks-to-give-boost-to-rfk-jr/
Tim Mellon, Trump backer, also believes that supporting RFK is the best way for Trump to win in November: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/20/rfk-jr-super-pac-gop-megadonor-00159021
Very well said. I guess I should have read your comment before posting my own very similar comments.
RFK Jr. is the only hope we have right now to break the two party system. Sure Trump is a menace but look at what Biden has done. We are on the verge of creating three regional wars if not a world war. Can anyone deny the takeover of our government by the military industrial complex? How does that make any sense for environmentalists. Take the blinders off. Biden is a disaster.
I don’t think Biden is such a disaster. The Inflation Reduction Act is quite hopeful. Putin attacking Ukraine or Hamas attacking Israel is not “us” creating regional wars.
Yes the military industrial complex is a massive structural problem.
Putin invading Ukraine is very much a direct result of US actions acting through NATO and unilaterally. I don't support what Putin did but it is a very understandable reaction to our encirclement and violation of non-NATO expansion agreements. As for Israel, it is quite reasonable to also lay that war at our feet b/c of unconditional diplomatic/military/financial support for Israel over the last 5 decades, creating a culture of complete denial and discompassion in Israel where they think somehow it's ok to dispossess an entire people of their land, freedom and livelihood for 80 years.
I disagree totally. There were no written-down agreements on NATO non-expansion, -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_in_Russia_regarding_the_legitimacy_of_eastward_NATO_expansion#:~:text=U.S.%20documents%20claim%20that%20agreement,only%20be%20made%20in%20writing -- while the Russians violated the signed Budapest memorandum, where Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in return for a security guarantee from Russia that it would never invade or attack. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
Really? Wikipedia is not an unbiased source or a credible one on political or public health issues. Have a look at this: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early Can you deny Ukraine is a proxy war? The US coup in 2014 and the killing of more than 10,000 ethnic Russians in the Donbass is what started the war in addition to NATO provocations. It's also been clearly stated by US military commanders that the goal is to weaken Russia militarily and politically.
Hi Roland last week I had dinner with two journalists who have been covering the Ukraine war for years, stationed in Kharkiv, Kiev, etc. One of them was captured by Russia in Donbas in 2014 and tortured. Both of them say with full confidence that this is not a proxy war and that the 2014 revolution was an organic expression of the Ukrainian determination to escape Russian influence and control which the vast majority of Ukrainians hate and many are giving their lives to prevent. What would it possibly take to convince you that you are wrong? And if nothing will, you must recognize you have either been brainwashed or you are an ideologue who has been trapped in one perspective.
That’s bullshit Tam! You don’t entrust the future of massive countries to some shoddy agreement that wasn’t written down. No idiot would do that. Meanwhile the Budapest Agreement is written signed and dated. I don’t know what is making people so determined to not see Putin for what he is: a homicidal monster who poisons his opponents or tortures them to death. He runs a giant country with no freedom of speech or dissent. He is actually that kind of dictator who does exactly these kinds of things like unprovoked invasion out of egotism, because he has an ideal of the great Russian empire and sees himself as a historic messianic figure of some sort.
Why was my previous "comment removed"? This is highly disturbing if you removed this. Second, Jeff Sachs gave a tour de force interview recently that clearly and as succinctly as possible explains how the US did indeed, for 30 years, provoke Putin. As he makes clear he does not (and nor do I) in any way support Putin's invasion. But understanding it from Russia's position is quite different than supporting it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS-3QssVPeg&t=2s
It’s not a war because Palestine is not fighting back. Well, sometimes Hamas does. But definitely Israel is the ‘attacker’ in this case. Palestine is not really defending itself. It doesn’t matter how many times Hamas attacks Israel, the Israel dome shield prevents anything from reaching Israeli territory.
Yeah I’ve heard Biden has been more progressive than any of the recent Democrats. The economy is not doing that bad whatever that means, maybe wages have improved hopefully. It seems. The Palestine/Israel issue hasn’t helped and has made him less popular.
Hope of what exactly? He seems better than Trump and Biden, and his vice presidential candidate was born right at the heart of the robot that is killing us.
Really? Want to talk about where people are born. How about the hope for a president not beholden to corporate interests, the medical and military industrial complex and a lifelong environmentalist. Biden is a lost cause. He will lose to Trump all on his own.
Hi Roland, I can understand having bitter / sour grapes feeling about US politics etc... but if Trump wins, we will get this: https://msmagazine.com/2024/02/08/project-2025-conservative-right-wing-trump-woke/
So I think rather than being cynical it would be better to get active as nothing is "Set in stone" yet. Biden can certainly still win, but if we act as though a Trump victory is certain, we may help make that horrifying prospect our reality.
I don't think it's really cynical to recognize the reality that Biden has little to offer except that he's not Trump. I don't think a Trump victory is certain, especially if people wake and realize he's no answer to the nation's or the world's problems. But the more time passes, the more I think Biden can't defeat Trump. That's where RFK comes in. Polls among Independents show that he can beat both of them, that is if the a majority of the voting public would actually get out and vote. As for the MS article, those issues are for our representatives, and again for voters to hold their feet to the fire and decide who will represent them if they actually get out and vote.
Biden IS a disaster, a trainwreck, a tragedy...
It’s great that you’re bringing this subject up Daniel because no one seems to want to talk about RFKj.
I would love to argue about this with you and anyone else, but my requirement would be to watch every video that’s on the campaign website, and there are a bunch of videos on his application that you can download. I’ve been listening to The Real Anthony Fauci and the Wuhan cover-up and I am considering Getting the books because of the resources that I would like to have access to. One caveat is that his writing is a little dramatic sometimes, but I’m going for the sources. I believe the books were well researched and there are documents to back them up and he hasn’t been sued so that’s saying something. I am unwilling to talk to anybody about this who hasn’t done their own research or listened to the guy actually speak because so many people hear someone else talk about him and honestly as you know perfectly well, his character is been assassinated, successfully! No longer do you have to take a gun to someone’s head all you have to do is utilize the media. I don’t trust the media. I think there’s a lot more going on under the surface that we are not privy to having to do with oil access and land rights. Another book that I’m reading is called the war on truth 9/11 disinformation and the anatomy of terrorism by Nafeez Mosaddek Ahmed. Also, a lot of good resources attached , You might want to read that one.
While Biden has been doing some good things, I really don’t know if I can vote for him and I’m super tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, as a lot of your people probably are. We need to break out of this two party system. I don’t think Biden is going to win, But I do think that RFKj is going to take a lot of Trump voters away from him so it remains to be seen what kind of an agitator RFKj is really going to be.
The fact that his family doesn’t support him doesn’t surprise me when those speaking out against him work for the government. One of his cousins from the Shriver side has endorsed him since he’s smart capable. He doesn’t agree with everything Bobby says and neither do I especially on Israel Palestine. But I do think he’s antiwar and I do think he would support Palestinian autonomy. RFKj says one of the first things he would do is release Snowden and Julian Assange because he believes that they are heroes-uncovering secret documents that implicate the governments dirty deeds. He believes the CIA killed his uncle and his father and so he’s very dangerous for the US government.
The road that led me to RFK is an interesting one because it’s a personal discovery that I made about my late aunt Diane, who was a campaign worker for RFK in 1968. Five days before the election she was reassigned to babysit Bobby’s kids at the Beverly Hills hotel during the ca primary election. She was with David watching TV when his father was shot. I’m in the midst of developing a screenplay about the story. Anyway, that discovery led me into a deep dive researching all things having to do with the assassination, which lead me to a mountain of interesting material and made me look at the current Bobby running for president. I was like you during Covid, skeptical of him as a person because of what I was hearing but I don’t think he’s as bad and stupid as you’re making out to be. I think he’s smart and speaks truth to power which nobody wants to hear. And I don’t believe the polls and neither should you, look at the Clinton Trump disaster.
Thanks for your thoughts here! I have interviewed RFk and was very surprised by his defensiveness, really didn't like being challenged, and also it turns out he doesn't even support polio and MMR vaccines which I believe to be significant medical advances that saved many lives. I ended up feeling he was oddly delusional. I then read the Fauci book and reviewed it for my newsletter. He makes good points but there is a lot of distortion and as you say dramatization. I would say he definitely will not win so a vote for him in any seriously contested state is a vote for Trump. I would agree this lesser than two evils thing is utter BS but unfortunately we are in a triage situation with Putin and also with the need to move the needle on the shift to renewable energy. RFK's current positions have gotten weired on climate as he is sort of sounding like a climate change denialist, I guess hoping to woo Right Wing votes. I have watched a lot of his talks, listened to his podcasts, etc. I think RFK is a dangerous candidate who will throw the election to Trump unless people wake up quickly.
Aren't you overlooking something of crucial significance?
Trump's probably going to win (unless there's electorial interference), with or without RFK in the mix, because Joe Biden is SENILE. He's clearly suffering from DEMENTIA and has been for some time. People aren't going to vote for someone who clearly and unmistakably isn't even making any of the policy decisions attributed to him as a pure figurehead. Talk about the Biden ADMINISTRATION all you want, but please don't talk about Biden HIMSELF as if he's doing anything but walking on camera and stumblingly reciting lines fed to him. If the Democrats can't find a more suitable presidential candidate than Biden, that's their own fault and failing, not RFK's.
If Trump wins, we get this: https://msmagazine.com/2024/02/08/project-2025-conservative-right-wing-trump-woke/
That would be horrible.
Hence I suggest we all shake off our cynicism and work together to make sure he doesn't win.
Biden has had a lifelong challenge with stuttering, and of course his challenges with speech are getting more exaggerated as he gets older. I don't find these soundclips of him stumbling over his words to be validation that he is senile.
He's never had a stutter. Listen to him talking decades ago. This is dem-mythology. He's an immoral, mumbly, mentally vacant, ghoul. He doesn't deserve another term, but unfortunately if he doesn't get it, we all get worse, as the president of the US is the leader of the "free world."
Maybe dementia is too extreme a word, but he's clearly experienced a significant cognitive decline in recent years. Bottom line: you can't blame anyone for preferring either RFK or Trump to a candidate who is suffering a marked impairment: the way he is now, he can't possibly be running the country.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3whMmdISSRs
Well he is running the country and doing a better job of it than those other two would manage. Trump would be a disaster: https://msmagazine.com/2024/02/08/project-2025-conservative-right-wing-trump-woke/
I agree completely that if Trump wins it's the Democrat's own fault. But...that's not something we should all be punished for, and that's what will happen. I detest both of them equally, but think Biden would be a better choice for all the reasons Daniel has mentioned. There is hope to turn things around in the future, if Biden wins. If Trump wins, the Orcs have a lock on power...forever!
Either way Daniel our mission doesn't change in fact if Trump is elected our mission will be like rocket fuel and he will probably be removed immediately
Even a greater reason to come forward together with a much a better plan . We truly need to create something like that U on canned goods , a new endorser symbol, that when you see it you truly know good is happening for the greater good.
It truly comes down to how we nurture ourselves, our brains. The Majority never ever get nurtured enough to allow such an experience to occur.
We need to fully expose how we are breeding humans in such an unhealthy way. It's know wonder why , the inhabitants of this earth do the things they do.
I did create a plan - it is in my book, How Soon Is Now.
Just ordered it ! Via Amazon hope that's ok
ok with me!
What are you referring to in terms of RFK and climate science?
I will write about this soon, but essentially, he has embraced climate denial rhetoric (like "Climate change is being used to control us through fear") to woo Right Wing voters but his position is now extremely murky... https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4604949-kennedys-ex-colleagues-drop-bid/
https://blueprint.app.box.com/s/3mjeus2oz7j25265zs4e1tkngm1ryyca
Sierra Club letter : https://centeractionfund.org/wp-content/uploads/An-Open-Letter-from-National-Environmental-Organizations.pdf
"Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is not an environmentalist. He is a dangerous conspiracy theorist and science denier123 whose agenda would be a disaster for our communities and the planet.
He may have once been an environmental attorney, but now RFK Jr. is peddling the term “climate change orthodoxy”4 and making empty promises to clean up our environment with superficial proposals.5 The truth is, by rejecting science, what he offers is no different than Donald Trump.
In the fact-free world that both he and Trump live in, objective reality simply does not exist. Their policy platforms are instead driven by what will benefit Big Oil67 and the greedy corporations that fund them. We know, however, that environmental progress depends on following scientific fact and putting people over politics.
With so much at stake, we stand united in denouncing RFK Jr.’s false environmentalist claims. We can’t, in good conscience, let him continue co-opting the credibility and successes of our movement for his own personal benefit."
"In the fact-free world that both he and Trump live in, objective reality simply does not exist. Their policy platforms are instead driven by what will benefit Big Oil67 and the greedy corporations that fund them. We know, however, that environmental progress depends on following scientific fact and putting people over politics."
I don't believe Charles Eisenstein would happily work on the campaign of a person who doesn't care about the environment at all. Sounds like that quote was taken out of context -- not a claim that he's not concerned about the environment but that he intends to try novel solutions, not failing strategies that haven't worked.
RFK is getting big money from the same people who back Trump like Tim Mellon ... https://www.reuters.com/world/us/key-trump-donor-mellon-gives-rfk-jr-super-pac-5-million-more-2024-05-20/
Charles is very naive on one level, on the other level, he is an Ivy League boy - I think Harvard - and they tend to gravitate toward power and influence, even if he has taken a round about route to get there... power is very seductive.
Well, you should have an online discussion with Charles about this! Are you still friends, still in contact with him? It might be a fruitful dialogue as in so many ways you're extremely similar in your worldviews, politics, philosophy, but in other respects are very divergent. I'd happily watch if you set something up. I mean, this is a pretty central thing: the environment (i.e. Gaia) has been Eisenstein's primary concern as a writer from Day One, I simply can't believe he'd still stay on with RFK if RFK is indifferent (especially considering Eisenstein already vehemently disagrees with RFK's stance in regards to Israel/Gaza).
I’m interested in that as well.
I wholeheartedly concur. Trump forces are behind the RFK candidacy and stand to gain if he is on the ballot. A Trump victory would end American democracy and do grievous harm to all organisms on the planet but for white Russian and American Christian males. Biden is the ecosocialist you seek, just a light version. With him we got a Green New Deal, just not the optimally sized one. All progress begins with the defeat of Trump by Biden in November. Many of your readers are immersed in esoteric belief systems that, without pragmatic oversight, could lead them to seek "alternative" solutions like RFK or even Trump. I reject the Pepsi/Colke faux binary framing you're espousing. Trump is toxic poison, undrinkable, while Biden is watered down ginger ale. With Biden we have a chance. With Trump (or RFK) it's over.
Thanks Charles!
I enjoyed this post. It was a provocation, in a good way. Your views are clearly stated, don’t necessarily align with those of your readers, and elicit debate and discussion.
Your views that I find most confounding surround the Ukraine war. Do you agree that the conflict has a history and cannot simply be reduced to “Putin is evil?” That western leaders have undertaken no serious efforts at negotiations? That a war with Russia right on its border entails a risk of terminal nuclear war, especially if the west ever gets close to a military “victory”? That wars like this accelerate environmental catastrophe? That the billions of dollars we’ve sent to military corporations to fuel this war would have been better spent on any number of domestic projects? That there are other relevant historical precedents to consider besides Nazi germany and the policy of appeasement?
One last thing for your consideration. Below is a link to a very short letter written by 50 foreign policy experts to Bill Clinton in 1997 on the topic of NATO expansion. You’ll find it about half way down this webpage. I find it extraordinarily prescient, do you?
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/arms-control-today/opposition-nato-expansion
There was no written, signed agreement that NATO would not expand, it is mainly conjecture that this was said. However read about the Budapest Memorandum: Russia guaranteed Ukraine's security in return for its nukes. The Russians are the ones who have broken their obligations etc. Also America guaranteed Ukraine's security if it was attacked, which is where we are now. And America is not coming through.
It's surprising that you didn't address the rest of Dragonfly's comments. Indeed, your overall analysis appears to rest on a contradiction: You say you are fundamentally concerned about the climate emergency, and yet you advocate an interventionist foreign policy that would seem to risk precipitating a new world war, which would of course be the ultimate ecological catastrophe, not to mention the ongoing ecological impact of current wars. At the very least, your analysis should include an articulation of how you think such intervention somehow won't increase the risk of world war, or why you think such risk is acceptable. And I recommend noting well the analyses of Noam Chomsky, who has been clear-eyed about the risks of both climate change and nuclear war. An ecologically sound approach to solving global conflicts wouldn't have to be pure appeasement, but it probably would look significantly different that Biden's approach.
yes I don't think we are at a point where we can be isolationist. So whatever we do, we will be intervening. What I would do if I was Biden is seriously hash things out with China, try to figure out a scenario where we are not at each other's throats. Then isolate Russia until Putin dies or gets deposed. But I still don't think you can let China invade / takeover Taiwan. Another solution has to be found.
Yes. One upshot of the current approach to Russia has been to drive Russia and China together. It is unclear what the long-term game plan is and thus the strategy appears reckless. It's easy to make the case for why we should defeat Putin but harder to outline a long-term game plan for achieving that outcome with minimal collateral damage. The US role has been to favor military engagement over negotiation without a clear strategy for victory.
Thanks for the reply. Yes, nukes in return for security. But since the early 1990s, there was a very clear understanding that NATO would not expand the way it ultimately did.
Yet Russian leadership tolerated nearly all of the subsequent expansion, but has long drawn a very clear line at Ukraine. Russian and western diplomats are completely clear on this matter (see 2008 William Burns memo “nyet means nyet”: https://x.com/wikileaks/status/1755760562946916494).
So what does our leadership do? Keep insisting on NATO membership to Ukraine. And what finally happens? Russia invades Ukraine.
And thats when the true absurdity of the situation was laid bare: now that Russia attacked, have we permitted Ukraine to join NATO? Of course not! Russia has nukes! We’re not about to start world war 3 and a possible nuclear war over Ukraine!
There is NO way Ukraine is winning this war. I think Lucas used the perfect word: contradiction. There are many among those who think we should keep fighting this insane war.
There is only one sane course of action: an immediate ceasefire and negotiations.
“A very clear understanding” is meaningless… if it was a treaty it would be written down, signed and witnessed.
You’re hammering the point about a written agreement. I agree it wasn’t written down. You’re right! Is that the whole basis of your argument? Do you think NATO expansion for the last 30+ years was a good thing? If so just say it. Do You think we should have big nuclear armed NATO block on Russias border? Is that good for the world? A world based on apocalyptic weaponry and deterence, good guys and bad guys: Is that your vision for a sustainable future?
There was the possibility of another path, particularly in the 1990s, where peaceful relations could have been developed. Unfortunately the west doubled down on a militaristic approach by expanding NATO.
All of this is doubly insane because both sides can blow up the world, and there’s no amount of force the other side can exert to stop it. Force is simply not the answer.
Finally do you really want to get into an argument over US behavior and written treaties? Including those we’ve signed and those we haven’t?
I think we’re beating this argument to death, so I promise to stop now (if you want the last word). Thanks for engaging.
Obviously I do not think we should have nuclear armed super powers at each other's throats. I do think we are in a global battle between dictatorships / totalitarianism and (flawed, problematic, turbulent) liberal democracy, which protects some of our ability to protest, have free speech, and so on. I don't think we can simply lay down our weapons and weave daisies into the hair-weaves of Putin and Xi Ping, have them sing "Imagine" with us and dissolve all the weapons in a love-puddle. They have agendas and goals which are antithetical to ours.
I do recognize that "liberal" / progressive Democratic society is also trending toward totalitarian surveillance and thought-control via for instance social media and algorithms. The situation is dark, messy, perhaps fatal. I also know about the many disasters of US foreign policy including horrible wars etc. I just don't think any other country would have done better in our shoes after WW2 and many would have done far worse.
As for treaties, think about business: I don't go into business with someone who makes me vague promises to never do something - I get it written down and signed. Otherwise I get screwed as in fact I have in the past because I was too trusting. We are talking about massive countries - Super powers - if the guarantees are not turned into contracts, treaties, they are just meaningless talk. That would be obvious to all participants as even treaties can be violated as Russia has done with the Budapest Memorandum.
But Putin is not going to stop fighting because we do so that just means surrendering which Ukraine can’t do.
Thanks. I grant your point that it was never written down and signed. Maybe we can reasonably debate whether there was a clear cut mutual understanding to not expand NATO. But it’s abundantly clear that US leaders knew how important the matter was to Russia — reasonably so — and didn’t much care.
I happen to agree with the 50 foreign policy experts from 1997 whose memo I linked to. In my humble opinion, NATO expansion created a more militaristic and divided world. The insistence on Ukrainian membership was a crucial factor leading to the current war. And to top it off, the fact that its enemy can blow up the world renders NATO a hollow entity.
No political leader in their right mind would accept a "a clear cut mutual understanding" that wasn't written down as something that is going to be enduring as far as policy goes. NATO exists because all of those countries have a deep historical memory of Russian aggression going back centuries, and in fact, if Ukraine had been in NATO Putin would not have attacked.
I have a simple question for Daniel here. Biden and his administration are presently edging us towards direct war in Ukraine, and war against China, and you can see it plainly enough in articles like this one in Bloomberg where it's being casually laid out that the US and EU will have to spend at an additional $10 TRILLION dollars--beyond what we presently spend--in the next ten years to counter both China and Russia. These are declarations of intense international aggressiveness. If there is one world in which there is even the slightest possibility of dealing with the real emergency of climate change, then it is only a world where there is a modicum of international cooperation. That, I'm afraid is not at all the world that the Biden administration is envisioning. A world at war, or a world angling to be at war, is not a world in which there is going to be any progress in protecting the planet--or do you magically think somehow differently? To me, the aggressiveness of this administration is so clear that I find it actually strange to be so passionately defending it as the last great hope. It's not. It's more of the same, with just a terrifying level government surveillance and censorship thrown in for narrative and crowd control. Or have I been living with a different admnistration than you have for the last four years?
Yes I agree we can’t have these wars anymore and ongoing escalation with China is a bad idea. On the other hand is the US supposed just let China subsume Taiwan and Putin subsume Ukraine? Won’t that mean that we are saying dictators anywhere can just take over democratic countries and rule them? Then there is no longer an international order and whoever has the strength rules as in ancient empire days, but much crueler and powerful with high tech now?
It's not like there's ever been anyone to stop USA from subsuming countries. Is a sly criminal better and different than a regular criminal? Who is going to stop the US? Are we, as Americans, better than the rest of the world to dominate the world with our personal moral values? Why isn't Russia, or China fit to do that? Perhaps no one is fit to do that. You either accept world domination by USA, and in turn globalism to curtain the world, or you accept that heavy diplomacy, not war, is the answer to dealing with "bad neighbors".
Watching from Europe I don't understand why a third party doesn't start with getting rooted firmly in local and then in state parliaments before going after the presidency.
well it isn't going to happen right now
I also grew up in NY and for the life of me can not understand the appeal of Trump- to me he is a disgusting gangster who cares not about the public but for his own pocketbook- it’s so obvious and he can’t even speak well in public- he’s like a cartoon character- i feel like we’re living in a twilight zone episode-
So maybe I’m again in denial that such a creep can win AGAIN although I do think there was some shady shit that lead to his victory… needless to say, I appreciate your organizing and starting good conversations we need a revolution and by the way, it’s in the stars/planets check the astrology🕊️
he can win again and if he does we will get this - https://msmagazine.com/2024/02/08/project-2025-conservative-right-wing-trump-woke/
I totally agree with you apart from the 'shady shit' - unfortunately enough people are just that deluded. And others are just angry enough to press the 'blow it all up' button even though they don't trust DT.
The US has consistently empowered despots who they can easily control. Nothing will fundamentally change under a second Trump presidency.
It's all democracy theater and always has been. Show me where the people have any real voice? Corporate lawyers are writing legislature and politicians barely know what they are voting for. Declaring any of this the will of the people is delusion.
I resonate with this too
Thank you Daniel for your perspective. Here’s one from Finland. I have been worried about how Americans especially in the Left see current Russia and Putin. If anyone still sees Putin as a sincere man, I highly recommend getting to know Jessikka Aro’s work and latest book Putin’s Trolls (2022). Aro is an immensivly brave Finnish investigative journalist and she has gotten to experience personally the dark tactics that aim to silence and scare people from seeing the truth about his operation to take down Western democracies. I understand that Americans are frustrated with their political system, but please see that this time your enemy’s enemy is not your friend but your worst nightmare. https://www.harvard.com/book/putins_trolls/
book looks very good! I don't think most Americans understand how Putin has infiltrated their mind-space.
Infiltrating the mind-space is very good expression here. What you said also brought back memories from the weeks before the Russian invasion started in 2022. I think there’s also an occult/spiritual dimension to this infiltration. As the tension grew on the Ukrainian borders, I needed to understand things from esoteric perspective. I started reading Gary Lachman’s Return of the Holy Russia and saw a series of precognitive dreams about the invasion. During this time I realized that I had also myself dwelled in a spiritual bubble, that had a very a Russian flavour and symbolism to it. I guess it comes partly from the silver age mystics and philosophers who had much influence in the West, partly from discovering the lost aspects of the Goddess, which I think archetypally governs the ’Russian Soul’. Putin’s attack was a spiritual wake up call for me, time to reckon with the shadow of the divine feminine. It also woke me up to see what is valuable and worth preserving in our western culture. I think Putin can actually be our ”savior”, if we raise to the challenge he has thrown at us.
Representative democracy is and has been for most of US history, a farce. No candidate will change the incentive landscape we currently live in. There is zero correlation between will of the people and legislation. We have used more fossil fuels every year, regardless of renewable growth. We throw away half our food. Every ChatGPT inquiry uses up 16oz of drinking water. This system is on runaway trajectory for self termination, undeniably.
We have to start operating within a new system of human organization, not desperately trying to change a machine that is diametrically opposed to holistic change. No one knows what that new system will be (it won't be anything that has been tried already), but it won't have extractive capitalism as it's main operating function.
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." - Bucky Fuller
I agree. I actually tried to build an alternative social infrastructure over a decade ago with Evolver: We had a media platform, an open-source social network, and 60+ local community groups exploring transformative ideas and implementing stuff like local currencies and permaculture. Sadly we couldn't raise the needed funding and also experienced various other issues that blocked it. I am entirely ready to go for it again as soon as someone offers to support it. So yes let's build a new society outside of the current system but let's also try to slow down the collapse by not voting in Trump who is the stooge of the Heritage Foundation who have a highly developed plan to move us into Fascism ASAP.
@danielpinchbek I believe that you have soaked up a lot of the fear mongering and alarmism over the the state of the world and the effects of climate change.
Unfortunately we live in a world where the government and the mainstream media are promoting fear based sensationalism to keep the populace afraid and compliant.
It might be worth a deeper look, including looking at sources that you don’t tend to always favour. When you get caught up in your echo chamber you rarely get the whole picture.
Hi David, I have looked and continue to explore a wide range of sources including James Corbett, fringe denialists of warming etc. Based on my research and carefully reflection and study, I concur with the vast majority of scientists who agree we are in an ecological emergency with rising CO2 levels causing accelerating warming plus many other feedback loops contributing to breakdown.
Are you agreeing with their opinion or with actual research results?
A big part of the problem is people following the narrative rather than the actual results.
Mainstream alarmists are just as much of a problem as fringe denialists. I believe the truth lies somewhere in the murky middle.
Well I think the scientific evidence is extremely convincing. I have experienced the world getting warmer as we all have. We know what ppm of CO2 does to the atmosphere - and we put 1 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every hour. The only reason we are still arguing about this is because of oil company disinformation ,and we know they knew the truth decades ago, decided to hide it for short-term mega-profit and probably now fear being tried for crimes against humanity.
Not sure which “take on the media” you are responding to?
I think your take on the media is almost exactly opposite of what I’ve seen over the last several decades. There has been little to no “fear mongering” at all over global warming oops I meant “climate change.”
Have you seen the movie Don’t Look Up? It’s a pretty accurate (and funny and sad) depiction of how the media has downplayed the existential crisis that we are actually facing.
Only in the last few years, as climate disaster after disaster has hit enough people so that they actually notice with their own senses, has the media started dutifully reporting on it.
If this would have happened in the eighties, if enough people took it seriously and demanded government and corporations do something to transition to green energy, maybe we wouldn’t find ourselves on our current, dire, trajectory.
We don’t need hopium. We need clearheaded leadership to guide a confused and scared population to do what we humans are really good at: survival.
We vote, they count. Three privately-owned computer voting machine companies count 90% of the vote with privately-owned, proprietary software in SECRET, and beyond public inspection. You could not prove voting machines aren't paper shredders. It's faith-based voting, and both parties know and are complicit. The fake election Kabuki theater is meant to distract and divide for the next 8 months. What we are NOT supposed to know about is what Pfizer and the FDA tried to hide for 75 years until a federal judge ordered release of the data:
https://vigilantfox.news/p/dr-naomi-wolf-uncovers-pfizers-depopulation
Well I wouldn’t believe everything you read in Naomi Wolf either. But yes it seems quite likely that the 2016 presidential election was tilted to Trump by rigged voting machines controlled by Right Wing Christian fanatics (I believe the company is called Dominion - kind of gives itself away in the title).
Naomi Wolf assembled a team of thousands of scientists, doctors and statisticians to examine what Pfizer wanted to hide, and a judge ordered released. I sent a video, not something to read. Take a listen - it's short, and devastating.
Hmm I think you may want to look at Wolf through some other perspectives. I recommend Naomi Klein's Doppelganger for a thorough refutation. Here is another look: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/10/naomi-wolf-klein-doppelganger-book/675120/ ... I am sure you recall how she was publicly humiliated and her publisher was forced to pulp her last mainstream effort? After that she has retreated to the conspiratorial shadows where there is no possibility of criticism because, you know, "they" control the media etc. I think she is trash to be honest. Hope you will go deeper.
Naomi Wolf is quoting Pfizer documents. Where are the "conspiratorial shadows"? Won't YOU go deeper and respond to what she revealed in the short video?
So a number of things here can be separated out. I agree the mRNA vaccines were leaky and cause human health consequences in some proportion of the population. I don't like the way people have been cajoled into continuing to take boosters and I think some deaths are a result of this, including among people I know. However I also think Covid has been a real disease and a real killer and I still think it is possible that the vaccines saved more lives than have been lost, particularly among the elderly. However this is not the only vector on which to pick the president. We also have to consider the response to Putin and global despotism / demogoguery, and the need to accelerate renewable energy 100X. RFK is now talking "free market" Libertarian BS as his answer to the ecological catastrophe we are facing. I am not swooning over Biden but I do think he has been better than people think - somehow it is fun to despise him. I recommend re-thinking and reflecting. If Trump wins, the Heritage Foundation (Koch funded) has prepared a thorough takeover plan for America. See other comments for link.
The new fangled "vaccines" are killing more people than all vaccines ever recorded on VAERS. Tens of thousand of injuries, thousands of deaths. Enough disabled to constitute a national emergency.
Biden mandated them to everyone, not just the vulnerable elderly. FFS, the average age of death is around 80, so why experiment on children whose risk is so small as to be unmeasurable. As to how deadly the mRNA shots are you need to look at "excess deaths" (see Edward Dowd) and this is ongoing. You may not have heard - they ones foisted on people against their will have dangerous levels of DNA left over from manufacture. Look at dropping birth rates and they are ongoing. An eight year old died of a heart attack post jab. Can you see how serious this poison is in terms of deaths and unknown long term risks? It has begun, but you perhaps want not to look?
Ahh...I just read this after I posted my comment! Darn.
You need more Naomi Klein and less Naomi Wolf in your personal library!😄
As does everyone!
Wolf is another virus mythologizer against clot shots.
Eric,
I trust you are up to date with your shots, and just got CDC recommended booster number 9. Or have you become an "anti-vaxxer"?
Anti-vaxer? Me, no. I just don't involve myself in corporate-sponsored mass poisoning incidents except to write about them. The death count on the covid shots is absurd — more reported deaths to CDC the first year than for all other vaccine products combined the prior 30 years.
Yes, the mass poisoning incident is troubling, especially since so few know about it thanks to the massive US government/internet censorship exposed in the "Twitter files."
A slow moving global democide is hiding in plain sight. When Slovakia's prime minister decided to investigate the covid psyop, and publicly came out against the new WHO totalitarian takeover - the only Western leader that did - he was shot 5 times (and lives). Little factoids like these are just "conspiracy theories." Like the suspicious deaths of five African leaders who rejected the vaccines that are now maiming and killing millions. Gee, are we messing up this thread? Hah.
Daniel is an erudite person. I'm surprised the "missing virus" problem didn't get as far as his desk. But you have to jump through a hoop of fire to see it for what it is.
Even if there's only terrain, or only viruses or both, the greatest takedown of basic human rights is inescapable to those with open eyes. Most people don't know what's going on yet but the hearings in the House are ripping down the curtains.
I'm a bit troubled about your views on Ukraine/Russia/Putin. Truth is, I'm a bit troubled about my own views, which seem to wobble around.
I'm pretty convinced that the U.S. through NATO provoked this whole crisis. There were opportunities to de-escalate NATO's offensive posturing towards Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union as many foreign policy experts advised. Instead there was continual expansion right up to Russia's borders. You know all that, right?
Then again, Putin is an autocrat and a bully, an awful person with militarist tendencies. He did invade Ukraine.
Is the solution war? Are all alternatives "appeasement?" What's the end game here, as it looks more and more that after all the death and destruction, Ukraine is not "winning" the war?
You can turn this around and see that the reason every eastern country wanted to join NATO is because they have deep historic memory of Russian aggression. It is Putin who wanted this war as he was doing totally fine without it. Nobody was going to invade Russia with their 6000 nukes. Everyone just wanted their gas.
Not wanting weapons aimed at you from close range is something all nations, especially big powers, tend to care a lot about. There were multiple forces wanting this war. War is not the answer.
War is the answer for Putin right now
And apparently for you to fight him off. So, perhaps war is the answer to you in some cases?
I haven't followed you for long Daniel, but I have been consuming your recent string of consciousness quite regularly. This post and the response to comments here is a bit of an enigma to me. I can recognize the fear, frustration and anxiety that comes with the uncertainty of the future of the United States (and the planet), and how one might pin their sanity onto some level of predictability that comes with a candidate such as Biden.
Given your recent reflections on the apparent symbols and patterns of systems of power and control, it does read a little awkward for you to paint Putin's Russia in some sort of much darker light to the light of the United States. This isn't be dismissing the dark dealings and assassinations that happen in the Russia, but rather pointing out that the American system doesn't offer much different in that regard? Except maybe the illusion that we are in some "free" and "liberated" sphere due to what we can see with our limited vision.
All that's to say - I think you've cultivated a generally good following here, given the politeness in which your commenters disagree with this post. I personally don't have any dog in the race for the US election, but think the sort of bargaining that comes from "well if we don't vote Biden we get Trump" is the exact same force the dems employed in Hilary's campaign. It's a little awkward to watch it happen again, but hey, the Universe is all endless cycles and we're certainly living the inevitable destiny for the Western mind until that mind get's changed.
Hi Ibn, Thanks for your thoughts... as I always insist, I am open to changing my mind. But I do feel that the capacity to voice dissent as we have here is still a massive differentiator to Russia or China. Perhaps I can explain this via my personal history: I was able to publish Breaking Open the Head, on psychedelics, in 2002, when the subject was still legally and culturally taboo here, with a mainstream publisher. That would have been impossible in Russia or China or other dictatorships that repress freedom of speech etc. That book then helped start the psychedelic movement which is still moving... and impacting the world. This is why dictatorships end up looking to - and stealing - cultural, creative and technical innovations that tend to come from freer societies. I strongly believe from everything I have read that Putin is a psychopath who is happy to torture and kill anyone who stands in his way. He wants to recreate the Soviet Empire, which means eventually taking back Poland etc. I think history shows us that these kinds of people must be met with force. It doesn't mean our society is perfect. We have many problems. But I strongly disagree with RFK that Putin is acting in "good faith," and I think he is quite delusional about this and other topics. Biden is a tepid, sad, wonkish Democrat - I wish we had better options.
It does seem the boat is sinking., basically.
"One exciting and positive development, McKibben notes, is that renewable energy has become cheaper than fossil fuels. It is now technically feasible to engineer a rapid transition away from our dependence on fossil fuels....But the fossil fuel companies do not want it, and they own Trump who has promised to do their bidding."
If this is the case, that Western fossil fuel companies are holding back the energy transition, then why are India and China massively expanding coal usage while the US is curtailing it?
Also, I think this overly optimistic take on the ease of going fossil-fuel free needs a critical approach. We're not even close right now, and we need better answer's than McKibben's incessant blaming of oil companies, not to mention technical prototypes that might show how this is done, economically.
Sometimes over optimism serves a good political function.
Yes, perhaps. But if we get it wrong, in this case, we could end up with shortages of energy as well as huge economic debt, both of which could conceivably cause much human suffering (and ecosystem degradation). And, if or when McKibben's claims prove to be exaggerations, then you further damage the credibility that you need, driving more polarization.
As Wendell Berry writes in his poem, Work Song: A Vision, "This is no paradisal dream.
Its hardship is its possibility." Up front, I think we need to face the hardship of our situation, not pipe dreams.
Truly, I hope BK is right.