Chicago-based writer AJ Smuskiewicz makes his debut on Truth Jihad Radio. The topic: His excellent new appreciation of RFK Jr. “Why I’m for Kennedy.” He notes that even if we give Trump the benefit of the doubt on good intentions, Kennedy is a far more serious threat to the powers-that-shouldn’t-be:
“Depth of understanding is important to have for a president, because that will provide the backbone he needs to prevent himself from getting rolled by the Deep State bastards. Trump lacks the depth and intellectualism of Kennedy. That’s why I have no confidence that he would be able to stand up to the neocon warmongers regarding Ukraine. After all, when he was president, he sent weapons to Ukraine at the urging of the warmongers around him. Trump’s good instincts were not and are not enough. He got rolled then and he would get rolled again. Kennedy’s depth of understanding would allow him to stand strong, fight back, and prevail against the warmongers.”
But does Kennedy have a chance to upset an unpopular Democratic president, like his father would have had he not been stopped by bullets?
“In all honesty, my gut tells me ‘no.’ There is no way that the thoroughly decadent America of 2023-24 will support an RFK today the way that many Americans supported an RFK in 1968…But I don’t care. I am supporting him anyway. My hope for RFK Jr is allowing me to cling onto some small remnant of hope for a nation that I had totally given up on—and for an environmental cause that I had abandoned.”
Yep
I listened to Mike Adams interview RFK Jr. Mike mentioned hot fusion as a potential solution to our energy future. Bobby Kennedy dismissed it offhand. He thinks windmills and solar farms are the solution. How can he ignore the environmental damage necessary to mine the resources and site wind and solar resources required to make alternative energy a reality?
There's a lively debate on which alternatives could best replace fossil fuel. My impression is that industrial-scale biomass (including ethanol) is a disaster, wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal are only partial solutions, and hot nuclear could feasibly scale up to the levels required but comes with serious downsides. So barring a technological breakthrough like cold fusion or zero point, phasing out fossil fuels any time soon looks like a pipe dream. It would entail enormous suffering and could only be justified if the climate change disaster scenarios are as bad as Polya, Griffin, etc. say they are. I don't have the scientific background to know whether that's the case.
I live in the Columbia River gorge where hydropower is abundant and is attracting Google and other server farms in number. I used to live three miles from a nuclear plant in Michigan and am well aware of the danger of storing spent fuel rods in open pools on the plant's grounds. My point is that it makes me question RFK Jr's commitment to a viable energy solution if he's not interested in investigating all possible methods of energy production. Personally, I would like to see small scale units and short transmission lines that would means local control. But of course that would deprive energy giants of income and money talks.