0:01

Hello everyone. Today I'm speaking with writer,

0:03

attorney, environmentalist, and 2024

0:14

presidential

0:22

candidate

0:23

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. We

0:25

discuss how the Democratic Party

0:28

has become one of fear and ideology.

0:31

Its inexplicable conclusion with

0:33

legacy media and big pharma. How

0:36

the COVID-19 pandemic became

0:39

an issue of tribal allegiance. The use

0:41

of the doomsday climate narrative for political

0:43

gains. What can actually

0:45

be done with renewable energy.

0:48

And why the era of Kennedy Democrats cannot

0:51

only be revived, but uniting

0:53

for Americans across boundaries, both physical

0:56

and philosophical. What

0:58

made you decide to throw your hat in the ring

1:00

on the presidency, for the presidency

1:03

at this point? Well

1:06

I saw the country going in a direction and

1:08

my political party going in a direction that

1:10

was very troubling to me.

1:13

You know, the country one really

1:16

needs a reboot.

1:18

But you know, the role

1:20

of my political party, I felt like

1:23

the Democrats kind of got derailed and became

1:27

the party suddenly and mysteriously

1:29

of war. When

1:30

they were always skeptical of the military industrial

1:33

complex, they became

1:35

the party of censorship, which is

1:37

abhorrent to every definition

1:39

of liberalism. They

1:41

became the party of fear, which is against

1:44

our traditions, Franklin

1:47

Roosevelt

1:50

in his 1932 inaugural address said that

1:52

the only thing that we have to fear

1:55

is fear itself. And he understood that fear

1:57

is a weapon of

1:59

of totalitarian elements

2:02

and totalitarian control. It

2:05

became the party of the

2:07

Neocons, which again was antithetical.

2:11

The Neocons were Republican, very,

2:13

you know, belligerent, pugnacious

2:16

foreign policy about subduing

2:19

the world and establishing

2:21

hegemony through violence. It

2:24

became the party of Wall Street.

2:26

President Biden has

2:28

surrounded himself with Wall

2:31

Street and, you know, the

2:34

party that had forgotten its roots in the middle class

2:36

of our country and started

2:38

regarding people,

2:41

you know, the cops, the firefighters,

2:43

the union

2:45

members, the people who were the bedrock of

2:48

the Democratic Party as deplorables.

2:52

And all of those trends and others

2:55

were,

2:56

were disturbing to me. And

2:58

I actually, Jordan started thinking

3:01

about running before

3:04

it was really viable, before I considered it viable,

3:07

but just to, you know, to be able

3:09

to take advantage of the fact that you're protected

3:11

somewhat from censorship if you're running

3:13

for president. There's actually federal

3:16

rules that make it illegal for the network

3:19

TV to censor presidential candidates.

3:23

But my wife would never have let me run for

3:26

president if it was

3:28

not a, you know, if I didn't intend to

3:31

win. And then last spring, a pollster named Jeremy

3:33

Zogby who

3:37

once runs one of the biggest polling

3:39

houses in North America and had been polling

3:41

me

3:44

without my knowledge for several

3:46

months, asked to

3:49

see me in a pollster.

3:51

Asked to see me and he

3:53

sat down with me and showed me the polling results

3:55

that showed a, you

3:58

know, a very clear path.

3:59

that I could have till victory.

4:02

And with those, I was able to over

4:05

time persuade my wife and my

4:07

kids that this was a good idea.

4:09

And I think at this point, they're pretty happy

4:12

with, you know, the last

4:14

two months. How

4:16

are you doing in the polls at the moment, as far

4:18

as you can tell with credible polls? Well,

4:21

the public poll, I average

4:23

about 20%,

4:25

which is good. I mean, my

4:27

candidacy is not being treated as

4:33

serious by the mainstream

4:35

media. I think maybe it is a little bit

4:37

more so, but it was originally dismissed as

4:39

kind of a fringe candidacy,

4:42

but I'm actually doing much better than

4:45

DeSantis, Governor DeSantis,

4:48

against Trump. I'm doing much better against

4:50

Biden. So I think

4:52

that that is just

4:54

a media bias. And

4:57

our internal poll

4:59

numbers are much, much better. And

5:01

I think the most significant

5:03

thing for Democrats over the long term

5:05

is that our internal

5:07

polls show that I

5:10

do much better against President

5:13

Trump than President Biden does. Oh,

5:16

I beat him by almost double the percentage

5:19

that President Biden does. And

5:21

I do even better against Governor DeSantis.

5:26

So, and I think that, you

5:28

know, if the public polling reflects

5:31

that, I think that that's gonna be

5:33

very persuasive to a lot of Democrats who

5:35

really see the, you

5:37

know, the election as just a battle

5:40

to keep Donald Trump from retaking the White

5:43

House again. And I think a lot of Democrats

5:46

who don't like me, I think

5:48

mainly because of the propaganda that

5:51

has

5:52

dominated the very, very negative propaganda

5:55

and negative portrayals of me and

5:58

the misinterpretations.

5:59

of

6:01

my viewpoints, which have dominated the

6:03

media and the public consciousness over

6:06

the past several years, that that

6:09

will begin to recede a little, the more that

6:11

people see of me, and the more that,

6:13

you know, if the polling shows that I

6:16

am more likely to be President Trump than President

6:18

Biden,

6:19

I think it will, it

6:22

will force a lot of Democrats to take a

6:24

second look at me. Why

6:27

do you think that people feel that

6:29

you might be a better alternative to Trump than

6:31

Biden is? Like, what is it about

6:33

what you bring to the table that's making you more

6:36

credible on that front? Well, I

6:38

think the reason my numbers show

6:41

that is that I've been able to

6:44

bridge the divide between Republicans and Democrats,

6:47

and a lot of my supporters, I have, I

6:50

think I do better than any candidate

6:52

with independence,

6:53

which are now the biggest political party, and

6:57

I appeal to a lot of Republicans

6:59

as well. And

7:01

so, and I don't think, you know,

7:04

President Biden can

7:06

do that, and if you just do the math, you

7:08

know, in the end, I'm gonna,

7:10

it's likely that I'll get almost all the Democrats

7:13

who vote, if I'm right, if it's

7:15

me against, let's say President Trump,

7:18

the likelihood is that most Democrats

7:20

would vote for me and that he will get very

7:23

little crossover, whereas

7:26

I will still get a lot of Republican votes,

7:28

and I'll dominate

7:30

the independent votes, and

7:33

I think that will continue. I

7:35

mean, that is not,

7:38

that observation or that is

7:40

not just an artifact of our polling,

7:43

but it's, you know, it's

7:45

reflected in conversations that I have

7:47

every single day of people approaching me

7:49

in airports, on airplanes,

7:53

you know, when I'm

7:55

doing, you know, when I'm in the countryside, which

7:57

I have to go to a lot in rural areas.

7:59

urban areas, I'm getting a

8:03

strong response and the response across

8:05

the board. So I think it's

8:08

a true, you know, the polling is reflecting

8:10

something that's really happening.

8:12

Right, well, it isn't obvious to me,

8:14

and this leads into another line of question, exactly

8:18

why you're running on the Democrat ticket,

8:21

because as you just

8:23

pointed out, your policies, at least in principle,

8:26

could appeal to Republicans as well, and that

8:28

might make you a unique candidate on the Democrat

8:31

side. I guess I'm curious

8:33

about

8:34

why do you, so

8:37

there's an analogy, I believe, between what's

8:39

happened to the universities and

8:42

what's happened to the Democrats. So what I saw

8:44

happen in the universities was that the

8:47

administration took over the faculty.

8:51

The faculty retreated in 3,000 microsteps, and

8:54

the administration moved forward, and that happened

8:57

over about a 25-year period until

8:59

the administration had captured the universities

9:02

completely. And then the DEI

9:04

types took over the administration.

9:07

And it looks to me like something analogous

9:09

happened within the Democrats. Like I worked with the

9:11

Democrats for a long time in California trying

9:13

to help the Democrats. By

9:16

DEI, you mean? Diversity

9:19

equity in the university. Oh, okay,

9:21

okay. Yeah, the social justice warrior

9:24

types within the universities. And so

9:27

what I saw among the Democrats

9:29

that I worked with was that they were unable to

9:31

draw a dividing line between the moderate

9:33

types and the radicals.

9:36

And this is something maybe I'll push you about. So for

9:39

example, I went to Washington, I talked to a lot

9:41

of Democrats, senators and congressmen,

9:43

about what I saw happening

9:46

in the broad public sphere, but also in the Democrat

9:48

party. And I asked them this question.

9:52

When does the left go too far?

9:54

And none of

9:56

them were able to answer. And even though it's

9:59

completely off. that the left can go too far.

10:01

I mean, that's one of the cardinal lessons of

10:03

the 20th century. And I suggested

10:06

that the left goes too far when it

10:08

pushes equity.

10:09

And all I got as a response from

10:11

the Democrats, senators and congressmen alike

10:13

was, well, the people who say

10:16

equity, they just mean equality of opportunity.

10:18

And that's not what they mean. They

10:21

mean equality of outcome. And that's not the same

10:23

thing at all. And I saw in that

10:25

inability to draw that distinction, part

10:28

of the reason that the Democrats have shifted

10:30

in the direction that you described, in the

10:32

direction that seems to be opposed in many

10:34

ways to the best interests of both the working

10:36

class and the middle class, but also

10:39

characterized by this incredible strain

10:42

of illiberalism and

10:44

corporate fascist collusion,

10:46

the sort of thing that you document, for example, in

10:48

the relationship between the power elites

10:51

and big pharma. And so my

10:53

sense on the Democrat side, I couldn't shift

10:56

the Democrats to the point, the ones that I was talking

10:58

to, to the point where they would draw a distinction between

11:00

them and the radicals.

11:02

It just didn't seem possible. And so why do

11:04

you think, I don't think the universities are salvageable,

11:06

by the way. So why do you think the Democrats

11:09

are salvageable?

11:10

Well, I don't think we

11:12

have a choice. We have a two-party

11:15

system and I, you

11:17

know, I'm a lifelong Democrat.

11:19

I feel like my party's being taken away

11:22

from me in some ways by

11:24

the, you know, the

11:26

kind of ideologies, the

11:28

extreme ideologies, and really,

11:30

you know, the departure of

11:33

common sense

11:36

that I think troubles you in

11:38

a lot of the things that you think about.

11:42

But I mean, why do I think it's

11:44

salvageable? Because I'm talking

11:46

to people on the street. You know, there are so

11:48

many people that

11:51

have responded to my candidacy

11:53

positively because they see it as

11:55

a return to, you know, being

11:58

a Kennedy Democrats.

11:59

the Democratic Party that they

12:02

loved and that

12:05

they thought reflected their values, their

12:07

ideologies, and their

12:10

best interests, and the best interests

12:12

of this country. And that was likely to build

12:15

an America that they can be proud of, that

12:17

their children can be proud of, that as

12:20

moral authority around the world, and

12:24

all the things that we'd like to see.

12:27

I think most people would like to see. I

12:29

think

12:29

the Democratic Party has been hijacked,

12:32

as you say, by some

12:34

extreme ideologies

12:36

and in some cases

12:39

kind of irrational thought

12:42

patterns. And

12:44

I think the idea of returning

12:48

it to common sense is

12:50

appealing to a lot of people. And I'm

12:53

just thinking those things, but

12:56

they seem to be reflected both in my

12:58

polling and in the kind of reaction I

13:00

get from people on the street and on Twitter.

13:02

So it's

13:05

a melange of things that makes me feel

13:07

that way, but I could be wrong.

13:10

Well, I mean, part of the reason that I was

13:12

willing to work with the Democrats to begin with,

13:15

and I did that for about five years, was because

13:17

I thought, I think like you do, according

13:20

to what you just said, that you kind

13:22

of have to work with the institutions that exist,

13:24

because those are the institutions that exist.

13:27

And there seems to be some utility

13:29

in trying to pull the Democrats,

13:31

let's say,

13:32

back towards the center as much as that's possible.

13:34

But I found that I think we

13:37

had some success in that regard. But

13:40

it was in particular the,

13:42

and I see this on the conservative side

13:44

too, by the way, with the unwillingness

13:46

to see, this is probably more true in Canada

13:48

even, what is really at the core

13:51

of this progressive ideology that

13:53

stresses equity, for example, because

13:56

equity is an unbelievably dangerous doctrine. And

13:59

as far as I can...

13:59

It's indistinguishable from the

14:02

sort of Marxist ideas that swept across

14:04

Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union

14:06

and China for that matter

14:09

in the 20th century. And that still prevail

14:11

certainly in China. And it isn't

14:13

obvious to me at all that the Democrats have taken this

14:16

with any degree of seriousness. And that's

14:18

producing all sorts of strange pathologies

14:21

on the cultural front. Now you've documented

14:23

a fair bit and this brings us into

14:25

another area that's adjacent

14:27

to that, I guess. You spent a

14:30

lot of time, your last book, Letter

14:32

to Liberals, I think I've got that title right,

14:35

concentrated on the strange

14:38

collusion that has occurred between

14:41

the Democrats and Big

14:43

Pharma. And this is also something I find

14:46

completely inexplicable. Like 20 years ago, if you

14:48

would have said that

14:50

in 2020, the

14:52

leftist types and the liberals, including

14:55

the Democrats would be colluding with Big

14:57

Pharma, people would have thought you were completely

14:59

out of your mind because for

15:01

an endless amount of time, the

15:03

number one corporate enemies of people

15:05

who were liberal or on the left were Big Pharma

15:08

and Big Energy. And so

15:10

how do you explain what happened in

15:12

relationship to the

15:15

liberal attitude towards Big Pharma during the

15:17

COVID epidemic? Because I haven't been able to sort

15:19

that out at all. What do you think's behind that? President

15:23

Trump recently issued a warning from his Mar-a-Lago

15:25

home. Quote, our currency is crashing

15:28

and will soon no longer be the world's standard, which

15:30

will be our greatest defeat, frankly, in 200 years.

15:34

There are three reasons why the central banks are dumping

15:36

the US dollar, inflation,

15:38

deficit spending, and our insurmountable

15:41

national debt. The fact is, there

15:43

is one asset that has withstood

15:45

famine, wars, and political and economic

15:47

upheaval dating back to biblical

15:49

times, gold. And you

15:51

can own it in a tax-sheltered retirement account

15:53

with the help of birch gold. That's right,

15:56

birch gold will help you convert an existing IRA

15:58

or 401k.

15:59

maybe from a previous employer into an

16:02

IRA in gold. The best part, you

16:04

don't pay a penny out of pocket. Just

16:06

text Jordan to 989898 for your free info kit. They'll

16:10

hold your hand through the whole process. Think

16:13

about this, when currencies fail, gold

16:15

is a safe haven. How much more time

16:18

does the dollar have? Protect your savings

16:20

with gold. Birch Gold has an A

16:22

plus rating with the Better Business Bureau and thousands

16:25

of happy customers. Text Jordan to 989898

16:28

to get your free info kit

16:29

on gold. Again, text

16:32

Jordan to 989898.

16:34

What's your biggest challenge?

16:40

Well, I watched that happen

16:42

kind of like a slow motion train wreck. And

16:45

you're right that traditionally

16:47

pharmaceutical industries are, it

16:49

is a criminal enterprise. And

16:52

I'm

16:53

not saying that lightly. The four

16:56

principal companies, Merck-Senofie,

16:59

Pfizer and Glaxo that produce,

17:01

for example, all the vaccines in America

17:04

have paid $35 billion collectively over

17:08

the last decade in criminal penalties

17:10

and damages for

17:13

lying to doctors, for defrauding

17:16

regulators, for falsifying science

17:19

and for killing hundreds of

17:21

thousands of people. I mean, all the opioid crisis

17:24

was engineered by the

17:27

Sacklers and by the other big pharmaceutical

17:30

companies along with

17:33

corrupt FDA officials.

17:36

And that is a crisis that now kills 100,

17:39

this year killed 106,000 American kids, twice

17:42

the number of kids that died during the 20

17:45

year Vietnam War. Vioxx

17:48

is another good example. That was another symptom

17:51

of the corrupt collusion between pharma

17:54

and the regulatory agencies and

17:57

the capture of those agencies by

17:59

that industry. which has become,

18:01

the agencies themselves have become sock

18:04

puppets for that industry. And

18:06

they killed between 120,000, 500,000 people with a drug they

18:08

marketed as a headache medicine and

18:15

an arthritis medicine when they knew

18:18

that it caused heart attacks. And they didn't tell

18:20

the public that. They concealed that

18:22

from the public. So, you know,

18:24

a lot of people would have said, oh, it

18:26

caused heart attacks? Well, I'll take an aspirin,

18:28

but they weren't allowed to make that

18:30

choice because the pharma

18:33

and the collusion, with the collusion of the

18:36

regulators, took

18:38

that information, deprived the public of informed

18:40

consent. Now,

18:44

the question is, Democrats

18:46

knew that there's more pharmaceutical

18:49

lobbyists on Capitol Hill than there are congressmen,

18:51

senators, and Supreme Court justices combined

18:54

more than any other industry. They give double

18:57

in terms of lobbying what the next biggest

18:59

industry gives. And, you

19:01

know, they, it's easy

19:04

for them to own congress still. There

19:06

was an ideological resistance among Democrats

19:09

until a decade ago and,

19:11

or really a decade.

19:15

What happened was that during,

19:18

Democrats are always starved for money,

19:20

for campaign money, because Republicans

19:23

can take money from dirty industries and

19:26

from, you know, sort of people, disreputable

19:29

people, you know, from

19:31

what, whether it's the

19:33

oil industry, the tobacco industry,

19:35

the NRA, or, you know, things that a

19:38

lot of Democrats consider

19:39

disreputable.

19:41

And they have unlimited money. The

19:44

Democrats traditionally could

19:47

only get big money, reliable big

19:49

money, from two sources. One was the

19:51

labor unions, and the other was the

19:53

trial lawyers. And they don't have anywhere

19:56

near the kind of money that, you know,

19:58

these industries have to give away.

20:01

And so something changed during

20:03

Obamacare. And that

20:05

was that the Obama

20:07

administration, and my uncle

20:10

Ted Kennedy was chairing as

20:12

Senate Health Committee at this time. So I watched

20:14

this whole thing very, you know, very

20:17

carefully and was disturbed at that time.

20:21

Because of the lobbying power of pharma, Obama

20:24

could not get Obamacare

20:26

passed without the cooperation

20:29

of the pharmaceutical industry. So he basically

20:31

had to make a golden handshake with the devil.

20:34

And the agreement they made was that, number

20:37

one, Obamacare is gonna benefit

20:39

you because it's gonna pay for all of your

20:41

products, the pharmaceutical drugs to Americans.

20:45

But, and here was the

20:47

key, we

20:49

will not bargain over

20:52

prices with you, which, you

20:54

know, Medicare used to do, the Canadian

20:56

government bargains when it, you know, provides

20:58

healthcare to Canadians. It

21:01

bargains against really good deals, which is why

21:03

Americans go to Canada to buy drugs

21:05

because they're, you know, they're much cheaper there.

21:08

But here they could pay the

21:11

top, they could charge the top rate

21:13

and the Obamacare would have to pay. And

21:16

that is how Obama got the pharmaceutical

21:19

industry's support, and after

21:21

that,

21:22

it became permissible for Democrats

21:25

to accept pharmaceutical money. The

21:28

pharmaceutical money began pouring into

21:30

the Democratic Party, but, you know, on

21:32

issues like vaccines, the Democrats and

21:34

Republicans were pretty evenly split up

21:36

to 2016. And

21:39

then you had these,

21:42

then you had Trump run for presidency.

21:45

And during his campaign,

21:50

on several occasions, he mentioned

21:52

that he believed that vaccines

21:55

were causing autism, and this was anecdotal

21:57

to him. He had three.

22:00

friends who were women, who

22:02

were mothers, whose children had been completely

22:04

healthy and

22:07

then had regressed into, you know, lost

22:09

their language and regressed into

22:12

stereotypical behavior of autism,

22:15

associated with autism, after

22:17

receiving MMR vaccines. And

22:20

so he and it, you know, his belief was

22:22

that it was, that the link was real.

22:26

And he said it out loud on several

22:28

occasions, I think three separate occasions.

22:32

And at that time, anything that Trump said

22:35

was immediately that

22:37

the reaction of the Democratic Party is whatever

22:39

he says, we got to do the opposite. So even

22:42

though we've hated NAFTA for our entire

22:45

existence of our party, if

22:48

Trump now says he hates NAFTA, we've

22:50

got to start liking NAFTA. So

22:52

that was kind of what happened was those

22:56

pronouncements by Trump were put by

22:58

the Democratic Party, doyens

23:00

into the same anti-science

23:03

dumpster as his climate denial. And

23:05

it became a tribal issue.

23:08

And so that, you know, it was a culture war issue.

23:11

If you were, if you thought

23:13

vaccines cause autism, you were a Republican.

23:16

And if you thought maybe they, if

23:18

you thought they definitely denied, and that's been

23:20

proven beyond any doubt, you

23:23

are a Democrat. And there was no in between.

23:26

There was no dialogue.

23:28

There was no room for dissent

23:31

or debate. It was a tribal issue

23:33

and it was life or death. And you know, that's

23:36

what, that's the way that I saw

23:38

that history happen because I watched the

23:40

change in 2016.

23:43

Okay,

23:43

so you saw two things happen. You saw

23:45

a collusion emerge because of the

23:47

agreement that Obama made with big pharma companies

23:50

and then there was this twist that was thrown into it

23:53

as a consequence of the Trump candidacy. So

23:56

also I'm wondering, it wasn't

23:58

that long ago. Well, I guess it's.

23:59

20 years now, so it's some reasonable amount

24:02

of time, that the laws in the

24:04

United States were changed so that Big Pharma

24:06

could advertise their products directly

24:08

to the consumer.

24:09

And that was actually a revolution in messaging.

24:12

And now, as you pointed out in your last book,

24:15

Big Pharma controls about 75% of the advertising on

24:18

legacy media, and even more on the

24:20

news shows. And so- I

24:23

think it's about 75% on the news shows. I'm

24:27

not

24:28

sure. I think there are even bigger

24:31

advertisers if you look at the entire sort

24:33

of landscape. Automobiles

24:36

may be bigger, but

24:39

certainly on the evening news shows. The evening

24:41

news is kind

24:43

of the- is the perfect landscape

24:46

to advertise pharmaceuticals,

24:49

because everybody who watches the

24:51

evening news, essentially the entire

24:54

demographic is over 60 young.

24:56

My kids would not dream of turning on the

24:59

evening news. They get their news

25:01

from their screens. But

25:06

the people who are sitting down and watching the evening

25:08

news are your age and they're my

25:10

age. And as you know, when you get to our age,

25:13

you spend a lot of time at doctors and

25:15

you're on- and those people

25:17

are on a lot of drugs, and so they're watching

25:19

it. And Roger Ailes

25:22

told me, I think it was in 2014,

25:26

and he of course was the founder

25:28

and CEO of Fox News. And

25:31

I was trying to get- I had made

25:33

a doc- participated in the making of

25:35

a documentary about the impacts of mercury

25:38

in vaccines on neurodevelopmental

25:41

disorders in children. This is a sudden

25:44

epidemic that had begun in 1989 of

25:46

neurodevelopmental disorders. And

25:49

he had a relative who had been affected that

25:52

he believed was

25:54

vaccine injured. And

25:56

he always would put me on his shows.

25:59

I had a- this weird relationship with Roger Hales,

26:01

because I had spent three months in a tent with

26:04

him and I was 19 years old

26:06

in Africa. And

26:08

we had this friendship, you know, he was a very clever,

26:10

witty guy and he had not started Fox

26:13

News, he had just left the Running

26:15

the Nixon campaign communications and

26:19

he had stepped down from the Merv Griffin show.

26:22

But I had this lasting friendship with

26:24

him and he was a very loyal friend and he would always

26:27

make the hosts of Fox TV to put me

26:29

on

26:31

to talk about environmental issues. So I

26:33

was the only environmentalist for a decade

26:35

that was going on Fox News and I looked at

26:37

him kind of as a Darth Vader, you

26:39

know, of what he had done to American

26:44

television and communications, but I still

26:46

had this strange friendship with him. So he

26:48

would always whip me on and I went to him to try

26:50

to get on to talk about this documentary.

26:54

He looked at it, his assistant

26:56

Mike Clemente was running the station at

26:58

that time, the network looked at it and

27:01

both of them loved it. But he said, we

27:03

can't let you on. And he told me at that time,

27:06

he said, if any of my hosts independently

27:10

let you on to talk about this, I would fire

27:12

them. I would have to fire them. And

27:14

he said, if I didn't fire them, I would get a call

27:17

from Rupert within 10 minutes, meaning Rupert

27:19

Murdoch. And he said

27:21

to me at that time, he said 75% of my evening

27:24

news division advertising

27:26

revenues are coming from pharmaceutical companies.

27:29

And he told me, he told me that

27:32

of the 22 ads on the typical

27:35

evening news show that typically 17

27:38

or 18 of those were pharmaceutical

27:40

ads. And so

27:43

that, you know, that tells it all that

27:45

I've seen again and again and again,

27:48

you know, people like Jake Tapper, who

27:51

did this, he worked with me for three

27:53

weeks doing this incredible documentary

27:55

on an article that I published

27:58

in 2005 about a secret meeting.

29:05

being,

30:00

you know, Fox News is

30:02

important to us in this country, but to Rupert

30:05

Murdoch's empire, it's just a drop in

30:07

the bucket. So, you know, and he may,

30:09

who knows, it may have been pharma,

30:12

it may have been Rupert Murdoch's ego.

30:15

I don't know what it was.

30:17

Yeah, well, I wonder if a policy transformation

30:20

that made it illegal for big pharma to market

30:22

direct to consumer would go some distance

30:24

to rectifying this pharma problem.

30:27

Yeah, I mean, well, that's right. I

30:30

looked into that and, you

30:32

know, the change happened, Jordan, in 1997, and that's when FCC

30:38

changed its rules and FDA

30:41

approved, which was the rule

30:43

before that was that

30:46

there could be no direct consumer

30:47

advertising of pharmaceutical products on

30:50

TV

30:52

or anywhere.

30:53

And the only other

30:55

nation in the world that allows that is New Zealand.

30:59

And you know, because we have that rule,

31:01

it's one of the reasons that we

31:04

use three times the number of pharmaceutical

31:06

drugs as any other European

31:08

country. The average American

31:11

today is on for pharmaceutical drugs, and

31:13

it has not helped public health. It is,

31:15

you know, pharmaceutical drugs

31:17

are now the

31:19

third largest killer of

31:21

Americans after cancer

31:24

and heart attacks.

31:27

And we pay

31:29

more for public health than any other

31:31

country in the world. And

31:33

I think... Right, so that means that that's the third leading

31:35

cause of death is medical error. Is that...

31:38

is it third? I think it actually pharmaceutical

31:40

drugs. I think it's pharmaceutical

31:42

drugs. And the source for that

31:44

is the Cochrane collaboration. It's

31:50

a report by Peter

31:53

Goscha,

31:55

I think, of the... who is the founder

31:58

of the Coggan collaboration, which is kind of the old...

31:59

the ultimate arbiter of pharmaceutical

32:03

companies. Well, they're also

32:05

the company that produced

32:07

the recent report, the Calkin Review, showing

32:09

that masks are completely ineffective in relationship

32:12

to COVID transmission. Yeah. Do

32:14

you ever read the fine print that appears when

32:16

you start browsing in incognito mode?

32:19

It says that your activity might still be visible

32:21

to your employer, your school, or your internet

32:23

service provider. How can they even call

32:25

it incognito? To really stop

32:28

people from seeing the sites you visit, you

32:30

need to do what we do and use ExpressVPN.

32:33

Think about all the times you've used wifi at a coffee

32:36

shop or a hotel. Without ExpressVPN,

32:38

every site you visit could be logged by the admin

32:40

of that network, and that's still true

32:43

even when you're in incognito mode. Your

32:45

home internet provider can also see and

32:47

record your browsing data,

32:49

and in the US, they're legally allowed

32:51

to sell that data to advertisers. ExpressVPN

32:55

is an app that encrypts all of your network data

32:58

and reroutes it through a network of secure servers so that your

33:00

private online activity stays just that,

33:02

private. ExpressVPN works

33:05

on all of your devices and is super easy

33:07

to use. The app has one button.

33:09

You tap it to connect, and your browsing activity

33:11

is secure from prying eyes. So

33:14

stop letting strangers invade your online

33:16

privacy by visiting expressvpn.com

33:19

slash Jordan. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N

33:23

dot com slash

33:23

Jordan, and get three extra months

33:26

free. ExpressVPN

33:28

dot com slash Jordan. Of

33:32

course, that's being debated now, although I can't

33:35

see how, because as you pointed out, the Cochran reviews

33:37

are, people have accepted them as gold standard for

33:39

conservative reviews, careful scientific reviews

33:42

for years. Yeah, you know, the thing is

33:45

that Gates, Bill Gates

33:47

has played a huge role in trying

33:49

to take over Cochran, and

33:52

they've got, you know, they're the big founders

33:54

of Cochran, Jefferson was,

33:57

you know, the leading.

33:59

a clinical trial expert

34:02

in Europe, and Peter

34:04

Gosch, who is the other co-founder, have

34:06

both been run out of Cochrane. And the

34:09

Gates Foundation has been pumping tens

34:12

of millions of dollars in, so I don't know what's gonna

34:14

become of Cochrane now.

34:16

Yeah, well, the whole- But so people know-

34:18

The whole sector is at risk. So the people

34:20

know what we're losing is,

34:22

these were a group of very independent scientists

34:25

who started looking at what was happening to

34:27

the medical journals. The

34:29

medical journals get most of their money from pharmaceutical

34:32

companies for both advertising

34:34

and preprints. Preprints

34:37

are the, you know, the pharmaceutical

34:40

companies have these phony studies.

34:45

They use their financial clout to

34:47

get the Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine,

34:50

or JAMA, the Journal of American

34:52

Medical Association to publish, and

34:55

then they get a preprint, so they get

34:58

the journal then to print out just that

35:00

article, but with the cover of the journal in it,

35:02

which gives it this imprimatur of total legitimacy.

35:06

They print out two or 300,000 of them, and

35:10

they pay a lot of money, millions

35:12

of dollars for that run, that printing

35:15

run from the Lancet, and then their

35:17

pharmaceutical reps, you

35:20

know, the former Playboy models who go around

35:22

to each doctor's office, take the doctor out

35:24

of lunch, and give them one of these

35:26

preprints, and say, look, the drug I'm doing,

35:29

Lancet says it's a great thing. That's

35:32

where the, these journals make

35:34

all their money. Well, so,

35:36

and I think it was the 80s, 70s, 80s,

35:38

90s, these

35:40

groups of scientists got together who

35:42

were independent scientists and said,

35:44

well, we're seeing now coming out of the journals,

35:46

it's not real science, it's pharmaceutical

35:49

propaganda, even the journal editors

35:51

like Marcia Engel from the New England Journal

35:53

of Medicine, Richard Horton from the Lancet, said

35:56

you cannot believe anything in the journals anymore.

35:58

We are vessels for... pharmaceutical

36:00

propaganda. This

36:03

group of scientists said, we're going to get

36:05

volunteer scientists from all over the world.

36:09

We will now look over

36:11

the journal articles and see whether

36:13

it actually was good science or where they're

36:15

lying to us and do, and critically

36:18

read it, do basically a second round

36:20

of peer review that's real. And

36:24

they put together this extraordinary organization

36:27

of over 30,000 volunteer

36:29

scientists, top scientists, independent scientists from

36:31

around the world who systematically

36:34

reviewed journal articles to see whether

36:36

the science is real or fake and inform the public.

36:39

And it was an absolutely

36:41

critical organization and Gates

36:43

has gone in there trying to undermine it,

36:46

and it's very, very

36:48

troubling.

36:50

A couple of questions. We talked here a little

36:52

bit now about, let's say, corruption of the

36:54

legacy media on the news front by Big

36:56

Pharma, and you just made reference to the same thing

36:58

happening in the scientific domain, which is really

37:01

awful to see. Journals

37:03

like New England Journal of Medicine, Atlanta and so

37:06

forth, and science for that matter, and you're

37:08

seeing it with nature as well, degenerate

37:10

into organs that are no longer producing

37:12

trustworthy science. That's a real catastrophe.

37:15

You saw recently, like

37:17

yesterday, that DeSantis basically

37:19

bypassed the legacy media, and Pierre

37:22

Poliev did that in Canada when

37:24

he ran for the leader of the Conservative Party, by the way. He

37:26

just skipped over the legacy media entirely, and DeSantis

37:30

announced his presidency on

37:32

Twitter. And here you are also talking

37:34

to me on YouTube, right? And so that's

37:37

not exactly a standard political

37:39

practice.

37:39

And

37:42

so

37:44

why did you decide to talk to me

37:46

today on my YouTube channel, and what do you think of

37:48

DeSantis's use of Twitter and has

37:51

your campaign also been

37:53

considering, for example, utilizing

37:55

Twitter, because obviously Musk has made that open

37:57

to any candidate. How are you going to do that?

37:59

How are you guys conceptualizing

38:02

your move forward on the presidency campaign

38:05

front in relationship to non-traditional media?

38:09

Well, you know, Jordan, I've been censored

38:13

in the corporate media for 18 years. So

38:17

since 2005, I've been actively censored,

38:20

not just for vaccine articles,

38:22

but for all of my articles. And

38:26

I was very, very active on those

38:29

media fronts for decades,

38:31

but I've been slowly

38:33

censored now to complete wall-to-wall

38:35

censorship. And particularly

38:38

during the 13 year, the last three

38:40

years, we've had to figure

38:43

out ways to get around that censorship.

38:46

And so, you know, we've done that by using

38:48

non-traditional media. I was on Instagram,

38:50

I had almost a million followers on Instagram

38:53

at one point, and then

38:56

in the pandemic, they deplatformed me. So

38:58

I'm- Right, you're still banned. You're still banned on

39:00

Instagram. Is that the case? Instagram

39:02

and ban on TikTok.

39:04

You know, I'm interested

39:07

to see what happens to you with YouTube,

39:09

because- Well, you know, they've left

39:11

me alone. YouTube has left me alone. It's quite

39:13

surprising because I've said

39:15

things many times that in principle should have

39:18

got me in trouble on YouTube, but they haven't

39:20

even put any strikes against my channel. They

39:22

demonetized my daughter for a whole year

39:24

for reasons we never did discover, but they've

39:27

been completely hands off with me. You know,

39:29

they've added those warnings or

39:32

clarifications now. And then especially when I talk

39:34

to people like

39:34

Bjorn Lomburg, and we'll get to that later.

39:36

But I don't know what it is. YouTube

39:39

has been hands off.

39:41

In answer to your question,

39:44

when my uncle ran in 1960, television

39:48

was a new phenomena. And

39:53

he recognized the power of television, that

39:56

that would play a key

39:58

role in that.

39:59

presidential campaign for the first time in history

40:02

and you know he was able to exploit that

40:05

and to win that election. In

40:08

the 2016 election Twitter

40:10

played a key role in getting Donald Trump elected

40:13

you know absolutely critical he probably

40:15

would if he didn't have that Twitter account he probably

40:17

would not have been elected who knows

40:20

but I would say there's a good chance he wouldn't.

40:23

Today Twitter is still important and

40:25

I you know I have now 1.2 million

40:29

followers on Twitter you know I really

40:31

didn't start actively doing Twitter

40:33

until Elon freed

40:35

it up you know because if I you know

40:38

during the pandemic I was mainly posting

40:41

you know kitty cats and

40:43

rainbows and unicorns because if

40:46

I said anything that was that

40:49

was if I talked about what I was thinking about

40:51

it would have I would have been deplatformed but

40:53

once Elon took over I started

40:55

you know they they they unshackled

40:58

me and um but

41:00

also I think this is going to be this

41:02

year is going to be the

41:05

political campaign that will

41:07

be decided on by podcasts and

41:09

particularly because the

41:11

candidates are not wanting to debate

41:14

so I'm not only not only is

41:16

Biden not debating but I think Trump

41:18

may not debate

41:20

um and uh um

41:24

so I think people like me

41:26

are going to end up going to are

41:28

gonna you know we're gonna really test whether

41:31

these podcasts and

41:34

you know I was talking about about

41:36

Tucker

41:38

having 4.5 million

41:40

nightly views well the

41:43

the the podcast that Joe Rogan did

41:45

with Peter McCulloch

41:48

got 40 million views so that's

41:50

right yeah well Rogan's a force of nature

41:52

yeah so Tucker is 10 times

41:55

what CNN is you know gets

41:58

and and Rogan's all audience

42:00

is potentially 10 times what Tucker was getting.

42:03

I think the, I think the podcast has the capacity,

42:06

this election for reaching people

42:08

and allowing, you know, sort of dissident

42:10

and insurgent candidates like myself to

42:13

end run the corporate media monolith

42:17

and to reach large numbers of Americans

42:19

without going to onto the

42:22

networks. So I'm hoping that works. Now

42:24

you asked about DeSantis. You

42:27

know, I think, you know,

42:29

I felt bad

42:31

for DeSantis badly for DeSantis

42:33

because, uh, of

42:36

what happened on his, you know, Twitter announcement

42:38

where it, it went off, you know,

42:40

and I'm kind of rooting for Elon. So

42:43

I don't, you know, I don't obviously

42:46

want DeSantis to win, but I do. Um,

42:48

I liked how he handled COVID in

42:51

Florida. There's other things that he's doing now

42:53

that I don't like, but I do. You

42:56

know, politics is hard for everybody

42:58

and you know, it would be, uh, it

43:01

would, you know, I, I think it's unfortunate

43:03

if somebody wants to speak to the American people

43:07

and doesn't get that chance because the,

43:10

uh, you know, because the media, um,

43:13

vessel vector is not, uh,

43:16

for some reason is not able to reach them. I

43:20

think he may have made a mistake in going

43:22

on, um, with

43:24

Elon. But I don't know, maybe,

43:27

maybe, maybe not. I think, you know, president

43:29

Trump is, uh,

43:31

is, uh,

43:34

is portraying this

43:36

Antis as a tool of,

43:39

of the Jeb Bush. That's kind of his, you

43:41

know, strategy of for, um,

43:43

for characterizing, uh, DeSantis

43:46

as a tool of wall

43:48

street and the billionaire class and

43:50

you know, the bushes, et cetera. And

43:53

it may not have been, I think it probably

43:55

would have been better for DeSantis if

43:57

he, I'm sure he thinks on how. if

44:00

he had done a more traditional announcement,

44:03

where he would have gotten a lot of media coverage.

44:05

Yeah, well, like you said, like you said, well,

44:08

time will tell, like you said, because it is a new

44:10

technology and it is extraordinarily

44:13

powerful in the way you described. I mean, Rogan's

44:15

podcast is number one in 97 countries. He's

44:18

clearly the most powerful journalist who's ever lived.

44:21

And so I think that big, I think the

44:23

legacy media in the United States will die

44:25

first. And I think legacy media will die

44:27

everywhere, but I already think it's probably dead

44:29

in the United States. It's a walking corpse

44:32

and turning to podcasts and non-traditional

44:35

media

44:35

seems to me to be

44:37

entirely appropriate for people who are forward

44:39

looking. Like I said, in Canada, Pierre Poliev,

44:41

who now runs the Conservative Party and who's the most

44:44

likely next Prime Minister, he ran

44:46

his entire campaign for leadership on

44:48

non-traditional media. And he was producing

44:50

ads on his own that were generating 500,000

44:52

views. And

44:55

people were voluntarily watching his ads, which

44:57

was like a hundred times the view count

44:59

he would have got on our state funded

45:01

media, 69% state funded media, CBC. And

45:06

so, you know, I think the tide has already turned

45:08

and the US is at the forefront of that. Now

45:10

here, I'm gonna return to an earlier question

45:12

I had. You've been on the receiving end

45:15

of cancel culture. And one of the things I really

45:17

have noticed is that, you know, I

45:19

have

45:20

colleagues and compatriots,

45:22

friends across the political spectrum. And

45:24

one of the things I really have noticed that differentiates

45:27

the left from the right is that the

45:30

left

45:31

will engage in cancel culture

45:33

behavior to a degree that is virtually

45:35

unheard of on the right. Now that may change,

45:38

but at the moment that seems to be the case. Now

45:41

you've been on the receiving end of cancellation,

45:43

as you said, for almost 20 years. And

45:45

this begs the same question that I brought

45:47

up earlier is that

45:49

why do you think under those conditions, given

45:52

the treatment that you've received, that

45:54

the left is salvageable?

45:57

Or do you revert to the idea, well,

45:59

that's what we have. have to work with and you're going to do what you

46:01

can to revitalize the Democrat Party. Because

46:03

it isn't obvious to me that this cancel

46:06

culture phenomenon has gone so far that

46:08

it isn't obvious to me how it

46:10

can be turned around. I

46:12

don't think everybody on the left is,

46:16

you know, has cosigned counterculture.

46:19

I think that's, you know, it's a, it's

46:21

a vocal. I

46:24

think it's probably a vocal minority. I

46:27

don't know. You know, I have no reason. I

46:29

have no, I have no reason to say that other

46:31

than just that's my feeling. But

46:35

I, you know, I just, I don't think most

46:37

people think that way that you should.

46:39

I mean, it's very, it's anti-American. You

46:42

don't, you know, we

46:45

should be courageous enough and,

46:48

and confident enough of our viewpoint

46:50

that we can argue them and have them triumph

46:52

in the marketplace of ideas and

46:55

the way that you deal with, you know, with viewpoints

46:58

that you don't like or that you believe are inaccurate

47:02

is not through censorship, but, you know,

47:05

with, with argument and more information

47:08

and, you know, and facts. And,

47:11

and that's how we've always functioned. It's

47:13

a critical part of the, it's a critical

47:15

foundation stone for democracy. This

47:19

idea that the free flow of information is

47:21

the water, it's the sunlight, it's the fertilizer

47:24

or democracy. And if you cut it off, democracy

47:27

itself will wither and die. There's

47:29

just never been a time in history when they, you

47:32

know, when the good guys were the

47:34

people who were censoring stuff, they're

47:36

always the bad guys. And we know

47:38

that we, we read, you know, Orwell

47:40

and we read Aldous Huxley and we read,

47:43

you know, all of the

47:45

great thinkers that were warning

47:47

us from, you know, from when we were little kids

47:49

that, you know, the censors are

47:51

bad. And when you, when you start

47:53

censoring people,

47:56

then you you're, you're

47:58

on the slippery slope of totality.

47:59

I mean, in 1977,

48:02

liberals in our country

48:05

strongly supported

48:07

the ACLU for going

48:09

to bat for the Nazis who

48:11

were walking through Skokie,

48:13

Illinois, you know, on a march through a

48:15

Jewish neighborhood. And

48:18

you know, we understood that we could

48:21

be appalled by the things they were saying,

48:23

but at the same time, you know, that

48:26

it was more, that it was important for them to be able

48:29

to say it,

48:29

because if somebody can shut them up, they

48:31

can shut us up. Well, you know, I

48:34

think your claim that it's a minority

48:36

of radicals on the left-to-side, I

48:38

think the data supports that quite clearly.

48:42

But okay, so let me tell you two stories and tell me

48:44

what you think about this. So when the

48:47

Democrats I worked with in the US

48:49

and California, I had a conversation with

48:51

them one day, very intelligent people, by the way,

48:54

about Antifa. And they were on about

48:56

QAnon and about right-wing radical groups,

48:58

and they regarded them as entirely

49:00

real and entirely credible threats. And

49:03

that was partly as a consequence of the January

49:05

6th occurrences, let's say. And so

49:08

I said, well, what do you guys think of Antifa?

49:11

And they said, well, you know, they don't really

49:13

exist. And I thought, well,

49:15

that's interesting, because you think the right-wing conspirators

49:17

exist, but you don't think the left-wing. But

49:19

like I said, they were smart people. So I investigated further

49:22

and they said, well, you know, it has no centralized organization.

49:25

It's not a formal group. It's a very small minority

49:27

of people.

49:30

And it's extremely

49:33

loosely structured, and it isn't representative

49:35

of even the radical left, much less

49:39

the centrist Democrats. And I thought, okay, that's interesting.

49:42

So then I went and talked to Andy

49:44

Ngo, who's a journalist who's covered Antifa

49:46

in more detail than anyone else in the world,

49:48

and who knows their

49:50

organizational structure

49:52

and their routines inside and out, and who's put his life

49:54

on the line to cover this sort of

49:57

Antifa activity. And I asked

49:59

him. How many Antifa cells

50:03

do you think there are in the United States?

50:06

And he said, well, there's probably about 20.

50:10

And I said, well, how many full-time

50:12

equivalent employees, so to speak,

50:15

how many people do you think are in each cell that are dedicating

50:17

themselves to the Antifa cause? And

50:19

he said, well, maybe 40. And I said, oh, so

50:21

that's 800 people. So that's one

50:24

in 400,000.

50:26

And well, that's almost none.

50:28

And so you could take that data and you could make

50:31

the case the Democrats made, which

50:33

is, well, the Antifa doesn't even exist.

50:35

It's one in 400,000. In

50:38

the city of a million, there'd be two Antifa members

50:40

who were full-fledged,

50:43

committed full-time advocates.

50:46

But then you think, well, look at all the damage those

50:49

people did. And then you think, well, maybe

50:51

it only takes a trivial minority of people

50:53

who are off the rails to cause a tremendous

50:55

amount of damage. That's what happened when the Soviets

50:57

took over the Russian

51:00

society in the aftermath of the monarchies

51:03

after World War I. It was a tiny percentage

51:05

of people. And this is what made me worried

51:07

on the Democrat side. So this

51:09

is why when I went to Washington, I pushed the Democrats

51:12

that I talked to. He said, well, when

51:14

do you think the left goes too far? And so

51:16

let me ask you that question fairly

51:18

bluntly. You're trying to pull

51:20

the Democrats to the center. You think it's a salvageable

51:23

enterprise and you think it's necessary

51:25

to salvage it. It's a two-party system. It's

51:27

half the country. When do you think

51:29

the left goes too far? And how

51:32

would you, in your administration,

51:35

draw a line between

51:36

those who are reasonable and who show common

51:38

sense and those who have like gone off

51:40

the rail? Where is off the rail

51:43

on the

51:44

leftist side? Under

51:47

what circumstance would

51:50

I be called upon to make that determination?

51:53

Well, okay. Okay,

51:55

so when the Biden administration took

51:58

office,

51:59

one of the,

51:59

One of the things I also discussed with the Democrats

52:02

I knew was how

52:04

the positions that were going to be filled,

52:06

that

52:08

were now vacant because of the transition

52:10

in the presidency, how those positions

52:12

would be filled and who would they be filled with. And one

52:14

of the things I was told was that there was

52:16

a dearth of available bodies on the Democrat

52:19

side. And you know, it's hard to get people involved in politics.

52:21

And so that many of the positions were filled by people

52:24

whose views were quite radical

52:26

in comparison to the centrist,

52:29

into the say mainstream centrist Democrat

52:31

ideal.

52:32

And so, and I see this as like

52:34

I would say Kamala Harris is a good example of that

52:36

because I think Kamala Harris is in

52:39

what inexcusably radical. She tweets

52:42

out support for the notion of equity

52:44

nonstop and equity is not

52:46

equality of opportunity. And so, I mean,

52:48

I think you'll be called on to make those decisions,

52:50

for example, when if you if you did establish

52:53

a presidency, when you were trying to figure out who who was

52:56

going to make up the bulk of your administration, you

52:58

know, and I don't I know Democrats

53:01

because they like the free flow of ideas have a hard

53:03

time drawing distinguishing lines. And

53:05

so they have a hard time distinguishing the centrist

53:08

from the radicals, but they have been captured in

53:10

many ways by the radical viewpoint. And it's it's

53:12

very dangerous. I mean, you've been subject to that

53:14

to some degree on the censorship side. And

53:17

so I've not seen the Democrats

53:19

contend seriously with the problem of how to

53:21

differentiate the mainstream centrist from

53:24

from the dangerous radicals. And they seem to continue

53:27

enabling them. I've seen that right now on

53:29

the Trans Front, for example, you know, like

53:31

Norway and Finland and Sweden and Holland

53:34

and the UK have now banned

53:36

gender transition surgery for minors.

53:39

And yet it's still being promoted assiduously,

53:41

for example, in California by Gavin Newsom.

53:44

And I think that's criminal personally. I think

53:46

I think it's inexcusable. And that's a good example

53:48

of the capture of the Democrats by

53:50

the right by the radicals in my estimation.

53:53

So

53:54

so it's a curious problem. I

53:57

listen, I have so many

53:59

people.

53:59

right now who are flocking to

54:02

my campaign that are high,

54:04

high quality people that

54:07

whose views about life

54:10

and politics I respect. Some of them

54:12

are Republicans, some of them are independents,

54:14

some of them are Democrats. And

54:16

I don't have any anxiety

54:21

about being able to fill

54:24

all the key positions in my administration

54:26

with people who have,

54:30

you know, who I think have a common-sense

54:32

approach to life.

54:34

Okay, so you think you have a talent pool at hand

54:36

that

54:38

is broad enough so that you can find people

54:40

who are qualified enough to occupy

54:42

the centrist position appropriately and pull the

54:44

Democrats back to, you know, something

54:46

more approximating the ideals, let's say, well,

54:49

of the latter part of the 20th century as

54:52

opposed to now.

54:53

Okay, so let me ask you another question then.

54:55

There are these ideas on the left that

54:59

are troublesome, let's say.

55:01

What do you think the central ideas

55:04

on the left, what are the central

55:06

ideas on the left that are troublesome in your

55:08

estimation?

55:09

You know what I try to

55:11

focus on, Jordan, is the

55:15

values that Americans hold

55:17

in common rather than, you know, getting

55:20

caught up in these issues that

55:23

drive people apart. So that,

55:26

you know, I don't want to

55:28

do finger-pointing. If

55:31

you ask me what I believe about certain

55:33

issues, I'll tell you. But

55:36

I'm not, you know, I'm not looking to,

55:38

you know, to finger-point

55:39

at people or to alienate people.

55:43

I'm trying to, you know, run

55:45

a campaign that brings people together

55:48

rather than a campaign that tries, you know,

55:50

that is based upon, you know, that kind

55:52

of tribalism of, you know, of

55:56

condemning people for, you know,

55:59

for... ideologies that I don't necessarily

56:02

agree with. If they're relevant

56:04

to something I'm doing, I'll

56:06

take that into consideration. But

56:09

I don't spend a lot of time sort of, I

56:11

don't know, I really

56:14

try to focus on how do

56:16

you, you know, where are the bridges where

56:19

people can come together? You know,

56:21

um,

56:22

Well, I can, I can understand

56:24

that, you know, this, I have this enterprise

56:26

starting up in, in the Great Britain called

56:29

the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship. And we're

56:32

trying to put together a positive vision for the

56:34

future, as opposed to the apocalyptic vision

56:36

that's been, well, that's been circulating

56:38

for some time now, and that's demoralizing young

56:41

people to a degree that's almost incomprehensible.

56:44

And I can understand your concern

56:46

about,

56:48

your concern for putting forward a positive

56:50

vision rather than for drawing distinctions.

56:52

But by the same token, you know, for

56:54

example, in the universities, I've seen the diversity,

56:57

equity and inclusivity advocates take

56:59

the enterprise over and destroy it. And

57:01

there are some truly pathological

57:04

ideas circulating in that realm of the

57:06

ideological space. And

57:08

I don't, and I'm not saying I know the answer

57:10

to this because I have some sympathy for your

57:12

desire to put forward a positive vision, but by

57:15

the same token, um, it

57:17

does seem to me to be incumbent upon the Democrats

57:19

to draw a line. And I do think that one of the lines

57:22

that should be drawn is with relationship to the

57:24

notion of equity, because equity

57:26

is a very pathological idea. And wherever

57:28

it's been implemented around the world in the past, it's

57:31

caused, it's caused nothing but mayhem. And

57:33

so anyways, I won't push that any farther because,

57:36

you know, I have some appreciation for your perspective.

57:38

I do, I have another set of

57:40

questions that I want to address.

57:43

You mentioned at the beginning of our talk, your concern

57:46

that, um,

57:48

your concern in relationship to the use of fear.

57:51

And we could say on the vaccine

57:53

front that the

57:55

vaccine mandates were pushed forward,

57:58

especially the lockdown mandate. they

58:00

were pushed forward with the use of fear and that

58:02

that was conscious policy. I know in Canada,

58:04

for example, that even the conservative

58:07

types who were just as bad on the lockdown front,

58:10

they pulled the public, they

58:12

made the public afraid first, then they pulled

58:14

the public to find out what their fears were. Then

58:17

they produced all sorts of lockdown regulations

58:20

that were

58:21

advanced

58:22

to improve their standing in the polls.

58:25

Then they told their scientists to justify

58:27

those with scientific hypotheses post hoc.

58:30

And so I've been thinking about that. So here's the conclusion.

58:33

If

58:35

there's a crisis that emerges,

58:39

real or not, but let's say real, and

58:41

your response to the crisis is that you

58:43

become a fear mongering tyrant,

58:46

then you're the wrong leader for the time.

58:48

Is that no matter what the crisis is, you

58:51

are not morally, it is

58:53

not morally acceptable for you to use fear and compulsion

58:55

to put your policy platform forward. And

58:58

so I wanted to talk about

59:00

that a bit on the climate front. I was actually

59:02

concerned about talking to you today because I

59:04

generally don't give my guests a rough time,

59:08

but we, I think, have a

59:10

profound difference of opinion in relationship to

59:13

climate issues. And so one of the things that I've

59:16

seen as I've traveled around the world is that

59:19

the climate narrative, the apocalyptic

59:21

climate narrative, we're destroying the planet

59:23

and doom is nigh, has

59:26

demoralized young people to a degree that's

59:28

almost incomprehensible. I mean, you

59:30

see it in the rising rates of depression and anxiety

59:33

that characterize young women and

59:35

they're more susceptible to such things, but in men,

59:37

you see it as this widespread dropping

59:40

out of educational institutions and marriage

59:42

and sexual relationships and employment.

59:45

I think it's 20%, something like that,

59:48

20% of

59:49

work age men in the United States now haven't had

59:51

any employment whatsoever in the last year.

59:53

And so, and I see this

59:55

particularly paramount

59:57

in Europe where the climate

59:59

apocalypse narrative,

59:59

has not only demoralized people

1:00:02

on mass, especially young people, but it's produced

1:00:04

a plethora of policies, and Germany

1:00:06

is a canonical example, that have

1:00:08

been, to put it mildly, counterproductive.

1:00:11

So Germany has an energy now

1:00:13

that's five times as expensive as it should be. It's

1:00:15

unreliable. They're dependent on the Russians and

1:00:18

other totalitarians on the fossil fuel

1:00:20

front, and they pollute more

1:00:22

than they did before they started this whole green

1:00:24

enterprise. And so

1:00:27

I know that you're a long-term

1:00:29

environmentalist and you're concerned on the climate front,

1:00:32

but I've seen the climate apocalypse

1:00:35

use fear

1:00:37

to induce something, approximating

1:00:39

the same kind of level of tyranny as far as I'm concerned,

1:00:41

that characterize

1:00:43

the vaccine lockdown.

1:00:45

Well, so help me sort that out, because

1:00:47

you put forward a very interesting candidacy,

1:00:51

and one of the crucial problems

1:00:53

that we're facing at the moment

1:00:55

is to sort out the environmental

1:00:58

issues. Like I'm a big admirer of people like Lombard,

1:01:00

for example, Bjorn Lombard, who's put

1:01:02

forward a multi-dimensional view of the environmental

1:01:04

concerns that confront us, not reduced

1:01:07

it to carbon excess, and not put

1:01:09

forward an apocalyptic nightmare as the

1:01:11

most likely

1:01:12

scenario. So help me sort that out

1:01:15

and understand where you stand. Let

1:01:17

me just start

1:01:20

by, with kind

1:01:22

of a footnote, I

1:01:25

see these huge levels of

1:01:27

depression and despair, loneliness

1:01:30

in kids,

1:01:32

and I don't think that there's

1:01:34

a single cause to it. And

1:01:37

I think blaming it on depression about

1:01:39

climate is probably over-simplistic. And

1:01:41

in fact, I think a lot of

1:01:43

the problems we see in kids and

1:01:45

particularly boys, it's

1:01:49

probably underappreciated that, how

1:01:52

much of that is coming from chemical

1:01:54

exposures, including

1:01:57

a lot of the sexual dysphoria that we're seeing.

1:02:00

You know, these kids are being overwhelmed

1:02:03

by a tsunami. I mean, they're swimming

1:02:05

through a soup of toxic chemicals today,

1:02:07

and many of those are endocrine disruptors.

1:02:11

There's atrazine throughout our water supply.

1:02:14

Atrazine, by the way, if you

1:02:16

in a lab put atrazine in

1:02:21

a tank full of frogs, it

1:02:23

will chemically castrate and forcibly

1:02:28

feminize every frog

1:02:29

in there, and 10% of the frogs, the

1:02:33

male frogs, will

1:02:36

turn into fully viable females

1:02:39

able to produce viable eggs. And

1:02:45

if it's doing that to frogs, there's

1:02:48

a lot of other evidence that it's doing it to

1:02:51

human beings as well. Oh,

1:02:53

and you know, I'm happy to talk about that later, but

1:02:56

I don't think blaming

1:02:58

this epidemic of depression

1:03:00

on despair on people

1:03:02

who are, you know, fanning fears of climate

1:03:06

is, I think that's over simplistic.

1:03:11

I think you're right. You put your

1:03:14

finger on, first of all, let me

1:03:16

just say this about climate. I believe

1:03:18

that carbon

1:03:20

in the atmosphere

1:03:23

and methane does increase

1:03:26

warming. Why do I believe that? I

1:03:29

believe because it makes sense, Juan,

1:03:32

and I believe it because I read reports

1:03:35

in the 1970s. You know, on

1:03:37

issues like vaccines, I read the science

1:03:40

myself, I read it critically, and I'm able to do

1:03:42

that because I try

1:03:44

cases on these issues, and

1:03:46

I've been

1:03:48

involved in probably more 500s, 600, 700 cases,

1:03:51

and almost all of them have some kind of scientific

1:03:54

controversy. And

1:03:58

so I, you know, I

1:03:59

I wouldn't be good at my job if I couldn't read science

1:04:02

critically. And all of my cases involve

1:04:04

intense critical

1:04:06

reading of science and cross-examination

1:04:09

of scientists. And you have to have

1:04:12

pretty much complete domain knowledge

1:04:14

to be able to do that. And

1:04:16

if you're going to win cases, so I'm

1:04:19

used to doing that. And I've read, I

1:04:21

would say, at

1:04:22

least the abstracts for every

1:04:26

vaccine study. And I

1:04:29

did a compilation of all the vaccine

1:04:31

science involving thimerosal.

1:04:34

Where I digested 450 studies, the leading

1:04:36

studies. I

1:04:39

have 1400 references in that book.

1:04:42

That book was an earlier book I did called Dimerosal

1:04:44

with the Science Week. So I know if somebody

1:04:47

asks me, I can tell you this

1:04:49

effect is highly likely being produced.

1:04:53

I cannot do that with climate science. There's

1:04:56

tens of thousands of studies.

1:04:58

Most of them say yes. Virtually

1:05:01

all of them say yes. Not all of them, but virtually

1:05:04

all of them say that

1:05:07

carbon is

1:05:09

contributing to the warming. If you ask

1:05:11

me, if your position is the

1:05:14

warming's not happening, then

1:05:17

that's like somebody saying the autism epidemic

1:05:20

is not happening. Look around, you

1:05:22

can see it everywhere. The

1:05:24

ice caps are melting, etc. The Greenland ice

1:05:27

sheet. I

1:05:29

spent a lot of time outdoors and I see that

1:05:31

over 69 years, I've

1:05:34

seen the changes. And I've seen the mass

1:05:36

migration of animals, of southern

1:05:39

animals, like black vultures and stuff. That

1:05:41

the northern increase in their ranges. I've

1:05:46

seen the way that the, I've kept

1:05:48

track since I was a kid about when the leaves

1:05:50

turned, and

1:05:53

it steadily moved up each year.

1:05:56

And

1:05:59

so I see.

1:05:59

see that all of my sense are telling

1:06:02

me that the warming is occurring.

1:06:04

Now, why is the warming occurring? There's people

1:06:06

out there who say the warming's

1:06:09

not occurring. There's other people who say the warming's

1:06:11

occurring. But

1:06:15

it's not from trapping

1:06:17

carbon. And what I,

1:06:19

my opinion is basically,

1:06:22

as I said, it's based on common sense, but also

1:06:24

I read the science,

1:06:28

the memos that I have read

1:06:30

from the 1970s, from Exxon scientists

1:06:35

to Exxon management. Exxon during

1:06:38

that time had what it bragged

1:06:40

were the best scientists in the world who knew

1:06:42

more about the fate of the carbon molecule

1:06:45

in the atmosphere, in the environment, in,

1:06:47

you know, in every circumstance than

1:06:49

any other scientist. And

1:06:52

in the 70s, they were telling their management

1:06:55

at Exxon, if we keep

1:06:57

burning oil at this rate, we're going to warm the globe.

1:07:00

It's high

1:07:02

school math to them. And

1:07:04

they said, and it will be a good thing

1:07:06

for the company. It will be a bad thing for humanity

1:07:09

and for the wildlife and the planet.

1:07:12

It will be a good thing for the company because

1:07:14

we're going to melt the Arctic. And

1:07:17

there's a lot of oil onto the Arctic and we should

1:07:19

be ready to exploit it because it is

1:07:21

going to be melted if we continue

1:07:23

doing this. So, you know, my feeling

1:07:25

is if those were the top

1:07:28

scientists in the world, they had no

1:07:31

interest in lying about it. And

1:07:33

this is what they were saying. So

1:07:35

I think it's probably more likely

1:07:38

to be true than false. Now, I

1:07:41

also agree. I also, I want to say

1:07:43

this because, and you

1:07:45

asked me to interrupt you at the beginning. Yes, yes,

1:07:48

I do. Oh, I

1:07:51

want to respond to why you said I agree 100%

1:07:54

with you that this crisis

1:07:56

is being used as a pretext for

1:07:59

clamping down to. totalitarian controls the

1:08:01

same way that the COVID crisis was. And it's the

1:08:03

same people. It's intelligence

1:08:06

agencies. It's

1:08:09

the world economic forum. It's the Billionaires'

1:08:12

Boys Club at Davos. And

1:08:15

it's the same kind of cabal of

1:08:17

people who will use

1:08:19

every crisis to

1:08:22

stratify society toward

1:08:25

greater power for the super rich and

1:08:28

greater power for the military, greater power for the intelligence

1:08:30

apparatus and less power for everybody

1:08:33

else. And so, you

1:08:35

know, my approach to this Jordan is that

1:08:38

I have a personal belief that the

1:08:41

climate crisis is real. I

1:08:44

do not insist that anybody

1:08:46

else share my belief. And

1:08:49

I feel like a

1:08:52

lunge grin is correct in

1:08:54

saying that, you

1:08:56

know, the climate orthodoxy

1:08:58

gets it wrong, that the carbon orthodoxy,

1:09:01

the people who have scrapped that get it wrong. There

1:09:04

are actually a lot more important things

1:09:06

in carbon that is, you know, than

1:09:08

carbon sequestration and geoengineering.

1:09:13

There's habitat preservation, the most important

1:09:15

thing we can do. We've forgotten completely

1:09:17

about that because of the obsession with reducing

1:09:19

carbon. There's

1:09:22

regenerative agriculture, which

1:09:24

is absolutely critical, including

1:09:26

for carbon sequestration, but also that

1:09:29

we have good foods that we preserve, the

1:09:31

soil and all of these other impacts

1:09:34

from a warming climate, which are, you

1:09:36

know, the shrinkage of lakes and

1:09:40

agriculture, the destruction of the soils and ecosystems.

1:09:43

We need to do those things. And

1:09:46

the preservation of fisheries and all of these, which

1:09:48

are all tied into climate and the preservation

1:09:51

of whales, for example, you know, which

1:09:53

in subtle ways also, you

1:09:55

know,

1:09:57

very, very certain, but almost unmeasurable

1:09:59

ways. are part of the

1:10:01

overall

1:10:02

attack on the living planet,

1:10:05

which is really the way that we need to look

1:10:07

at this. And if there's not just a war

1:10:10

on carbon, it's not gonna solve the problem. If we

1:10:12

don't have a habitat left at the end. So

1:10:14

when I talk about these issues, I rarely

1:10:17

talk about climate. I

1:10:19

think we need to get rid of coal and oil, but

1:10:22

I don't say we need to do that to save the climate

1:10:24

because it's not convincing. And even

1:10:26

if you say, oh, tens of thousands of scientists

1:10:29

agree with me, people

1:10:31

today have a good reason to not believe

1:10:34

scientific orthodoxies or pronouncements,

1:10:36

right? We went through that in COVID where

1:10:39

we were told all of the science, you know, the established

1:10:41

science that said this is all real. And

1:10:44

there's a lot of people who were saying, yeah, but

1:10:46

it wasn't real and it isn't real.

1:10:49

And showing somebody a graph and saying,

1:10:51

this is what's gonna happen to you if you don't behave

1:10:54

is not a good way to get good

1:10:56

behavior, right? And it's gonna happen

1:10:58

to you in a long way. But the thing is

1:11:00

that both Republicans and Democrats, I

1:11:04

found in 40 years, love the environment.

1:11:07

They wanna keep sacred places.

1:11:09

They wanna have healthy food. They don't want

1:11:11

toxics for their children. They

1:11:14

don't wanna see 22 story machines cutting

1:11:18

down the Appalachian Mountains. And,

1:11:20

you know, the 500 biggest peaks have been

1:11:22

cut to the ground. An

1:11:24

area of the Appalachians the size of Delaware

1:11:27

has been leveled. These are our purple mountains

1:11:29

majesty where Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett

1:11:31

roamed. And, you know, we're

1:11:35

industrializing these landscapes on nothing

1:11:37

we'll ever grow on them again. 2,200 miles

1:11:39

of rivers has been filled. We

1:11:42

have poisoned every freshwater fish in North

1:11:44

America from discharges of mercury

1:11:47

from coal burning power plants. Nobody wants

1:11:49

that. The high

1:11:51

peaks of the Appalachians, the forest cover has

1:11:53

gone from Georgia to Northern

1:11:56

Quebec because of acid rain. All

1:11:58

of those high altitude lakes are now.

1:11:59

sterile. Nobody wants

1:12:02

that. And so

1:12:04

how do you think we have an end?

1:12:06

Okay, so let me make a couple of things clear on

1:12:08

my side and then I'll allow. By the way, my

1:12:11

approach to climate, my

1:12:13

approach to reducing the

1:12:16

energy, let's say my approach to energy

1:12:18

is using free markets and not

1:12:21

top down control. So what I would

1:12:23

do is I would end subsidies and then I

1:12:25

would let marketplace determine and what's going to

1:12:27

happen is renewable energy is going to

1:12:29

triumph because you

1:12:31

can build a solar plant for $1 billion a gigawatt

1:12:34

today. A wind plant costs about 1.2

1:12:36

billion, a coal plant costs $3.6

1:12:39

billion

1:12:40

and a dual

1:12:42

cycle gas turbines cost probably

1:12:45

a couple billion a gigawatt. But

1:12:47

once you build a wind or solar, it's free energy

1:12:49

forever.

1:12:50

So it's always going to be cheaper. The

1:12:52

problem with renewable energies like

1:12:54

that is we do not have a transportation

1:12:58

system to get them to market. So we need a marketplace.

1:13:01

We need a grid system that can allow

1:13:03

every individual in our

1:13:05

country to become an energy entrepreneur, produce

1:13:09

rooftop solar, sell it back to the

1:13:11

grid at the same price

1:13:13

that the utilities are getting to have every

1:13:15

farmer in North Dakota be able to put wind

1:13:17

turbines on their cornfields. They all

1:13:19

want to do it. A cornfield

1:13:22

in North Dakota is worth $800. A

1:13:24

cornfield with a wind turbine on it's worth $3,200. Every

1:13:28

farmer in North Dakota wants to put a wind turbine

1:13:30

on their property. The problem

1:13:32

is they cannot get those electrons

1:13:35

to the markets in Cleveland, Cincinnati,

1:13:37

St. Louis, New York, because we do

1:13:39

not have an efficient grid system and we

1:13:41

need to build that the same as Eisenhower

1:13:44

did. With a highway system,

1:13:46

when I was a kid, we need to build a grid system

1:13:48

that will

1:13:50

create a marketplace. And

1:13:53

once we have that marketplace, we'll have free energy

1:13:55

forever. Just like when we built the ARPANET

1:13:58

grid for information, the The

1:14:00

cost of information went to zero. We

1:14:02

built the telecom grid, the cost of phone

1:14:04

calls went to zero.

1:14:06

When we build an energy grid, the cost

1:14:08

of electrons will go to zero, and that

1:14:11

will be a huge economic boom for our country, and

1:14:13

nobody's going to be using oil and coal anymore.

1:14:16

Okay, so you agreed that

1:14:19

there is a danger on the environment

1:14:22

apocalypse front that the same

1:14:24

old criminals, let's say, will utilize

1:14:26

that potential crisis for

1:14:29

tyrannical ants. And so let's leave that

1:14:31

aside. That's something we agree on. I should

1:14:33

point out that, you know, I'm, and

1:14:36

as Lombard does, I accept the

1:14:38

IPCC projections that

1:14:41

there'll be some temperature increase over the next hundred

1:14:43

years, and that some proportion of that is a

1:14:45

consequence of manmade activity. Now,

1:14:47

Lombard has produced economic

1:14:51

projections based on current rates

1:14:53

of GDP growth, showing that I'm not going

1:14:55

to get the figures exactly right, but this is close to

1:14:57

right, that in a hundred years from now,

1:14:59

we'll be about 400% richer than we are now. But

1:15:03

with the negative consequences of

1:15:05

climate transformation will be 350% richer, and that's

1:15:09

not nothing. There's some actual

1:15:11

decrement in potential future value as a consequence

1:15:13

of that. But it's within the range

1:15:16

that we can actually intelligently manage. And

1:15:19

he's also documented quite well the host

1:15:21

of environmental concerns that confront us in

1:15:24

a manner that's very similar to what you just did. It's

1:15:26

like we don't have one problem on the environmental front.

1:15:28

We have many problems, and we should deal with them

1:15:31

intelligently. How do you think

1:15:34

that it's possible to have a discussion

1:15:36

about the environmental

1:15:38

challenges that confront us without

1:15:41

opening the door to the people who are

1:15:43

going to use fear to

1:15:45

introduce tyranny?

1:15:48

And is this associated with, in some manner,

1:15:50

with your notion of a positive vision? Because

1:15:53

what is happening, and I've seen this happen in Europe,

1:15:55

it's crystal clear, and this is especially the case

1:15:57

in Germany, although it's also true in the

1:15:59

UK.

1:15:59

is that these more tyrannical

1:16:02

policies on the energy front, they're not looming,

1:16:05

they're already in place. And they're really

1:16:07

hurting poor people, like really badly

1:16:09

and destabilizing the entire power grid

1:16:11

and de-industrializing Germany, which is

1:16:13

also part of the plan for some people.

1:16:16

How can we confront the environmental

1:16:18

issues that do in fact loom in

1:16:20

front of us without inviting

1:16:23

in that top-down tyrannical control?

1:16:26

Well, I mean, I think that's what

1:16:28

I'm trying to do with

1:16:29

my candidacy,

1:16:32

is to, you know,

1:16:34

reboot some of this so that,

1:16:38

you know, that we can find a common ground,

1:16:40

that people can understand that you

1:16:42

can love the environment. I mean, you know, the

1:16:45

reason that I became an environmentalist,

1:16:48

Jordan, was not because I was scared of

1:16:50

something, you know, scared of the

1:16:52

end of the world, it was because I was

1:16:55

in love with the Greeks and

1:16:57

climbing the

1:17:00

trees to get a baby crow when I was a kid,

1:17:02

and training hawks, and doing whitewater

1:17:05

kayaking, and, you know,

1:17:07

the little streams and creeks around my home

1:17:11

where I could go and turn over rocks and

1:17:13

find mud puppies and salamanders

1:17:15

and grayfish and collect them and bring

1:17:17

them home, or seeing the

1:17:20

tadpoles bubbling and these

1:17:23

little mud puddles that became cauldrons

1:17:25

in the early spring, stuff my kids will never

1:17:27

see, the explosion of color

1:17:31

on the butterflies when I walked into

1:17:33

the garden that my kids will never see, you

1:17:36

know, because those, you

1:17:38

know, they're gone now. And

1:17:41

that's why I fell in love with the environment,

1:17:44

and that, and it was out

1:17:46

of love, it was not out of fear. And

1:17:49

I think we have to bring people back to

1:17:52

that place of love and say, you

1:17:54

know, what kind of world do we want to live

1:17:56

in, you know, is it a live, is it

1:17:58

a world where we can...

1:17:59

hear the song Birds

1:18:02

and where there's amphibians out in the road,

1:18:04

but you can still see Pox turtles.

1:18:08

Or is it, you know,

1:18:10

either side is trying to make us

1:18:12

fearful and fear is not

1:18:14

a good... you never get a good response

1:18:17

from fear. You never get, you know...

1:18:20

so I think we have to appeal to people through

1:18:22

that love, through that kind of appeal, and that,

1:18:25

you know, my whole career has been doing that. I

1:18:29

had a chance when I was, when

1:18:31

I, you know, in 1983, when I switched

1:18:34

careers and became a full-time, you know, I've always

1:18:37

been an environmentalist, but

1:18:39

when I became a

1:18:41

full-time environmental attorney and advocate,

1:18:44

I was given a choice of going

1:18:46

to Washington

1:18:48

and looking for an inside the beltway, you

1:18:50

know, at a high level, doing

1:18:53

lobbying, doing, you know, fundraising

1:18:55

and doing maybe land conservation on

1:18:58

a grand scale. And I didn't want to do that.

1:19:00

I wanted to work with, you know, communities

1:19:02

that were living in the environment and

1:19:06

that were, had been marginalized by

1:19:08

environmentalists. My first case as an environmental

1:19:10

lawyer was for the NAACP blocking

1:19:13

a waste transfer

1:19:17

station that had

1:19:19

been sighted in the, in

1:19:21

the oldest black neighborhood in the Hudson

1:19:23

Valley because they didn't have the political power.

1:19:26

And I saw that then, and I saw that, you

1:19:28

know, four out of every five toxic waste dumps

1:19:30

in America was in a black neighborhood. The highest,

1:19:34

the largest toxic waste dump in America

1:19:36

is Emile, Alabama, which is 85% black.

1:19:39

The highest concentration of

1:19:42

toxic waste dumps in North America

1:19:44

is the south side of Chicago. The most

1:19:46

contaminated zip code in California is

1:19:48

East LA. It was all Hispanic

1:19:50

neighborhoods, black neighborhoods with these obnoxious,

1:19:53

dangerous toxic facilities were being sighted.

1:19:57

And then I went to work for, you know,

1:19:59

it was my passion for most of my life,

1:20:02

which was for fishermen on the Hudson River, commercial

1:20:04

fishermen and recreational fishermen.

1:20:07

Most of these people were Republicans. They're

1:20:09

people who were environmentalists

1:20:13

as radical as you can get, but they didn't call

1:20:15

themselves that because they felt estranged

1:20:18

from the mainstream environmental community. They

1:20:21

were people whose livelihoods depended

1:20:24

on a clean environment, who loved

1:20:28

the fisheries, their property values,

1:20:30

their recreation. These are people who were

1:20:33

never going to see Yosemite or Yellowstone

1:20:36

National Park, but them, the environment was their backyard.

1:20:39

It was the bathing beaches, the swimming holes,

1:20:41

the fishing holes, the Hudson River that was there. You

1:20:44

know, Richie Garrett, who was the founder

1:20:48

of the Hudson River Fishman's Association, which

1:20:51

I joined

1:20:51

and later turned into Riverkeeper,

1:20:54

he used to say about the Hudson, it's our Riviera,

1:20:56

it's our Monte Carlo. He was a combat

1:21:00

veteran from Korea and he was

1:21:02

a full-time gravedigger. These

1:21:05

were people who

1:21:08

were the salt of the earth

1:21:11

and they should have been environmentalists, but they

1:21:13

felt estranged from the environmental community.

1:21:16

I spent my livelihood with the

1:21:18

hook and bullet people,

1:21:20

bringing them into

1:21:23

the environmental movement and they came in

1:21:25

because of love, not because of fear. Right,

1:21:27

so you're willing to avoid or would like to avoid

1:21:30

using fear as a motivating factor

1:21:34

when

1:21:36

you're making your case for environmental concerns. Okay,

1:21:38

well that seems to be a good answer on the motivational

1:21:41

front. The reason that FDR

1:21:44

said the only thing that we have to fear is fear

1:21:46

itself and he said that, you

1:21:48

know, it wasn't during World War II, it was

1:21:51

in 1932 and he said that because the depression

1:21:54

had landed, you know, in the

1:21:56

United States and Europe and he

1:21:59

saw what We had

1:22:02

left-wing

1:22:03

leaders,

1:22:05

demagogues like Huey Long, that a third

1:22:08

of the country wanted to turn essentially

1:22:10

socialists or communists. We

1:22:13

had a right-wing like

1:22:16

Father Charles Coughlin, who wanted to bring

1:22:18

the nation

1:22:20

fascists. The people had lost faith in democracy.

1:22:24

There was a one out of every four Americans was

1:22:27

unemployed, 2,200 banks had closed, it was

1:22:30

crashing, and everybody was convinced

1:22:33

that democracy

1:22:33

and capitalism had failed. We

1:22:36

had to look for a new system. In

1:22:39

Europe, Roosevelt saw the same

1:22:41

depression, the reaction in Germany and Spain

1:22:44

and Italy was

1:22:47

that right-wing tyrants were using

1:22:50

fear to

1:22:52

engineer a shift to the far right and to fascism

1:22:56

and the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, left-wing

1:22:58

tyrants were doing the same thing

1:23:00

but to shift the population towards communism.

1:23:04

And that's why he said the American people, the

1:23:06

only thing we have to fear is fear itself. We

1:23:09

can write this, we can change it,

1:23:11

we can recover what we had, but we just

1:23:14

have to stay out of fear because that is

1:23:16

the weapon of

1:23:16

tyrants. Okay, so we're

1:23:19

going to run out of time on this side. There's two other

1:23:21

questions I'd like to pose. We don't

1:23:23

have a lot of time for them and I'll put

1:23:25

both questions forward. The first

1:23:28

would be,

1:23:28

why

1:23:29

should Democrats

1:23:31

prefer you to Biden? And the second

1:23:33

question is,

1:23:34

what are your opinions on the Russia-Ukraine

1:23:37

situation? So let's start with, if you don't mind,

1:23:39

let's start with the Biden situation. Why should Democrats,

1:23:42

they have an incumbent president, and

1:23:45

why should Democrats prefer

1:23:47

you to Biden? Well, I mean, philosophically,

1:23:50

we're just, we're at other,

1:23:52

you know, opposite ends of the party. President

1:23:56

Biden believes in, you know, the Ukraine

1:23:58

war, which I think is a...

1:24:01

I think it's a huge, what

1:24:03

we're doing in the Ukraine now is a

1:24:06

just a massive assault

1:24:09

on Ukrainians. And

1:24:13

that, you know, it's, we

1:24:15

have trapped Ukraine in

1:24:19

a proxy war against the Soviets

1:24:21

and they are being devoured by the

1:24:23

geopolitical machinations of Neocons

1:24:26

in the White House who,

1:24:30

you know, have this comic book depiction

1:24:32

that, you know, a lot of Americans have

1:24:34

swallowed about, you know, what is happening

1:24:37

in the war, but what's really, and let me

1:24:39

just say something about the war.

1:24:41

I think Americans supported

1:24:43

that war for all the right reasons because,

1:24:46

you know, Abraham Lincoln said we are

1:24:48

a great nation because we're a good nation. I think

1:24:50

Americans are good people. They

1:24:53

have compassion towards Ukrainian people, the

1:24:55

illegal invasion of, you know, a brutal

1:24:57

invasion by, you know, a man who

1:24:59

is a homicide old tyrant.

1:25:04

And they saw it and they had, you know, tremendous

1:25:07

admiration for the valor and the courage

1:25:09

of the Ukrainian people. My son

1:25:11

got her at 26

1:25:14

years old, left law school without telling

1:25:16

us, and went to the Ukraine and

1:25:18

joined the foreign legion and fought

1:25:21

in a special

1:25:23

forces group as

1:25:25

a machine gunner during the Kharkiv

1:25:27

offensive. And he

1:25:30

was motivated by that goodness

1:25:32

that so many Americans have. But

1:25:35

we were told that this was a humanitarian

1:25:37

mission. And yet every

1:25:39

step that we have taken, every decision

1:25:41

we have been made has been, appears

1:25:44

have been intended to prolong the war and

1:25:48

to increase the bloodshed. And President

1:25:50

Biden has, you know, recently

1:25:52

confessed that our purpose

1:25:55

is to depose Vladimir Putin,

1:25:57

which is the two decade.

1:25:59

aspiration of the Neocons

1:26:02

who surround them. They've been saying that for decades.

1:26:04

They've also been saying, Zbigniew

1:26:07

Brzezinski, who was their, you know, their buoyant

1:26:10

philosopher, said that our the

1:26:12

U.S. strategy should be to suck Russia

1:26:15

into a series of wars in little countries

1:26:18

where we can then exhaust them.

1:26:22

Lloyd Austin, who is the

1:26:24

President Biden's Defense Secretary in

1:26:27

April 2022, said our purpose

1:26:29

for being in the Ukraine is to degrade

1:26:32

the Russian army, to exhaust it, and

1:26:34

degrade its capacity to fight anywhere

1:26:36

in the world. Well, that is the opposite of

1:26:39

a humanitarian mission. That is a war of attrition,

1:26:42

and that's what it's turned out to be. We

1:26:44

have now turned

1:26:47

Ukraine into an abattoir that has devoured 350,000

1:26:52

young Ukrainians. They are lying about how

1:26:55

many people have died. They're concealing it from us.

1:26:57

They're concealing it from the Pentagon, is concealing

1:26:59

it from the American people. The

1:27:02

Ukraine is concealing it from them people, but 350,000 people.

1:27:05

Russians are killing Ukrainians at a rate

1:27:08

of, at a ratio of seven to one.

1:27:11

And we have turned that poor

1:27:13

little nation into,

1:27:17

you know, just a

1:27:19

killing field for

1:27:21

these idealistic

1:27:22

young kids. And

1:27:24

in order to advance a geopolitical agenda,

1:27:27

that, you know, has nothing to do with Ukraine.

1:27:29

Okay,

1:27:30

so

1:27:31

it seems to me that

1:27:33

your summary, from what I know, your summary

1:27:36

of the rationale for the war is

1:27:38

accurate, is that the hypothesis

1:27:41

on the pro-war with

1:27:43

Russia front, let's say, is that it's

1:27:46

a worthwhile expenditure of

1:27:48

American money to take Russia out as

1:27:50

a conventional military power.

1:27:52

And I do believe that's what's happening. And there's a side

1:27:54

benefit to that, which is the funneling

1:27:57

of billions of dollars into

1:27:59

Eisenhower's millions of dollars. the military industrial complex.

1:28:01

And so that's a pretty good line. Yeah, it's

1:28:03

a money laundering scheme for the military

1:28:05

industrial complex. Right, right,

1:28:08

okay. But now, so

1:28:10

I could say, well, what's wrong with the goal

1:28:13

of degrading Russia's conventional military

1:28:15

policy? Why is that not in the

1:28:17

best interests, let's say, of the West? And what do

1:28:19

you see it as an alternative? And what would

1:28:21

you do in relationship to the Russia-Ukraine

1:28:23

conflict if you had,

1:28:25

well, the decision-making power to

1:28:27

actually do something about it? I know there's no peace talks

1:28:29

going on at the moment, for example, which is quite

1:28:32

a miracle. And the Russians

1:28:34

have wanted to do peace talks from the beginning, and

1:28:36

we've rebuffed them. Right. I

1:28:38

will settle this on day one. I will

1:28:40

stop killing on day one. I'll stop

1:28:43

the killing, and I'll, you

1:28:45

know, I mean, the settlement is obvious, right?

1:28:47

The Russians have wanted to settle this from the beginning,

1:28:50

and they've been very clear about

1:28:52

what they want. They want NATO to make

1:28:54

a pledge and not

1:28:55

come into the Ukraine, which we should have done.

1:28:57

We shouldn't have put NATO into 14 countries. We

1:29:01

told the Russians when they dismantled the Soviet

1:29:03

Union in 1991, and they moved 400,000 troops out of

1:29:05

East Germany. And

1:29:11

they allowed NATO to reunify

1:29:14

Germany under NATO. And

1:29:16

they said our condition for doing

1:29:18

that, this, you know, tremendous conciliation

1:29:21

that we're making is that

1:29:24

you never moved NATO to the East.

1:29:26

And George Bush told them we will not move NATO

1:29:29

one inch to the East. And in 1997,

1:29:47

they

1:29:54

said, you know, we should have done it before, you

1:29:56

know, if we wanted to start a preemptive

1:29:58

war. And that is inexcusable.

1:29:59

We wouldn't live with that. My uncle did

1:30:02

not live with that in 1962. We

1:30:04

would have gone, if they hadn't removed them from

1:30:06

Cuba, we would have gone in. And

1:30:09

then we overthrew the democratically

1:30:12

elected government, Victor

1:30:15

Jokhanov-Kovich in 2014. We

1:30:18

spent five bills, CIA through USAID

1:30:21

and the National Endowment for

1:30:23

Democracy, spent $5

1:30:26

billion to violently overthrow

1:30:28

that government and

1:30:30

which was democratically elected. So we

1:30:32

destroyed this democracy and put in

1:30:35

our own government, which we now know

1:30:37

the neocons and the White House, Victoria

1:30:39

Nuland, selected two months

1:30:41

before in a telephone.

1:30:43

So we handpicked the new government before

1:30:45

the coup.

1:30:47

We put a new government in that immediately

1:30:50

makes a civil war against the Russian population

1:30:52

of Donbass, bans the Russian

1:30:54

language, kills 14,000 of them, and

1:30:58

then starts training with NATO. And

1:31:00

yeah, there were a lot of

1:31:03

provocations. It's not just me

1:31:05

saying this. George Kennan, who was the architect

1:31:08

of the entire, it's

1:31:10

a Cold War containment

1:31:13

policy, said in 1998, the year

1:31:15

after Brzezinski wrote that memo,

1:31:17

he said, it

1:31:18

is the greatest calamity

1:31:21

ever

1:31:22

to expand NATO to the east. And

1:31:24

he said, Russia lost the Cold War.

1:31:26

The people who are running Russia are the ones

1:31:28

who oppose the Cold War. We

1:31:32

should be making friends with them.

1:31:34

We shouldn't be pushing them into the hands of China.

1:31:37

Okay, Mr. Kennedy, let me summarize. We're

1:31:40

gonna run out of time and I wanna be very respectful

1:31:43

of your time. I know you have a tight deadline. So I

1:31:45

wanna summarize what we've talked about. And if you have

1:31:47

any closing remarks and give

1:31:49

you an opportunity to do that. So we

1:31:52

started out

1:31:53

by talking about the

1:31:54

necessity for your presidency

1:31:57

and the twist in the tail of the Democrat

1:31:59

party.

1:31:59

and Democratic Party and your notion,

1:32:02

which you reiterated later, that you're on the opposite

1:32:05

side of the political spectrum within the Democrats

1:32:07

from Biden and that

1:32:08

what you would like to do is to pull

1:32:11

the party back to its more traditional center.

1:32:14

And we talked about the

1:32:15

capture of the legacy media and

1:32:19

your censorship and the potential

1:32:21

movement of political dialogue into alternative

1:32:23

forms. We talked about environmental

1:32:26

issues and

1:32:28

came to an agreement, for example, that

1:32:30

there are other fish to fry than the carbon

1:32:32

fish, let's say, and that the

1:32:35

use of fear in the environmental

1:32:37

movement is an invitation to totalitarianism.

1:32:40

And we essentially concluded with a discussion

1:32:42

of the Russia-Ukraine war,

1:32:44

which you characterized as an attempt by the

1:32:47

neocons to degrade Russian military capacity.

1:32:50

And you made a case for how

1:32:52

we in some ways set up the

1:32:54

Russians to engage in this conflict. And

1:32:57

so

1:32:58

that, and in doing so, in doing all

1:33:00

of that, you laid out some of the principles

1:33:02

of your candidacy and described why

1:33:05

you

1:33:05

regard yourself as a credible and necessary

1:33:08

alternative to Biden. And so two questions.

1:33:10

Did I summarize that properly? And is there

1:33:12

anything else that you would like to bring to the attention

1:33:15

of people before we draw this part of this to a close?

1:33:18

I don't think I want to start another long discussion

1:33:20

with you, but there's plenty more to talk about

1:33:22

if you want to have me back another time. And that was a fine

1:33:24

summary, Jordan.

1:33:26

Okay, well, look, we will definitely

1:33:28

continue this discussion because, well, why not?

1:33:30

There's lots of other things to talk about. And so, okay,

1:33:33

so then I would like to thank you for sitting down and

1:33:35

talking to me today. I

1:33:38

would like to talk to you at some point about this vision

1:33:40

that we're developing for this ARC enterprise

1:33:42

in London and trying to put forward a positive vision

1:33:44

of the future. Instead of the apocalypse

1:33:47

nightmare, you must turn to tyranny vision,

1:33:49

which I think is ruling

1:33:51

at the moment. And so we can do that in the future.

1:33:54

For everybody who's watching and listening on YouTube,

1:33:56

thank you

1:33:56

very much for your time and attention and to the Daily

1:33:58

Wire Plus folks for facilitating.

1:33:59

this conversation, setting up this

1:34:02

studio in Edmonton, Alberta, that's

1:34:04

where I am today, and then the studio also. Where

1:34:06

are you located at the moment,

1:34:08

Mr. Kennedy? Indianapolis,

1:34:10

Indiana, the home of the

1:34:13

Indianapolis Speedway which

1:34:15

is at this moment running their

1:34:18

annual race.

1:34:19

Well, thank you for everyone setting that

1:34:21

up. On that front, I'm going to talk to Mr.

1:34:24

Kennedy for another half an hour on the Daily Wire Plus

1:34:26

platform. We'll do more biographical

1:34:28

interview on that end of things.

1:34:31

And so if you're interested, please consider

1:34:33

turning to that. Apart from that, thank

1:34:36

you very much for agreeing to talk to me today. And

1:34:38

I'm looking forward, hopefully at some point,

1:34:40

to meeting in person, but also to continuing our discussion

1:34:43

if you're open to that in the future.

1:34:46

Absolutely, anytime. Thank

1:34:48

you for having me, Jordan.

1:34:52

Hello, everyone. I would encourage you to continue

1:34:55

listening to my conversation with my guests

1:34:57

on dailywireplus.com.