Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 22, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:17:13

RFK Jr. - The Speech of a Generation? Viva & Barnes Analysis

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	As we all now recognize, the COVID vaccines were neither safe nor effective.
	If you got vaccinated, you're more likely to get sick.
	You're more likely to get severe illness.
	You're more likely to die than if you were unvaccinated.
	Don't worry.
	They're going to talk about it, people.
	Those things are not true.
	I should just, you know, right, Dr. Hotels?
	Those things are simply not true.
	As we are now.
	So we're not going to spend any more time.
	I'm going to deal with this a little later, maybe today in a separate stream or tomorrow.
	Dr. Hotez is now becoming the coward energizer bunny that just doesn't stop tweeting about how morally justified he is in refusing to debate RFK Jr. or anybody else for that matter.
	And he went on, Aaron Burnett, what is it called, out front on CNN.
	He went on with Mehdi Hassan.
	Mehdi Hassan had a 30-second question.
	Vaccines are safe.
	Are they not?
	This is totally good and totally safe and effective.
	Are they not?
	Aaron Burnett had a question that was equally as hard-hitting journalism, really getting to the crux of the safety and efficacy of the jibby-jab.
	I recognize the COVID vaccines were neither safe nor effective.
	If you got vaccinated, you're more likely to get sick, you're more likely to get severe illness, and you're more likely to die than if you were unvaccinated.
	They're safe.
	Are they not?
	Let's pull up Mehdi Hassan here.
	Those things are not true.
	I should just do it right, Dr. Hotels.
	Those things are simply not true.
	It's just simply not true.
	End of discussion.
	The earth is round.
	The jab is safe and effective.
	And if you question the latter, you are as idiotic and outlandish as the one who questions the former.
	Oh, all right.
	So that is the Peter Hotez.
	The saga is still continuing.
	He's retweeting articles about how he doesn't have to debate RFK Jr.
	He doesn't have to debate anybody.
	In fact, by even debating this foregone conclusion.
	He's undermining science itself.
	It's wonderful.
	That's the segue into the discussion of the day.
	Barnes had an idea the other night, for those who are watching vivabarneslaw.locals.com, as to whether or not we should review not just RFK Jr.'s most recent speech, which people are comparing to JFK Jr.'s peace speech from 50 years ago?
	I don't know how many years ago now.
	We're going to go over the speeches.
	We're going to talk about them.
	Anybody who watched RFK Jr.'s speech, which was broadcast, I think exclusively on Rumble, the other night, it was amazing.
	So we're going to go over, we're going to talk about it, hear what Barnes has to say, and we'll probably talk about other stuff as well.
	So, nothing for Rumble Live.
	Hold on.
	Barnes, I'm going to bring you in for a second.
	I'm going to bring you in.
	I'm going to bring you in the entire time.
	Sir, how goes the battle?
	Free Assange.
	Good, good.
	Now, let me see.
	Are we not currently live on Rumble?
	We should be.
	Hold on.
	Press play.
	No.
	We are live on Rumble.
	I don't know if it's a problem.
	Hold on.
	I hear myself in the background.
	There we go.
	I don't know if people are playing games and trying to distract or they actually don't see it on Rumble.
	But hold on.
	I'm not sure that I'm on my good mic.
	Settings.
	I knew I was forgetting something tonight.
	It's on the default mic.
	Hold on.
	Because my mic's not plugged in is why I knew I was forgetting something.
	Hold on.
	Just one second.
	All right.
	Hold up.
	Come on.
	Get the good mic.
	Okay, Robert, this should be the better mic.
	Oh yeah, that's the fancy mic.
	That's the fancy mic.
	So, Robert, how's it going?
	Good, good.
	You're drinking sugar-free Monster.
	Yeah, good way it starts morning out here in Vegas.
	So gross.
	I say that without judgment.
	I just had a Diet Coke upstairs, but it's after lunch for me.
	Okay, Robert, we're going to dissect JFK Jr.'s peace speech.
	J.F.K.
	Seniors.
	J.F.K.
	Seniors.
	Yes, President.
	And then we're going to move into R.F.K.
	Junior's most recent speech and analyze and dissect.
	So we're live on Rumble.
	Let's just do this one more time.
	Sorry.
	I see the chat rolling in Locals.
	Okay, good.
	All right, Robert.
	So how do you want to do it?
	So yeah, the background is in June of 20th, 1963, that...
	Robert Kennedy is honoring by making this speech in June 20, 2023, the 60-year anniversary of his uncle President John Kennedy's speech at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire.
	It was known as the Peace Speech by President Kennedy.
	And the background of that speech was the lead-up to the entire dynamic of the Kennedy administration.
	And what Robert Kennedy Jr. is doing is calling back to that.
	Not only calling back to that as part of his own campaign, but part of his own campaign is restoring the memory of the Kennedy legacy and reestablishing what it really was about and reminding the public that there was an alternative path in the past, not taken, but it's an alternative path that can still be taken.
	And thus the point and purpose of the timing of the speech and the place of the speech and the subject matter of the speech for Robert Kennedy Jr.
	He will quote from the President John Kennedy speech repeatedly throughout the Robert Kennedy speech.
	So I thought it was useful to play that President John Kennedy speech from 1963.
	It's about 25 minutes or so as critical historical context for Robert Kennedy's speech as well.
	We might get to this question a little later, but maybe now's the time to ask also.
	Is there not a strategic risk in invoking or appealing to his father and his uncle too much in terms of people might say he's not relying on the legacy, but rather distracting from his own potential future legacy by continually bringing it back to the family legacy?
	I think he's always trying to keep that balance.
	But in my view, I would do it more than he's done it so far.
	that to me, what his campaign is really at core, at heart, all about is the path not taken for his father's campaign or his uncle's presidency, both cut short by assassinations.
	And I
	He believes those assassinations were caused by the same source of the problem of American politics today, an out-of-control military-industrial complex intelligence community national security establishment that has usurped America's constitutional Now,
	my second question was this.
	I think it might be useful for everybody.
	We all understand the conspiracy theory behind the assassination of JFK Senior.
	Well, it is JFK.
	Do we say JFK Senior or JFK Junior?
	Yeah, JFK Senior.
	JFK Junior died later.
	We understand the rationale, or at least the conspiracy theory, which has largely seemingly been proven that JFK wasn't playing along with the deep state, wasn't getting into war in Cuba, wasn't getting into war in Vietnam, wanted to dismantle the CIA, LBJ.
	Might have wanted to become president a little too bad.
	We understand the JFK assassination.
	What was the rationale?
	Because there was an interplay between the RFK assassination and the JFK assassination.
	I think maybe refresh everybody's memory who might not be as familiar with the RFK senior assassination.
	Oh, sure.
	And as a broader public historical context, their father, Joe Kennedy, was the grandson of Ira Ship.
	Immigrants who built up an economic empire in the United States, married into the other parts of what you could call the rising Irish aristocracy in Boston, the daughter of the Irish mayor.
	And Joe Kennedy had his own presidential aspirations and ambitions that were derailed by his longstanding opposition to war.
	He opposed both World War I and World War II.
	And because of it...
	Even though two of his sons, Joe Kennedy Jr. and John Kennedy, would both serve in World War II, he had opposed the initial entrance or involvement in the war that would derail his own political and presidential aspirations that would be placed on his eldest son, Joe Kennedy Jr., who would take on a high-risk assignment and die under some people's perspectives, mysterious circumstances in World War II.
	Jack Kennedy himself Future President John Kennedy would become the shift of the father's ambitions.
	He also almost died in World War II in a famous P.T. Boat case that ultimately became a movie down the road.
	But John Kennedy would be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives.
	His campaign would be managed by Robert Francis Kennedy Sr., who gave up his own political aspirations that was then connected to serving with Senator McCarthy in the Senate.
	McCarthy was an ally of Joe Kennedy who believed that there was a serious problem in the post-war era of communist infiltration in the government.
	So they came from kind of a strong anti-communist background.
	Robert Kennedy would leave that position with Joe McCarthy to work with his brother.
	John Kennedy, and he would run all of John Kennedy's campaigns, his House campaign, his surprise bid, upset bid over Henry Cabot Lodge in Massachusetts in the early 1950s, his vice presidential bid in 1956 at the Democratic Convention, and then what was seen as a long-shot bid for the presidency, given his youth, in 1960.
	President Kennedy would win in a narrow election in 1960.
	Right after he won, and this will be referenced in Robert Kennedy's speech, three days before his inauguration, Eisenhower gave his famous military-industrial complex speech, where President Eisenhower warned of two things.
	First, the term military-industrial complex comes from President Eisenhower, the great World War II winning general and two-term president of the United States.
	In his farewell speech, he said, He also warned of a rise of a professional administrative bureaucratic state that's not part of this particular presentation that Robert Kennedy Jr. is going to give, that we'll probably get into in a separate breakdown of Eisenhower's farewell address down the road.
	That leads to President Kennedy's inauguration.
	President Kennedy comes in believing that the military and the intelligence apparatus is okay.
	But first of all, he sees Eisenhower's striking farewell address a few days before his own inaugural address.
	Not long after about a year, less than a year into his tenure, is the Bay of Pigs crisis.
	Before that, the intelligence community had come to President Kennedy and said, by the way, we're going to invade Cuba.
	And Kennedy said, no, we're not.
	And they said, well, that's a problem for you, President Kennedy, because we've been training all these Cubans and they're going to be going in anyway.
	So we really need to back them unless you want a bunch of armed, crazy Cubans running around the country saying you're soft on communism.
	He also ran into problems with crazy military people overseas that people like Eric Hunley and Mark Robert at America's Untold Stories have broken down in some great detail.
	Some of the crazy generals involved that are featured loosely or indirectly in the film Dr. Strangelove.
	What President Kennedy walks into is that Dr. Strangelove isn't really cinematic.
	Dr. Strangelove is inspired by real characters and true events of an intelligence community that's always lying to him.
	And Robert Kennedy Jr. will mention this in his speech in a military industrial complex that wants to wage nuclear war, that believes in nuclear war.
	And they try to use the first the Bay of Pigs to try to escalate.
	He refuses, doesn't send in the Air Force after they try to sucker him into doing so.
	He says he's going to disperse the CIA to the wind and his first steps against the deep state are made by the removal of.
	Another one of these crazy generals.
	Removes another crazy general that's obsessed with Manchurian candidate type stuff in Germany.
	That general will also end up playing a role in the Kennedy assassination.
	Robert Kennedy tries to put that general in the nuthouse for a little while because of how nuts that general actually was.
	That's another story for another day that also talked about in America's Untold Stories.
	During the brief time leading up to the President Kennedy speech in June of 1963, he has already declined war in Cuba, declined war in Laos, declined war in Vietnam, declined to escalate with nuclear weapons in any of those conflicts.
	He has already set up a secret red phone to directly communicate with Khrushchev from his home in Hyannisport.
	He's already communicating through a Soviet spy at Robert Kennedy's home in Virginia by communicating to Khrushchev directly because both, as Robert Kennedy Jr. will mention, Khrushchev and Kennedy realize they are surrounded by...
	Nuts.
	Insane military industrial complex officials in both governments and intelligence communities in both governments that are doing everything possible to cause nuclear armageddon.
	And so they engage in secret peace treaty discussions, secret nuclear armament reduction discussions.
	President Kennedy agrees that Cuba will be left alone in exchange for the Soviet Union withdrawing its nuclear arms from Cuba and what is popularly known in America as the Cuban Missile Crisis.
	In exchange, President Kennedy removes nuclear armaments from Russia's border in Turkey.
	And they also start negotiating the first efforts to reduce nuclear testing and nuclear arms development in the world.
	President Kennedy starts the Peace Corps and wants to...
	Some people believe that it's this June speech he will later on, for example, withdraw even military advisors from Vietnam and order all of them brought home a month before his assassination.
	Many people believe the speech that President Kennedy, that we're going to go over here in June of 1963, is the speech that launched the plans to assassinate him within the intelligence community and military industrial complex.
	After he's assassinated, his brother Robert Kennedy steps down from the Johnson administration, runs and wins for the New York Senate seat in 1964.
	And then in 1968, after he sees McCarthy's success in New Hampshire, decides to enter the race for the presidency himself, which he had been reluctant to do because of fear that the race would be called the Kennedy-Johnson race, not be called What's Wrong With America race.
	Part of his campaign book, Robert Francis Kennedy Sr., is to seek a newer world, quoting from Lord Byron, or Lord Tennyson.
	And from the poet that Robert Kennedy Sr. was fond of quoting, it was thought of as a long shot bid.
	At the time he entered his race, only two Democratic officials had endorsed his campaign.
	One of them was the state party chairman from my home state of Tennessee, who I knew.
	He had only one sport of one union.
	He had a sport of no Democratic.
	No media publishers.
	They all opposed his entry.
	No support of the think tanks or the academics.
	Many of the Hollywood celebrities that loved the Kennedys abandoned his candidacy and would not support it.
	He was thought of as a loan and a long-shot bid that would disgrace the Kennedy family name.
	By the end of it, President L.B. Lyndon Baines Johnson.
	So fearful of a humiliating defeat to Robert Francis Kennedy, he withdrew from the presidential nomination process.
	And by California, Robert Francis Kennedy Sr. was the likely nominee of the Democratic Party in 1968 for the presidency and leading all polls.
	The night after he declared victory in California, he was shot dead in a kitchen.
	And by future studies by Robert Francis...
	By RFK Jr.'s analysis, it was the security guard connected to the defense contractors in the military industrial complex and intelligence community who was actually responsible for his death.
	It was blamed on Saran Saran, but the key shot that killed Robert Frank, there's no evidence actually any shot from Saran Saran even hit.
	Robert Kennedy.
	And from what I understand, Sirhan, Sirhan, they identified the gun.
	It had either six or eight shots.
	They tracked all of them because as he fired two and missed and was pinned to the ground, he kept on pulling the trigger.
	And all of those bullets were accounted for.
	And so what was not accounted for were the bullet holes in the back of RFK Sr.
	And what do they call it?
	Contacts.
	And other people that were shot right behind him who also believe that Robert Kennedy was killed and the real assassin was.
	The security guard who died in the Philippines a few years ago, who was tracking and guiding Robert Kennedy that night, going in the opposite direction of which way he should have been going, and shot him in the back of the head as soon as the distraction of Saran Saran started.
	Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. came out and discussed both of these things beginning about five, six years ago, being very public about his beliefs that the deep state was behind the assassination of both President...
	John Kennedy and his father, Robert Francis Kennedy Sr., and it's an animating purpose of his campaign, not for necessarily, I'll put it that way, for avenging his father and uncle's deaths, but for restoring the path to peace abroad and prosperity at home that was denied by their twin assassinations.
	And I'm going to bring just this up here, the quote.
	Former President Truman, whose administration established the CIA in 1947, said in 1963 that by then he saw, quote, "something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic positions, and I feel that we need to correct it." President Kennedy, as the enormity of the Bay of Pigs disaster came home to him, said to one of the highest officials of his administration that he wanted, quote, "wanted to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the world." And Robert Francis Kennedy Jr.
	We'll quote from that and also quote it from it in his announcement speech.
	He made that exact reference in his announcement speech.
	So that's the historical context and social context of both President Kennedy's speech that we'll break down and presidential candidate Robert Francis Kennedy Jr.'s speech a few days ago in New Hampshire.
	And it's important context to understand what's the speech about, why now, why here, why then, why there, to understand its real political ramifications and consequences.
	And just so everybody understands what the order's going to be, we're going to go over JFK's speech both on Rumble and YouTube, and then we're going to drop on YouTube, go over to Rumble to do RFK's speech, pulling it from Rumble as well.
	And let me just bring up a couple of super chats.
	White monster greater than Red Bull by a factor of a thousand.
	I'll try it.
	RFKs, this is not a super chat.
	This is a comment.
	Maybe we'll get to this later.
	I'm going to keep it start up here.
	And GingerNinja, history in high school and college are a joke.
	I feel utterly robbed for being taught about 1% of what Robert is covering.
	So frustrating.
	I'm now realizing that in retrospect as well.
	We were not necessarily taught everything or even taught the accurate portion of that which they decided to teach us.
	All right, Robert.
	So what I'm going to do here...
	I'm going to bring up JFK's speech, which I believe is not that one.
	It's this one.
	And you'll tell me when you want me to pause.
	Yeah.
	Is this it?
	Here we go.
	Okay.
	Excellent.
	President Anderson, members of the faculty, board of trustees, distinguished guests, my old colleague, Senator Bob Byrd, who has earned his degree through many years of attending.
	Knight Law School, while I am earning mine in the next 30 minutes, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, it is with great pride that I participate in this ceremony of the American University, sponsored by the Methodist Church, founded by Bishop John Fletcher Hurst, and first opened by President Woodrow Wilson.
	Robert, do we know?
	I don't know what the American University is.
	Should I know?
	Oh, yeah.
	So that's the university in D.C. That's just a university.
	It's a college and law school.
	It sounds like this was actually the law school commencement speech at American University, June 10th, 1963.
	We can see here on the bottom where people want to hear things.
	Okay, let's do it.
	Okay, we'll play it through.
	This is a young and growing university, but it has already fulfilled Bishop Hearst.
	Enlightened hope for the study of history and public affairs in a city devoted to the making of history and to the conduct of the public's business.
	By sponsoring this institution of higher learning for all who wish to learn, whatever their color or their creed, the Methodists of this area and the nation deserve the nation's thanks.
	And I commend all those who are today graduating.
	Professor Woodrow Wilson once said that every man sent out from a university should be a man of his nation, as well as a man of his time.
	And I'm confident that the men and women who carry the honor of graduating from this institution will continue to give from their lives, from their talents, a high measure of public service And public support.
	And Robert, just to also contextualize, he's 45, 46 now.
	This is two years, or give or take, after the Bay of Pigs.
	A year and a half.
	Correct.
	There are few earthly things more beautiful than a university, wrote John Macefield in his tribute to English universities.
	And his words are equally true today.
	He did not refer to towers or to campuses.
	He admired the splendid beauty of a university.
	Because it was, he said, a place where those who hate ignorance may strive to know, where those who perceive truth may strive to make others see.
	I have therefore chosen this time and place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth too rarely perceived.
	And that is the most important topic on earth, peace.
	You know the history better or the context.
	Was JFK known as being a particularly good speaker at the time compared to previous politicians?
	Or is this just good in comparison to today?
	Both.
	Okay.
	Keep going now.
	What kind of a peace do I mean and what kind of a peace do we seek?
	Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war.
	Not the peace of the grave.
	Or the security of the slave.
	I am talking about genuine peace.
	The kind of peace that makes life on Earth worth living.
	The kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and build a better life for their children.
	Not merely peace for Americans, but peace for all men and women.
	Not merely peace in our time, but peace in all time.
	I speak of peace because of the new face of war.
	Total war makes no sense.
	In an age where great powers can maintain law.
	So that's what he's like.
	There he starts out very strong.
	He's laying out that he's rejecting what he's now saying and what he just said is in direct opposition, direct rejection of what his generals then believed.
	of what the intelligence community then believed, what the national security establishment then believed, whether for their own interest and their own power and their own self-aggrandizement or as part of their ideological perspective.
	They are advancing the notion of total war.
	They want total war.
	And they're defining peace as Pax Americana.
	That's what the Dulles brothers and the WASPs that ran, the white Anglo-Saxon Protestants of the Northeastern elite especially, that ran the intelligence agencies in particular, believed it.
	They believed that World War II was won, and that some of the crazier generals believed now was the time to use military and martial power to dominate the globe, and the Central Intelligence Agency and their corporate lawyer allies in the beginnings of the modern American deep state believed now was the time for Pax Americana.
	And so he is laying down his complete, full rejection of that in this speech.
	And when he's dropping terms like total war is not the way, these are terms that are not known to the public but are clearly terms used internally.
	So he's basically ratting out to the world, ratting out, for lack of a better word, publicly admonishing inner discussions that he's having with intelligence and the military-industrial complex.
	Exactly.
	He's saying, I'm rejecting this.
	It's wrong.
	It's dangerous.
	It's frightening.
	It's terrifying.
	And he's going to be pushing during this time frame for his treaty that he had to negotiate outside of his State Department, outside of his military, outside of his intelligence community to even get done to reduce nuclear armaments, to reduce nuclear arms testing.
	And that's going to be the political legislative context in which this speech is given.
	But fundamentally, this is the speech where he announces.
	His complete break from the military-industrial complex and the CIA's ideas of the future and its current affairs.
	And relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces.
	It makes no sense in an age where a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered...
	By all the Allied Air Forces in the Second World War.
	It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.
	Today, the expenditure of billions of dollars every year I speak of peace,
	therefore, as the necessary, rational end.
	of rational men.
	I realize the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war and frequently the words of the pursuers fall on deaf ears but we have no more urgent task.
	Some say that it is useless to speak of peace or world law or world disarmament and that it will be useless.
	Until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude.
	I hope they do.
	I believe we can help them do it.
	Robert, what we know today of the military-industrial complex, like the Halliburtons of the world, where not only do you sell the weapons or contract out the weapons, but you contract out the reconstructions of the nations that you've just destroyed.
	Was it roughly the same or not yet that developed at this time?
	You'll get into Vietnam, but...
	Was it a fully developed military industrial complex or just the weapons and we bomb the hell out of the countries and we don't worry about rebuilding?
	It was already fully developed, and it was coming to its policy expression.
	And this was the first major conflict it faced.
	Eisenhower tried to restrain them.
	So they really were built up in World War II itself.
	That creates the military industrial complex.
	What's unusual is that it survived the war.
	Typically, there's a drawdown.
	Here, there wasn't.
	Not of any great consequence.
	And they used the fear of the Soviet Union as their excuse.
	Also as their excuse for overthrowing governments all around the world.
	And remember, the Kennys come into this believing there is a great threat of communists.
	Hence, they're friends with Joe McCarthy.
	They're strong on building up a strong defense.
	And it's when he gets into the White House he realizes that he's been misled about what's really, the American people have been misled, and that this is about the self-aggrandizement and empire desires of a small, now enriched elite that people like James Jesus Engleton would later brag about, the CIA, that he had blackmailed and bribed and extorted all the key people in Congress and in the governmental administration.
	So they're in their full throttle power in the early 1960s.
	They've run in their first opponent, and this speech basically is a denunciation of their...
	Their beliefs, number one.
	Number two, an articulation of an alternative path.
	And number three, a presentation to the American public about why his path is the better, sounder path.
	And here he's talking about one of the excuses is fear of the Soviet Union.
	And he's going to bridge into why fear of the Soviet Union is not reason to have total wars, not reason to obsess over nuclear arms buildup.
	In fact, we should reconsider why we hate them in the first place, because that will allow us to readjust to a better peace-oriented policy rather than a policy obsessed with the anti-communism that consumed him and his brother just a decade before.
	But I also believe that we must re-examine our own attitudes as individuals and as a nation.
	For our attitude is as essential as theirs.
	And every graduate of this school...
	Every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace should begin by looking inward, by examining his own attitude towards the possibilities of peace, towards the Soviet Union, towards the course of the Cold War, and towards freedom and peace here at home.
	First, examine our attitude towards peace itself.
	Too many of us think it is impossible.
	Too many think it is unreal.
	But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief.
	It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable.
	That mankind is doomed.
	That we are gripped by forces we cannot control.
	We need not accept that view.
	Our problems are man-made.
	Therefore, they can be solved by man.
	And man can be as big as he wants.
	No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings.
	Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable, and we believe they can do it again.
	I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of universal peace and goodwill, of which some fantasies and fanatics dream.
	I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams, but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal.
	Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature, but on a gradual evolution in human institutions, on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements.
	Which are in the interests of all concerned.
	There is no single simple key to this peace.
	No grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers.
	Genuine peace must be the product of many nations.
	The sum of many acts.
	It must be dynamic, not static.
	Changing to meet the challenge of each new generation.
	For peace is a process.
	A way of solving problems.
	With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests as there are within families and nations.
	World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor.
	It requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement.
	And history teaches us Robert, I'm going to pause it here just to also add a little bit of the context.
	I was double-checking the dates.
	This is a little over a year after JFK.
	Pupu's Operation Northwoods, which was what the Department of Defense proposed to JFK to get the world to support the war in Cuba.
	Domestic terrorism, blowing up buildings, blowing up planes, blaming it on the Cubans to create the public support for a war against Cuba.
	So when he's giving this speech, he also knows just how dirty the military industrial complex was willing to play.
	So let us persevere.
	Peace need not be impractical, and war need not be inevitable.
	By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all people to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly towards it.
	Pause there.
	Okay, go for it.
	So there he is.
	He's highlighting that one of the arguments against peace, you know, the first argument against peace is that it's effective disarmament.
	There's another argument against peace that says we've got to be focused and obsessed over the Soviet Union.
	Another argument against peace is that it's impractical, it's romantic, it's utopian.
	And he's rejecting each of those.
	And what he's saying, what peace really is, is a mindset.
	A mindset of looking at every single conflict and looking at the goal and objective of resolution as not some romanticized idealism, but as a practical, pragmatic way of getting along with your neighbor.
	That you don't have to like your neighbor, you don't have to agree with your neighbor, you don't have to support your neighbor, you don't have to embrace your neighbor, while at the same time finding a way to avoid Constant violent conflict with your neighbor.
	I got to get rid of that YouTube thing there.
	Okay, there we go.
	I'm just going to scroll.
	It need not be inevitable.
	Okay, got it.
	By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all people to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly towards it.
	And second, let us re-examine our attitude towards the Soviet Union.
	It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write.
	It is discouraging to read a recent authoritative Soviet text on military strategy and find on page after page wholly baseless and incredible claims such as the allegation that American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of war.
	that there is a very real threat of a preventative war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Robert, let me stop you there.
	Is he saying this tongue-in-cheek, like thumbing his nose at the intelligence community?
	He's saying it's ridiculous that they should believe this, but it sounds pretty plausible that it was accurate even at the time.
	Correct.
	So what he's saying is publicly, he's caricaturing, well, not caricaturing, he's...
	He's attacking these ideas by calling them so comical and absurd that the Soviets must be making them up, when in fact he knows his own intelligence community and military industrial complex are actually propounding exactly what he's describing.
	Okay.
	I get it.
	My goodness.
	It only takes 45 years and 60 years of history to get it, but I think I get it now.
	And that the political aims, and I quote, of the American imperialists, Are to enslave economically and politically the European and other capitalist countries and to achieve world domination by means of aggressive war, unquote.
	Truly, as it was written long ago, the wicked flee when no man pursueth.
	Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements to realize the extent of the gulf between us.
	But it is also a warning.
	A warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.
	No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue.
	As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity.
	But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture, in acts of courage.
	Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war.
	Almost unique.
	Among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other.
	And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union in the Second World War.
	At least 20 million lost their lives.
	Countless millions of homes and families were burned or sacked.
	A third of the nation's territory, Just to put it into perspective also, Russia was number one in terms of casualties.
	China was number two in World War II?
	Yeah, Russia by, well, I don't know what, I don't remember what the Chinese casualties were, but at least in Europe and the West, there was sort of no comparison.
	And what he's describing here had, up until this point, not been public.
	So here he's trying to bridge the audience's gap to about getting away from what Robert Kennedy Jr. will be talking about, this comic book villainization of foreign nations to justify perpetual forever war.
	And Kennedy here, President Kennedy, saying, and the way he gets them there is he says, look at how the Soviets are mischaracterizing us.
	Not letting his audience know that in fact the elites are actually seeking exactly what the Soviets are describing.
	It's his way of disagreeing with them as well publicly in that way.
	But he's also using it as a secondary objective.
	You don't like it when the Soviet Union would pigeonhole you in this way as imperial capitalists.
	Probably shouldn't we be careful?
	About pigeonholing their whole people in public as nothing more than ravage imperial madmen communists.
	And what he's going to bridge here is he's going to explain, you know what, it turns out the Russian people have very legitimate security needs.
	And those security needs are rooted in the utter horror they've just experienced.
	That we forgot about.
	That in the West we're not taught.
	Even at that time, that we're not taught World War II, the biggest sufferers of World War II, and to a good argument, the prime victors of World War II was Russia, not the United States of America.
	And what he's outlining is they just went, and why it matters, he goes, there's this recent, traumatic, tragic history of the Russian people.
	Who don't want war or conflict with us, who have never been at war or conflict with us, but are almost paranoid in their security concerns, partially motivated by propagandistic elites pushing false narratives to create their own justification, because he's really paralleling it.
	What's happening in his own military-industrial complex is also happening in Russia.
	They're both using paranoid fears of the other to project their own power and create their own policies.
	But he's saying part of this is we as a people falling into that trap by getting into this comic book villain world and we should recognize...
	And this will be significant and repeated in Robert Kennedy Jr.'s speech in describing the Ukrainian conflict.
	He goes, Long ago, why Russian people have legitimate security concerns and fears, given their unique history of suffering massive, horrendous invasions that have led to mass deaths of their own people and population.
	And we need to respect that in order to have meaningful, practical, functional peace, even if we dislike their political leaders, whether it's Khrushchev in Communists or Putin in contemporary Russia.
	Today, should total war ever break out again, no matter how, our two countries will be the primary target.
	It is an ironic but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation.
	All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours.
	And even in the Cold War, Which brings burdens and dangers to so many countries, including this nation's closest allies.
	Our two countries bear the heaviest burdens.
	For we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combat ignorance, poverty, and disease.
	We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle.
	With suspicion on one side breeding suspicion on the other and new weapons begetting counterweapons.
	In short, both the United States and its allies and the Soviet Union and its allies have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in holding the arms race.
	Agreements to this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours.
	And even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations which are in their own interest.
	So let us not be blind to our differences, but let us also direct attention to our common interests and the means by which those differences can be resolved.
	And if we cannot end now our differences, At least we can help make the world safe for diversity.
	For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet.
	We all breathe the same air.
	We all cherish our children's futures.
	And we are all mortal.
	Third, let us re-examine our attitude towards the Cold War, remembering we're not engaged in a debate seeking to pile up.
	Debating points.
	We are not here distributing blame or pointing the finger of judgment.
	We must deal with the world as it is and not as it might have been had the history of the last 18 years been different.
	We must therefore persevere in the search for peace in the hope that constructive changes within the communist bloc might bring within reach solutions which now seem...
	By the way, he just described real politics.
	In a nutshell, the first true realpolitik president in the modern era was Kennedy.
	That he wasn't an idealist, he wasn't a romanticist, he wasn't any of those things.
	Because what he's outlining is we've got to be realistic.
	We can't imagine the world as it could have been, as maybe it should have been, as maybe we would like it to be.
	We have to recognize it as it is.
	And how can we, within that framework, adjust our mindset on a day-to-day basis?
	Always seek peace rather than war.
	And Robert, so we're 10 years out of the end of the Korean War, which means now you've got North Korea, South Korea.
	A year out of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam is going on, but America's not yet directly involved?
	Yeah, there's military advisors who are actually secretly fighting on the ground, unbeknownst to President Kennedy.
	But yes, it's just...
	A generation removed from World War I. This generation, President Kennedy, that self-participated in World War II.
	And others that are coming out of the Korean War and almost efforts.
	I mean, they tried to basically trick him to give people some further background.
	There were generals who wanted to march on the Soviet Union at the end of World War II.
	There were generals in Korea who wanted to use nuclear weapons to win the Korean War.
	Curtis LeMay, who's one of his Air Force directors at this point, who would later be a vice presidential candidate with George Corley Wallace in 1968, as he would publicly acknowledge then, but not known to the world now, but Kennedy knew, was along with other generals saying, we have a nuclear edge, we should use it now.
	And it's predicated, the public political premise of it.
	Is really behind its Pax Americana, but it's anti-communism, anti-Soviet.
	And so he's bridging into how do we deal with the reality that communism is not some wonderful regime, that it is a threat to its own people and populations, while at the same time acknowledge we're probably not going to change that overnight, and military martial means is probably not the means to try to do so in the first place.
	And so he's starting to bridge into that impracticality.
	He is preaching for peace from a perspective, like someone asked in the locals chat, what is realpolitik?
	It means seeing the world as it is.
	Not as you want it to be.
	Not as you imagine it to be.
	Not as you think it should have been.
	Not as it could have been.
	But as it is.
	And within that framework, how can you get the most peace?
	Within that framework, how can you avoid the most war?
	That's realpolitik.
	In fact, you couldn't have a better articulation of it than what President Kennedy just gave.
	Beyond us, we must conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the communist interest to agree on a genuine peace.
	And above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations.
	Which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war.
	Just compare that to the stance vis-a-vis Putin and Russia today involved in the Ukraine.
	It's 60 years later and nothing has changed.
	To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy or of a collective death wish for the world.
	Pause there.
	Notice how aggressive all his language is, that he's condemning these people.
	He's basically saying the policy of his own.
	He's talking to them as much as he's talking to the country.
	He's saying your ideas are a death wish.
	Your ideas are the piece of the grave.
	Your ideas are not only incredibly dumb, but incredibly dangerous.
	I mean, it's as harsh a language as you could use to describe what he knows.
	Curtis LeMay's actual belief about the world is.
	America's weapons are non-provocative, carefully controlled, designed to deter, and capable of selective use.
	Our military forces are committed to peace and disciplined in self-restraint.
	Our diplomats are instructed to avoid unnecessary irritants and purely rhetorical hostility.
	I had to pause there.
	Exactly the opposite of what the entire Biden administration has been all about.
	The Biden administration is constantly provoking and using rhetorical hostilities with anybody and everybody in the name of lecturing and their moral superiority and virtue signaling values.
	That's the difference between, say, Trump and Biden on, say, China.
	Trump wasn't going to lecture China on things that are merely rhetorical, that aren't going to change anything, that isn't going to improve anything, that's only going to create unnecessary provocations and undermine an otherwise just peace, whether it's North Korea or America's economic trade policy with China.
	What he just criticized is what would become American foreign policy modus operandi in many of the successor presidents that followed him.
	And not to only pick on Biden, but it just happens to be going on now.
	It's the most egregious.
	Yeah, this sounds like he's speaking directly to Biden 60 years in the past.
	Action of tensions without relaxing our guard.
	And for our part, we do not need to use threats to prove we are resolute.
	We do not need to jam foreign broadcasts out of fear our faith will be eroded.
	We are unwilling to impose our system.
	On any unwilling people, but we are willing and able to engage in peaceful competition with any people on Earth.
	Meanwhile, we seek to strengthen the United Nations to help solve its financial problems, to make it a more effective instrument for peace, to develop it into a genuine world security system, a system capable of resolving disputes on the basis of law, of ensuring the security of the large And the small.
	And of creating conditions under which arms can finally be abolished.
	At the same time, we seek to keep peace inside the non-communist world, where many nations, all of them our friends, are divided over issues which weaken Western unity, which invite communist intervention, or which threaten to erupt into war.
	Our efforts in West New Guinea, in the Congo.
	In the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent have been persistent and patient despite criticism from both sides.
	We have also tried to set an example for others by seeking to adjust small but significant differences with our own closest neighbors in Mexico and Canada.
	Speaking of other nations, I wish to make one point clear.
	We are bound to many nations by alliances.
	These alliances exist because our concern and theirs substantially overlap.
	Our commitment to defend Western Europe and West Berlin, for example, stands undiminished because of the identity of our vital interests.
	The United States will make no deal with the Soviet Union at the expense of other nations and other peoples, not merely because they are our partners, but also because their interests and ours converge.
	Our interests converge, however, not only in defending the frontiers of freedom, but in pursuing the paths of peace.
	It is our hope and the purpose of allied policy to convince the Soviet Union that she, too, should let each nation choose its own future, so long as that choice does not interfere with the choices of others.
	The communist drive To impose their political and economic system on others is the primary cause of world tension today.
	For there can be no doubt that if all nations could refrain from interfering in the self-determination of others, the peace would be much more assured.
	This will require a new effort to achieve world law, a new context for world discussions.
	It will require increased understanding.
	Between the Soviets and ourselves.
	An increased understanding will require increased contact and communication.
	One step in this direction is the proposed arrangement for a direct line between Moscow and Washington to avoid on each side the dangerous delays, misunderstandings, and misreadings of others' actions which might occur.
	Just compare that to today where countries are expelling diplomats from countries that they're at war with to basically cut off all discussion.
	And what he's really saying here, and here again he's trying to couch it as to get popular approval, as a manner of avoiding miscommunication, misunderstanding, which he conceives as a primary hurdle to peace around the world and a trigger for war.
	But what he's really saying is, we cannot trust our own military industrial complexes.
	We cannot trust our own military advisors.
	We cannot trust our own national security advisors.
	We cannot trust our own intelligence community.
	We need direct communication.
	Now, what he hasn't told people is, my understanding is, at the time he's presenting this idea, he's already done it, in fact, as Robert Kennedy Jr. will talk about in his speech.
	He's already established a direct line.
	He's already established a...
	Direct means through his brother to communicate with a Soviet spy who liked to hang out at the Kennedy family house, Robert Kennedy's family's house, where Khrushchev and him would exchange letters in secret.
	But he's explaining here the predicate and the premise for something he's already done and its public necessity.
	And he critically notes the biggest trigger to war and obstacle to peace is foreign nations intervening in other countries' domestic politics, which will become relevant and pertinent to Robert Kennedy's presentation of how he got into Ukraine.
	We have also been talking in Geneva about our first-step measures of arm controls, designed to limit the intensity of the arms race and reduce the risk of accidental war.
	Our primary long-range interest in Geneva, however, is general and complete disarmament, designed to take place by stages, permitting parallel political developments to build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms.
	The pursuit of disarmament has been an effort of this government since the 1920s.
	It has been urgently sought by the past three administrations.
	And however dim the prospects are today, we intend to continue this effort, to continue it, in order that all countries, including our own, can better grasp what the problems and the possibilities of disarmament are.
	The only major area of these negotiations where the end is in sight, yet where a fresh start is badly needed, is in a treaty to outlaw nuclear tests.
	The conclusion of such a treaty, so near and yet so far, would check the spiraling arms race in one of its most dangerous areas.
	It would place the nuclear powers in a position to deal more effectively with one of the greatest hazards which man faces in 1963, the further spread of nuclear arms.
	It would increase our security.
	It would decrease the prospects of war.
	Surely this goal is sufficiently important to require our steady pursuit, yielding neither to the temptation to give up the whole effort, nor the temptation to give up our insistence on vital and responsible safeguards.
	I'm taking this opportunity, therefore, to announce two important decisions in this regard.
	First, Chairman Khrushchev, Prime Minister MacMillan, and I have agreed.
	That high-level discussions will shortly begin in Moscow, looking towards early agreement on a comprehensive test-ban treaty.
	Our hope must be tempered.
	In fact, he's been negotiating this for a while at the time of this speech, but this was completely hated at the time he was announcing it by both parties' political establishments.
	I'm trying to imagine being within the deep state or the military body listening to this.
	This was really a throwdown speech against everything they believed in.
	And now he gets assassinated five months after this.
	Correct.
	Tempered with the caution of history, but with our hopes go the hopes of all mankind.
	Second, to make clear our good faith and solemn convictions on this matter, I now declare that the United States...
	Does not propose to conduct nuclear tests in the atmosphere, so long as other states do not do so.
	We will not be the first to resume.
	Such a declaration is no substitute for a formal binding treaty, but I hope it will help us achieve one.
	Nor would such a treaty be a substitute for disarmament, but I hope it will help us achieve it.
	Finally, my fellow Americans, let us examine our attitude towards peace and freedom here at home.
	The quality and spirit of our own society must justify and support our efforts abroad.
	We must show it in the dedication of our own lives.
	As many of you who are graduating today...
	We'll have an opportunity to do by serving without pay in the Peace Corps abroad or in the proposed National Service Corps here at home.
	But wherever we are, we must all, in our daily lives, live up to the age-old faith that peace and freedom walk together.
	In too many of our cities today, the peace is not secure because freedom is incomplete.
	It is the responsibility of the executive branch at all levels of government, local, state, and national, to provide and protect that freedom for all of our citizens, by all means, within our authority.
	It is the responsibility of the legislative branch at all levels, wherever the authority is not now adequate, to make it adequate.
	And it is the responsibility Of all citizens, in all sections of this country, to respect the rights of others and respect the law of the land.
	All this is not unrelated to world peace.
	When a man's way please the Lord, the scriptures tell us, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.
	And is not peace, in the last analysis, basically a matter of human rights, the right to live out our lives without fear of devastation, the right to breathe air as nature provided it, the right of future generations to a healthy existence?
	While we proceed to safeguard our national interests, let us also safeguard human interests.
	And the elimination of war and arms No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security against the risks of deception and evasion.
	But it can, if it is sufficiently effective in its enforcement, and it is sufficiently in the interest of its signers, offer far more security.
	and far fewer risks than an unabated, uncontrolled, unpredictable arms race.
	He's not talking about Russia here, Robert, if I'm reading this right?
	Right.
	We do not want a war.
	We do not now expect a war.
	This generation of Americans has already had enough, more than enough.
	Of war and hate and oppression.
	You tell there that's where the passion in his voice peaked.
	I'll say what I have to say after the speech.
	The United States will never start a war.
	Have things changed in 60 years?
	Indeed.
	We shall be prepared if others wish it.
	We shall be alert to try to stop it.
	But we shall also do our part.
	To build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just.
	We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success.
	Confident and unafraid, we must labor on, not towards a strategy of annihilation, but towards a strategy of peace.
	That's it.
	Yep.
	Well, I'll say the ending was a little, not anticlimactic, but abrupt.
	Robert, so what I was going to say is, let me take this out of here.
	It's his summation.
	We're either going to go to a world of annihilation or a world of peace.
	That's our choice.
	Total war and peace.
	He ended where he started in terms of bookmarking it.
	But his most passionate part you saw there peaked when he's talking about, you know, he's speaking for his own generation.
	And he's speaking for the generation above him.
	Later to be called the silent and greatest generations.
	Saying, we've fought enough war.
	Enough is enough.
	And that's a sort of personal, emotional attack on the morality of the position of the national security state, the obsessive anti-communists that were willing to have the world burn in the name of it, the intelligence community, and the military-industrial complex.
	And it's the speech that probably got them killed.
	Well, when you mentioned doing this stream during your Bourbon with Barnes on Our Locals community, and I was thinking like, well, maybe we'll skip the JFK speech because that's old and historical and we'll go to the RFK.
	And I think this is actually not more important, but contextually more important because I suspect more people have watched RFK speech than ever watched this one or had it this fresh in the memory.
	It's critical to, you know, this is what Robert Kennedy, why is he giving this speech?
	Why is he giving it in June?
	Why is he giving it on the 60th anniversary or, you know, within 10 days of it?
	It's all because of his belief that this was a critical path that was rejected by the establishment.
	Not by the American people, but by the establishment.
	And that it has all these reminders as to why we've gone AWOL over the last 60 years, and why this administration in particular has gone AWOL, and why it's the framework and filter we should...
	Be applying in our perspective to the Ukrainian conflict.
	That's why he'll constantly reference it, constantly quote from it, constantly provide context to it.
	You really can't understand Robert Kennedy's speech without understanding this speech and its historical significance.
	Now, what I'll do before we head on over...
	And end this on YouTube.
	I'm going to read the Rumble Rants because I haven't read those yet.
	And there's a few of them.
	Let me see if I can get them here.
	Here we go.
	Okay.
	Boom shakalaka.
	I'm going to start going in the proper order.
	Finboy Slick, Tangential Recommendation, White House Plumbers.
	Interesting that Woody plays E. Howard Hunt while Harrelson's real-life dad also had suspected ties to the JFK assassination.
	Kay Isserhoff, I had a chance.
	I had chatted on R.E. Garnett Harper, fatherified, denied kidney due to jab mandate seven months ago.
	He lost his battle.
	Please help with his five kids if you can.
	Let me screen grab that.
	TA1234.
	We have General Milley, who said he would warn China if Trump was going to attack.
	If that's not treason, what is?
	Andre Tukulescu.
	I think I remember you have a shepherd, Andre, if I'm not mistaken, as a dog.
	Was it really JFK's decision to go with a convertible limo?
	I would look into the people who have suggested and enabled it.
	Matt G. Hammond.
	Is it possible we could have avoided all of this if the U.S. would have engaged Russia after defeating the Germans like George S. Patton wanted to?
	I'm not your buddy, guys, since we are living through the controlled demolition of the West.
	This is being coordinated through various interest groups from ideology, greed, or to prevent nuclear war between U.S. and China.
	Tin Stacks, thanks, Vivian Barnes, for sharing this with me.
	Us, this is the most important video you've ever put out, in my opinion.
	God bless you both.
	Brit Cormier, viva!
	Is this your first time seeing this speech?
	Yes, it is.
	Where did you grow up?
	Some great frozen land up north.
	Oh, wait, never mind.
	And Barbisa Ariane, thank you both.
	Thank you both and chatters.
	And I'll read the two locals' tips from Mighty Pax.
	Never heard this speech before.
	Great commentary and explanation.
	Thank you.
	And how come the deep state got away with killing JFK?
	There has been no accountability, no doubt.
	That's at our locals' live chat at Bebobarneslaw.locals.com where everybody's above average, even the trolls.
	Alright, now Robert, I'm going to end it on YouTube and we're going to go over to Rumble.
	There may or may not be time for the Locals exclusive afterwards, but I'll see how...
	Yeah, I'll do.
	I'll comment.
	I'll bring up those tips.
	Because I might be getting weeded out of the basement by children here.
	Okay, I'm removing on YouTube and then we're going to be on Rumble exclusively.
	The link is there.
	I just sent it out.
	Rumble Locals Now.
	And then we're going to get into...
	We're going to get into the RFK speech, which I thought was amazing.
	And now I get a ton more of the references and the...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	The back and forth.
	All right.
	Let me bring it up.
	If I can figure this all out here.
	I somehow separated the windows.
	So they're not...
	I have two windows now.
	All right.
	RFK.
	This is it.
	Oh, here we go.
	This is it.
	Okay.
	Robert, we'll just...
	We'll go.
	By the way, I never realized what a striking physical similarity there is between RFK Jr. and JFK.
	You notice he likes, he always has for a long time, like during his dad and his uncle's era, the ties were tight and skinny.
	And that's his own preferred style.
	And it's reflective of Robert Kennedy Jr. as the true heir apparent to John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy Sr.'s political legacy.
	And, you know, Ted Kennedy, no one else in the family really took up that mantle.
	They established their own separate political identities and really branched off of and often away from the Robert and John Kennedy's political legacies.
	The Robert Kennedy Jr. is very much the intellectual, ideological heir to that legacy.
	Proudly so.
	And you see it not only in his ideas and his framework for deciding and discussing politics, but even down to some of his idioms and chosen method of dress.
	All right.
	Let's let this one roll.
	Although I suspect everybody's seen this one because it was two nights ago now.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	And thank you, Janice Kucinich, for your friendship and for your guidance and for all the hard work you've put into this campaign.
	And thank you to St. Anselm's College for being an oasis of free speech during a time that was really a desert of censorship and suppression of dissent.
	And thank you to all the people of New Hampshire for keeping democracy alive.
	And particularly retail politics, which is what we need in this country.
	We need our politicians.
	Instead of taking billions of dollars from billionaires and aerially bombing our country with advertisements, we need a place where people actually, politicians have to come and be vetted in barbershops and diners and gas stations and nail salons.
	And ask real questions by real people and have to interact with Americans and understand what's happening on the ground level in this country today.
	And New Hampshire is the place where that happens.
	So we need to bring the primaries back here.
	Thank you.
	60 years ago, this month, my uncle John F. Kennedy made a speech at American University in Washington, D.C. And that speech was called the Peace Speech.
	I'll give you some of the context for what was happening at that time.
	The previous autumn, he had been in the Oval Office with his science advisor, who I knew very well as a boy, and growing up as well, Jerome Wisner.
	And at that time, I'm 69 years old, and I remember at that time the regular photographs on the cover of the New York Times and the other papers.
	Of atmospheric testing in the Pacific Atoll.
	So we were seeing the mushroom clouds of the atom bombs, the hydrogen bombs, the nitrogen bombs that were going off regularly in that part of the world.
	And that day, my uncle was meeting with Jerome Wisner and asking him, he asked him at that meeting, what happens to the radioactive fallout?
	And Wisner said it circulates all around the globe very, very quickly, and then it drops back into the earth in the rain, and it gets into our fish, our animals, our ponds, our rivers, our streams, our drinking water.
	And it was raining at that time, and my uncle spent a long time staring out the window, and he said to Wisner, do you think it's in the rain that's falling right now?
	And Wisner told him it was.
	And Ted Sorensen, who was in the room at that time and who had been with my uncle through some of the most difficult times in his life mourning the death of his brother and was with him when he almost died during his back surgeries said that all the years that he knew John Kennedy there was no time that he saw more trouble than that day and that launched a resolution Where
	he decided he wanted to ban nuclear atmosphere and nuclear testing, he knew his State Department would oppose it, and he knew the Pentagon was going to oppose it, so he did the whole thing secretly with Castro.
	By that time, they had to set up the hotlines so they could talk directly with each other, but he negotiated the entire treaty through a few trusted aides within the White House and diplomats who were shuttling back and forth.
	He meant Khrushchev, not Castro, FYI.
	And that's a sign that he's using the teleprompters as guide points rather than a full speech.
	The names that he's dropping, are we supposed to know who those people are?
	Most people don't know.
	on brass were lobbying Congress to kill this treaty by their boss, the commander in chief.
	And I think something like 80% of Americans initially opposed the treaty.
	And he was determined to get it passed.
	And this speech turned the country around.
	It was the beginning of a process that turned the whole country around.
	This speech and the whistle tour that followed it, where he went to places where he did not have political support.
	He went to the South.
	He went to the Western States.
	He went and gave speeches at the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake, people who had not supported his presidency.
	But he found tremendous support on the ground from all Americans for making this happen, because as it turns out, the intelligence apparatus and the military perhaps wanted the war, but the American people did not, and they wanted an end to it.
	With the speech, he did something extraordinary, something that had never been done before.
	To me, it's his most important speech.
	It's one of the most important speeches in American history.
	And the thing that he did that was so unusual in that speech is he talked to the American people and asked them to put themselves in the shoes of the Russians.
	Everybody else was doing the opposite at that time.
	They were demonizing and vilifying the Russians.
	And he said, no, we have to put ourselves in their shoes, in the shoes of our adversaries if we want to have peace.
	We need to do that.
	It has to be a regular discipline.
	And at that time, most Americans, the zeitgeist of that era, I was born nine years after the end of World War II, and the zeitgeist of our era, the governing assumption was that America had won the war, and now we were going to rightfully dominate the peace.
	And he said something very, very different to Americans that challenged that patriotic assumption.
	He said, no, it was actually the Russians who won the war.
	They weakened Hitler and made it possible for us to march into Berlin.
	And he talked about the suffering of the Russians during the war and to legitimize their security concerns, which nobody was doing.
	Any show of military strength by the Russians at that time was portrayed as aggression.
	Robert, this is a question I would have for RFK, and you could answer it as well.
	Historically, some people are going to say, oh, great, so the communists beat the Nazis.
	That's like evil defeating evil, and the evil that defeats the evil, though our friend at the time, becomes our new enemy.
	And so the legitimate security concerns for the Russians...
	Those are legitimate security concerns for communists who had just killed, I don't know, 50, 60 million people over the last 50 years.
	And so some people are going to say the legitimate security concerns of communists who are just as bad as Nazis are still an existential threat to the West.
	So while we use them to defeat the Nazis, they have to become our de facto enemy because they're no better than the Nazis in terms of ideology.
	Well, that's where the President Kennedy speech said it was critical to divorce.
	The ideology of a political authority from the needs of a population and people.
	And that's where he said it was critical to separate those two things.
	And then if we didn't separate those two things, we end up with what Robert Kennedy will start talking about further into this detail, of that the first step is to be in the other party's shoes, and the second step is to get away from comic book definitions of the world.
	Which reflects what President Kennedy was talking about in saying we need a realpolitik approach.
	We may disagree with their ideology, but their ideology is there to stay for the time being, so let's figure out what kind of peace we can achieve in the interim.
	And Robert Kennedy will say part of our whole problem is we've devolved into comic book separations of the world that ignores that human needs And what he was saying to the Americans is, no, they have legitimate security concerns the same as we do, and we need to understand those things.
	He reminded Americans of the suffering that the Russians had endured during the unimaginable suffering.
	One in seven Russians had been killed during World War II.
	He said that...
	He asked Americans to imagine that all of the land, all of the cities, all of the towns from the east coast of Chicago had been leveled to rubble, that the forests and fields had been burned.
	And he said that's what happened to Russia during the war.
	That's what they sacrificed for us.
	And they have legitimate security concerns to make sure that never happens again.
	And that speech turned around the American people.
	And they ended up supporting that.
	It was one of the fastest ratified treaties in American history.
	I'm speaking to you today because the world is once again at a very similar crossroads.
	As in my uncle's time, nuclear tensions are at an extreme and dangerous level.
	As in his time, we have a unique opportunity.
	Not only to diffuse those tensions, but to take a radically different path, a path towards peace.
	My uncle's commitment to peace bore fruit in the Limited Testament Treaty of August 1963.
	But his assassination that November turned the nation down another path.
	His successors have launched one war after another, along with the ceaseless expansion of our military.
	Some call it the forever war.
	Americans used to identify herself as a peaceful nation.
	In fact, our founding, the framers of our Constitution, said that America believed that democracy was inconsistent with an imperium abroad.
	That if we tried to make ourselves an imperial nation abroad, that we would turn into a garrison state, a security state.
	So there you saw that, well, I was talking about earlier the context where he said, you know, President Kennedy's speech.
	He starts off his speech by explaining the context of President Kennedy's speech.
	So the goal is to get in particular this peace deal through, this treaty through.
	And then he's now giving why that speech is context for his speech by saying, while it achieved that objective, my uncle's assassination put us on a different, totally different path.
	And that I'm here to say we can go back to that path rather than the path we've been on for several decades.
	For those asking about the mic, the mic is up to the max that we can put it on.
	This is probably a strategic idea, tactical thing for Kennedy's campaign on a go-forward basis.
	Right now he has got pretty much a ramshackle build-up campaign.
	It's not the biggest operation at this point.
	He's building it.
	But because of Robert Kennedy, the way he likes to speak, and the way he's accustomed to it, he's probably better off either with a physical mic in his hand or a mic on him.
	A lapel mic.
	Yeah, a lapel mic.
	This is also the first time I think he almost never, ever utilizes teleprompters.
	He's trying to incorporate that as a more conventional mechanism of speech and political context.
	Is he using a teleprompter there?
	Because it looked like I didn't see any notes.
	There's two teleprompters on each side.
	My guess is he's using them as notes, with occasional quotes, because you'll see him read from those quotes down the road.
	But you can tell by the fact he gets some...
	Like there, earlier on, he said Castro when he met Khrushchev.
	That tells you, oh, he's not reading the speech.
	That he's got notes that he's operating off.
	And you'll see him look to the notes to remember something and then, boom, go into that story.
	But that's because he's been trained as a legal advocate in his public speaking primary role.
	And often what you'll have is, well, what I do, I just have notes that trigger memory of an entire conversation or place or story that I'm about to tell.
	And so the fact that he'll screw up little things along the way, like names and places and locations, Is a sign that he's recalling it, not reading it.
	But the reason why the volume goes in and out is because he doesn't stick to the mic because this is not a normal method of speaking for him.
	I found when he was on Rogan, that mic, you could listen to him.
	It was less tinny in the speaker system.
	It was almost easy to listen to.
	That's because Rogan has one of the best speaking systems anywhere.
	And I can't wait for the fact-checkers to try to make fun of RFK Jr. for having said...
	Who'd you say?
	Castro, not Khrushchev.
	All right.
	Well, they don't want to talk about this speech, so they're just pretending it didn't happen.
	Well, we're making it happen, Robert.
	It's 9,000-some-odd people watching a retrospective analysis of it right now on Rumble, so this is incredible.
	Okay, we go.
	Let's do this.
	And we would also...
	We would destroy our economy.
	We would drain it, as happens with every empire.
	Every empire ends itself through the over-expansion of its military abroad.
	And the founders knew that.
	John Quincy Adams spoke for all of them when he said, "America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy." Today, I want to recall that memory because this forever war...
	Which has so drained our nation's vitality, now threatens to plunge the world into the unspeakable horror of nuclear Armageddon.
	And I speak, of course, of the situation in Ukraine.
	I abhor Russia's brutal and bloody invasion of that nation.
	But we must understand that our government has also contributed to its circumstances through repeated, deliberate provocations of Russia going back to the 1990s.
	Democratic and Republican administrations have pushed NATO to Russian supporters, violating our own solemn promise in the early 90s when we pledged that if Russia made this terrible concession of moving 400,000
	troops out of East Germany, And allowing the unification of Germany under a NATO army, a hostile army, that we would commit that after that, we would not move NATO one inch to the east.
	And James Baker gave that assurance, as did the British government officials and many, many others.
	And yet, today, we have surrounded Russia.
	We have moved it not one inch to the east, but 1,000 miles.
	14 nations.
	Robert, so this is the argument that when Konstantin was on, you know, he raised the argument, well, NATO doesn't need to inch forward in Ukraine.
	It's already there in Poland.
	It's already there with Norway.
	And then I might be misunderstanding the purpose of the Minsk Accords.
	Contextually, NATO was never supposed to enter Ukraine.
	And why is Ukraine uniquely different than any of the other bordering nations with Russia?
	Yeah, so two different aspects.
	Some people have suggested that Robert Kennedy's statement here was historically false.
	Those people are lying.
	They might just be wrong.
	They might just be wrong, Robert.
	They may not be intentionally lying, but they're still lying, making a false statement of fact.
	And so James Baker has published and admitted that in what was, and as little as Robert Kennedy Jr. is about to explain, this was all about the reunification of Germany.
	And we in the West wanted, as Perestroika was taking the Soviet Union apart, we wanted Russia to agree to withdraw its military troops from Eastern Germany and allow for the reunification of Germany.
	And the great concern in Russia, and one of the historical things that's always been ignored, in the West, in the post-war effort, post-war era, The Soviet Union's domination of Eastern and Central Europe was portrayed in America as nothing less than just about communist ideological aggression.
	In reality, it was about the paranoia of the Russian population of another invasion and the desire to create buffer states between it and Western Europe.
	We created, after the end of World War II, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, to which the Warsaw Pact was kind of more of a response.
	It wasn't so much NATO responding to the Warsaw Pact as the Warsaw Pact's creation responding to NATO.
	NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's only excuse at the time, was the communist threat of the Soviet Union.
	So why did the NATO even exist?
	When the Soviet Union no longer exists, there's always been a question that should have been asked, but that only President Trump has been willing to ask.
	And so in the context of Germany, we want reunification of Germany.
	We want the Russians out.
	And so the agreement was, don't worry.
	Now it was only informal.
	Putin has made this point.
	There was nothing informal writing.
	But James Baker explicitly stated...
	The Secretary, then Secretary of State under Poppy Bush, George Herbert Walker Bush, Bush I, depending on how you want to call him, that to Gorbachev, don't worry, we will not go, quote, one inch east of Germany.
	In the late 1990s, we complete, as he'll get into, we violated that promise.
	But that's the promise he's referencing.
	That is the entire reason.
	Why the Soviet Union withdrew from Eastern Germany to allow German reunification and then begin to allow the flower of revolution throughout Central and Eastern Europe and the old Warsaw Pact states that allowed them to free them up.
	So that's part one.
	Part two is Ukraine has always been identified, going back to Brezhnev and others in the 1970s, but even before then, due to its geographical terrain and its access to certain parts of Russia, That that part of the Ukrainian-Russian border is Russia's most vulnerable space to an invasion from Europe.
	And that geographically, it has particularly significant security concerns.
	So Ukraine has always been a special concern for Russian physical and military security.
	And that's what's unique about it.
	That's where people like Konstantin, who...
	Is a war whore from Britain, whose daddy was a corrupt criminal Russian oligarch, mini oligarch, in my humble opinion, is incorrect in his historical analysis.
	Okay, let's do this.
	We have surrounded Russia with missiles and military bases, something that we would never tolerate if the Russians did that to us.
	And statements.
	From our government officials and think tanks, lay out the goals for the Ukraine war.
	Regime change in Russia.
	The overthrow of Vladimir Putin.
	This is what President Biden has said.
	Is there our purpose in the Ukraine?
	The disabling and exhaustion of the Russian military and the dismembering of the Russian Federation.
	None of these objectives have anything to do with helping the Ukraine, which of course was the pretext for our involvement in the war.
	That's when our leaders told us that we were there for a humanitarian mission.
	But they've since acknowledged that there is a broader geopolitical agenda and that Ukraine is simply a pawn in a proxy war between the United States and Russia.
	Like teenagers.
	Playing World of Warcraft, ease warmongers inside U.S. leadership, drop war games and scenarios, and pretend that a nuclear war is winnable.
	That is a dangerous lie.
	It's an illusion that my uncle's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, called mass psychosis.
	These individuals do not appreciate what John F. Kennedy understood when he said, of nuclear war, All that we have built, all that we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours.
	Even one nuclear explosion spreads radioactivity around the world.
	Can you imagine the consequence of a full nuclear exchange?
	President Kennedy did.
	That's why he said, quote, above all, while defending our own vital interests.
	Nuclear powers must divert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either humiliating retreat of a nuclear war or a nuclear war.
	To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence of the bankruptcy of our policy or a collective death wish for humanity.
	Let me say that again.
	Nuclear powers must have hurt those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either humiliating retreat or a nuclear war.
	The shameful fact is that for the last 20 years, the advocates of a militaristic foreign policy within the U.S. leadership have done exactly the opposite.
	Their belligerent strategy of maximum confrontation extends beyond Russia to China.
	With the same group within our government, I mean,
	that's a great summation of both his Uncle President John Kennedy's speech and his speech, that it's a vain...
	idea that they that we can have world domination through violent confrontation that's a vain fantasy that's not only a dangerous fantasy it's not only a morally repugnant fantasy but it's an empirically uh uh fantastical as in unlikely to ever be true or come into reality fantasy that we won't achieve world domination We'll only achieve world conflict.
	And that that was the point and purpose of his...
	Uncle's President, President Kennedy's speech, same point and purpose of his speech here.
	And with, as going back to the Roman Empire, it didn't lead to nuclear war because of the weapons they had, but it certainly led to the demise of Rome itself, spread too thin, defending on too many fronts, paying the military too much, and ignoring its own citizens.
	Because what he does is, in there he corresponded three different components.
	Paul Kennedy's research, who is a professor of mine at Yale.
	On the rise and decline of empires.
	And what he highlighted was that the one key common denominator in the decline of empires is that by about the 10th generation of that empire, that nation, that country, that governmental experiment, which is about where we are, by the way, is that they overextend their military.
	Or put another way, war abroad leads to poverty at home.
	Peace abroad leads to prosperity at home.
	And then he connected that.
	He said, our founders understood that.
	And he goes, that's why our founders constantly said things like, you cannot have an imperium abroad and a democracy at home.
	And John Quincy Adams' famous speech, where he stated, we as America do not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.
	The monsters to destroy is the fear and the fiction and the fantasy pitched as the pretext to motivate us to go abroad and be an empire, and that will always be a disaster and counterproductive to the founding fundamental principles of America.
	And he's saying President John Kennedy understood that, recognized that, respected that, tried to enforce that, achieved practical objectives and peace treaties for it, and his assassination precluded its implementation, and we've now seen the consequences of 60 years of the...
	Military-industrial complex running our foreign policy, and that Ukraine and Taiwan are just the latest iterations of this.
	They will be portrayed as humanitarian interventions.
	They will be portrayed as protecting young democracies.
	They will be portrayed as standing up to bullies.
	But in fact, the real geopolitical objective is the vain fantasy of world domination through violent confrontation, and that is not a practicable solution for anyone.
	President Kennedy understood that peace begins with our basic attitudes and beliefs.
	He spoke of the futility of passively waiting for the other side to become enlightened.
	We, quote, we must examine our own attitudes, he said, as individuals and as a nation, for our attitude is as essential to theirs.
	End quote.
	We should, he said, begin by looking inward.
	Yes, back in 1963, a politician really said that.
	A political leader voiced what would be considered today a spiritual maximum or a spiritual principle.
	Let's take up that call from 60 years ago and ask Americans, all of us, to reexamine our attitude.
	We have been immersed in a foreign policy discourse that is all about adversaries and threats and allies and enemies and domination.
	We've become addicted to comic book good versus evil narratives that erase complexity and blind us to the legitimate motives and the legitimate cultural and economic concerns and the legitimate security concerns of other peoples and other nations.
	That's also a great description of Realpolitik.
	Realpolitik is the opposite of what he's describing as taking place.
	Because Realpolitik doesn't engage in comic book caricatures of the world.
	Realpolitik engages from the perspective by stepping in the shoes of other people.
	The great quote from Elvis that his father taught him when he was a kid, never judge a man until you walk a mile in his shoes.
	That we must first step into their, because what's the path to peace?
	Mindset shift.
	What's that mindset shift?
	Step into the shoes of all the other people's populations, countries, nations of the world.
	Understand what are their actual motivations, because that matters in terms of predictive policy outcomes and their ability to reflect the consequences that are sought-after objectives.
	But also to understand what are their legitimate economic needs?
	What are their legitimate cultural...
	What are their legitimate security needs?
	Because that's the only way you're ever going to achieve peace, and you have to be the one initiating it.
	You can't wait for them to reach your own enlightened state of affairs.
	You have to be the party, being the party that's taking the first step to do that.
	All right.
	Hold on, I lost the thing.
	Okay, here we go.
	Institutionalize a reflex of violence as the response for any and all crises.
	Everything becomes a war.
	The war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on cancer, the war on climate change.
	This way of thinking predisposes us to wage endless wars abroad, wars and coups and bombs and drones and regime change operations and support for paramilitaries and juntas and dictators.
	None of this has made us safer, and none of it has burnished our leadership or our moral authority.
	More importantly, we must ask ourselves, is this really who we are?
	Is this what we want to be?
	Is that what Americans' founders envision?
	Here's another spiritual principle, one that my uncle also referred to, when he said, quote, we are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle, with suspicion on one side breeding suspicion on the other, and new weapons beginning counterweapons.
	When we hold others in the belief that they are implacable enemies, they tend to mold themselves accordingly to our view of them.
	It's a self-fulfilling prophecy or prediction that launches all players into a cycle of suspicion that my uncle warned against.
	Inhabiting the role of an enemy, we empower hardliners in places like Russia, China, Cuba, and Iran.
	We invite them into the drama of conflict, the drama of provocation and counter-provocation of weapon and counter-weapon.
	Is it any wonder that as America has waged violence throughout the world, violence has overtaken us in our own nation?
	Pause here.
	It has not come as an invasion.
	It has come from within.
	Pause it.
	I love this because at first I thought it was sort of a spiritual, metaphysical thing, and then it just makes total sense when he goes on.
	That you end up, you ship out billions of dollars to support proxy wars in Ukraine, and you don't have enough for your military veterans at home and your homeless people at home and your drug addicts at home.
	Sorry, Robert, what were you going to say?
	Yeah, and the other component here is you're saying we're creating a self-fulfilling reality.
	Like, for example, during President Kennedy's era, defining everybody as communist aggressors actually created more communist aggressors, actually empowered more communist aggressors.
	And his point here is we actually create more hostile people with positions of power in Russia, in China, in Cuba, in Iran.
	The more we approach them and project upon them these evil, avaricious traits, we actually create governing societies in those places that are empowered by that because they effectively internalize it and use their own rhetoric to justify.
	Their own imperial behavior, their own aggressive behavior, their own violent behavior, internally and externally.
	And he's pointing out this is why a mindset shift is essential to any path to peace.
	And then now he's going to bridge the point Paul Kennedy makes and the historians and the scholars make, the point our founders made, the point President Kennedy made.
	Is you can't have war abroad and peace at home.
	You can't have war abroad and prosperity at home.
	War abroad is poverty at home.
	War abroad is war at home.
	Our bombs, our drones, our armies are incapable of stopping the gun violence on our streets and schools or domestic violence in our homes.
	I see the same link here as my father and Martin Luther King saw about the Vietnam War.
	They saw that war.
	They believed that we could not have warfare abroad without bringing that violence home to our streets, to our attitudes, to our communities.
	Foreign violence is inseparable from domestic violence.
	Both are aspects of a basic orientation and a basic set of priorities, waging endless awards.
	Waging endless wars abroad, we have neglected the foundation of our own well-being.
	We have a decaying economic infrastructure.
	We have a demoralized people, a despairing people.
	We have toxins in our air and our soil and our water.
	We have deteriorating mental and physical health.
	These are the wages of war.
	What will be...
	Great phrase, the wages of war.
	What will be the wages of peace?
	It will be healing of all the symptoms of America's decline.
	None of these are beyond our capacity to heal.
	We can restore America to the awesome vitality of the original Kennedy era.
	My uncle said it well.
	He said that no problem of human destiny is beyond human beings.
	He warned us that, quote, too many of us think that peace is impossible.
	Too many of us think it is unreal.
	But that is the dangerous and defeatist belief.
	It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable, that mankind is doomed, that we are gripped by forces that we cannot control.
	We need not accept that view.
	Our problems are man-made, and therefore they can be solved by man.
	Not to be...
	The Debbie Downer cynic here, but the assassination of JFK might have confirmed what many dreaded as unfortunately true of the world, but who knows, maybe my time frame for measuring things is too small.
	applause applause applause applause applause How do we actually do that?
	We started by replacing the vicious cycle of suspicion with a virtuous cycle of trust building.
	We reversed escalation.
	It takes courage to make the first move toward peace.
	Let's see what happens when we stop the provocation and the escalation and offer instead an olive branch.
	Each step we take invites those who we call our adversaries to take a step further.
	Maybe Russia won't respond.
	Maybe they won't respond in kind or in any way.
	But at least we will know that we tried.
	And the whole world will know it too.
	That step comes from a changed attitude and from courage.
	Speaking in the midst of the Cold War, John Kennedy asked us, quote, not only to see the distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than exchange of threats.
	Let's take a moment and allow that to sink in.
	Today, America Has broken off practically all diplomatic contact with Russia.
	So that communication has indeed become little more than an exchange of threats and insults.
	FDR met with Stalin.
	JFK met with Khrushchev.
	Nixon met with Brezhnev.
	Reagan met with Gorbachev.
	Can't Biden meet with Putin?
	Do we have...
	Can't we...
	Or can we at least begin a conversation?
	Do we now have such a distorted and desperate view of the other side that we won't even speak to them?
	To see conflict as inevitable has become the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy.
	Two or three decades ago, it was the clash of civilization between Islam and the West.
	Today, those legions of think tanks that are funded by the defense industry exhort us to prepare for the inevitable war with China.
	War is inevitable only if we make it inevitable.
	Thank you.
	The war in Ukraine could have been avoided, even as late now we now know as spring of 2022.
	When U.S. officials sent Boris Yeltsin to Kiev to scuttle peace talks between Ukraine and Russia, a peace agreement they had already signed.
	Okay.
	There you can see he's also, again, not reading.
	This is one of the mistakes.
	He means Boris Johnson, but he's thinking what happened in Russia, and so he comes up before that led up to everything in terms of Boris Yeltsin's governance and the lies made to the Boris Yeltsin administration in the early 1990s.
	So that's why he's flipping the two, but it's another sign that he's...
	He's using the teleprompter solely as notes, not as reading a speech, which you could guess was going to happen, but that's where he'll make this occasional verbal substitution error.
	But what he's also talking about is a recent news development that came out confirmed by Putin, but also Lukashenko, that had already been circulated to the West, which was there was not just one, but two peace opportunities early on in the conflict in spring of 2022.
	Which was that the discussions in Belarus initially, the Ukrainian advisor, the Ukrainian negotiator, actually signed off on.
	And then the Ukrainians would again sign off on in Istanbul, but a different version of it a month or so later, which had initials on it that Putin cited in reference to an African delegation visiting in St. Petersburg and Moscow.
	The St. Petersburg International Summit was part of the predicate for them being there, which was that the deal was that Russia would withdraw from Ukraine, from the Donbass region, that Ukraine would sign off on a guarantee of its security that third parties would be a guarantor of, including the United States, China, and Russia.
	And certain European nations would substitute in for their security.
	They would agree to dramatically withdraw down their own military size.
	They would agree to honor the Minsk Accords that had been signed by Ukraine concerning the Donbass Rebellion after the Maidan coup of 2014 that led to this entire conflict.
	Where the Russian people and the Russian population of the Donbass region didn't like their elected president being overthrown in an anti-democratic way and didn't trust the new regime, which was very anti-Russian and tied to historically anti-Russian groups in the country.
	Known as Stepan, Bandera, and the Banderites that even connects to Operation Gladio and other activities that would take you down a different path.
	I have a bunch of hush-hushes up on this at vivabarneslaw.locals.com if you want more detail.
	But basically, solve the problem of Donbass, which had been agreed to back in 2015 in the Minsk Accords, which basically gave them some autonomous independence in the Donbass to protect their language and culture and people while keeping them part of Ukraine, not Russia.
	Just for honoring the Minsk Accords, reducing their military size, agreeing they'll never join NATO, but their own security concerns instead of Ukraine being met by independent third-party security guarantors, including Russia, including the United States, including China, including, I believe, France as well, a range of powers around the globe, that that peace deal was done and, in fact, was originally agreed to by Ukraine.
	Ukraine's own negotiator was then assassinated on his return to Kiev by somebody within the Ukrainian regime.
	We still don't know who.
	It's never been solved.
	Then they came back to the table, agreed to some variation of that in Istanbul a month later.
	And that's when what Robert Kennedy Jr. is referencing is Boris Johnson was sent from the United Kingdom to tell Zelensky, you can't do that deal.
	And in fact, when Russia originally withdrew troops from large parts of Kiev and And large parts of eastern Ukraine, just not the Donbass region and the region connected to Crimea, but all the rest, they did so believing Ukraine had agreed to a peace treaty that they then withdrew very quickly under western pressure.
	So that's the context in which Robert Kennedy is talking about here.
	And not only that, Russia had already begun removing its troops from the Kiev area.
	We now know this.
	This war was not inevitable.
	It was the creation of a relentless mentality of war and domination.
	At the height of the Cold War, JFK was willing to see beyond the prevailing stereotypes of Russia and its leader, Khrushchev, as the epitome of evil.
	The two men at that time exchanged 26 highly personal and private emails among each other.
	Russia, a KGB, a GRU spy who used to come to my home when I was a little boy, and we knew he was his spy, and this was the time that the James Bond films were all coming out, and we considered it very sort of romantic and dangerous to have a real Russian spy in our house.
	He was a very charming guy.
	He was kind of a short...
	Extremely strong, and he would do rope climbing contests with my father and push-up contests, and he could do the Cossack dancing, which was really impressive to all of us, and he taught us to do it.
	And he had a great sense of humor, and he was filled with laughter, and my father and mother enjoyed his company a lot.
	They met him originally at the Russian embassy at a party.
	But the State Department was horrified that we were letting a KGB spy into our home.
	But during this period, my uncle wanted to talk directly to Khrushchev.
	The CIA didn't know anything about what was happening in the Kremlin, and they always thought the worst.
	They always told him the worst was happening, and he knew enough about politics to know that it couldn't be that bad.
	And ultimately, Khrushchev sent him the first of these letters hidden in the New York Times through Bolshekoy.
	And these letters and ran the State Department.
	Both my uncle and Khrushchev realized during this correspondence that they were both surrounded by an intelligence apparatus and by military brass who considered war both inevitable and desirable.
	And that if they were going to maintain peace, they needed to talk to each other because they could not.
	They could not trust the people around them to give them strong, disciplined advice.
	And this may have been confirmed...
	Oh, Barnes seemed to be dropped out.
	This may have been confirmed by the lies that were told to Trump as relates to the amount of soldiers left in Syria.
	I got to go back and watch Dr. Strangelove again because I probably did not have any appreciation for the accuracy of the characters in it.
	But what he's describing again seems to be describing exactly what we lived through and discovered with Trump.
	In office.
	And at the same time, my uncle and crew chef installed a hotline which had never existed before.
	So when I was a boy, there was a red phone at Hyannisport and another one in the White House where we knew that if we picked up that phone, we were supposed to stay away from it.
	And we did, because that was the one thing they said, don't ever touch that phone.
	But we knew if we touched that, if we picked up that phone, Khrushchev was going to answer.
	And the wires from that phone are still sticking out of the wall of my brother's house, which was, at that time, was the Summer White House.
	But they knew they had to talk to each other if they were going to save the world.
	They said, you know, that first letter from Khrushchev, he said, we're all on an ark.
	And, you know, we can't build another one.
	The earth is an ark.
	and we need to preserve it.
	And the question now is, are we willing to do anything like that today?
	Or are we going to remain stuck in a self-righteous story in which America is categorically good and our opponents are irredeemably evil?
	If we remain stuck there, so will every other nation.
	It's not only America that's falling into this simplistic good guy, bad guy thinking.
	That's the example we've set for everybody in the world.
	No wonder it's been replicated everywhere, between Israel and Iran, between India and Pakistan, between Shia and Sunni, between Jew and Arab, between Hindu and Muslim, left and right, between pro-life and pro-choice, between vax and anti-vax.
	It's tribalistic.
	Us versus them thinking is tearing us apart.
	And it's...
	Pause.
	And this part of his broader thematic structure where he, here he takes the global comic book view of the world as being deeply dangerous to peace abroad or prosperity at home.
	And he connects it...
	to all of the other global conflicts and connects it to our own domestic political conflicts and reflects his broader view that we need to not only not censor dissident speech but incentivize debate and the best way of doing so in the dialogue and discussion and engagement the first step of that just like the first step of peace abroad the first step of Political unity at home is at least stepping in the shoes of those who disagree with
	us and engaging them as human beings with a unique perspective rather than as enemies and as adversaries and as tribes to conquer.
	And that's part of his broader domestic dissident debate dialogue discussion as well.
	And here he combines the two and integrates the two and analogizes the two.
	I'm going to pull out the earphone so that my kid can hear this as well, but I'm going to put myself on mute so that we don't have an echo.
	So now you're going to listen to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. talk.
	Let's go over here, press play, and I'll put myself on mute.
	You can do it.
	And it's tearing apart our country, and it's tearing apart the world.
	So these are the waves of war.
	But when we take the first step toward peace, We will become, once again, a true world leader, a moral leader, a moral authority.
	And our example, it doesn't take much.
	It's just the first step.
	And people will start looking at America differently, the way they did when my uncle was president.
	My uncle, I pointed this out in my announcement speech, my uncle was so determined, he told one of his best friends, Brent Bradley, said to him, What do you want as your epithet on your gravestone?
	And he said he kept the peace.
	He said, and Bradley asked him to explain that, and he said, the primary job of an American president is to keep the country out of war.
	That's what he said.
	And during his time in the White House, He was surrounded by military hawks and his intelligence apparatus, his military brass, who were constantly exhorting him to go to war in Laos, in Berlin, in Cuba, in Vietnam, and he'd never sent a single combat troop abroad during his term in office.
	He ultimately, they wanted him to send 250,000 combat troops to Vietnam.
	He ended up sending 16,000 advisors who were not under the rules of engagement allowed to participate in combat.
	That's fewer people, fewer men.
	And he sent to get James Meredith, one black man, into Ole Miss, the University of Mississippi in Jackson.
	Pause.
	Yeah, you have to explain this.
	I didn't understand the story behind it.
	So two different components.
	One, he references Jackson.
	He's referencing the state capital of Mississippi.
	It's another sign that he's not reading the speech, that he's substituting names and places when he thinks of an idea or image.
	Of course, the University of Mississippi is in Oxford, Mississippi, up north, northern part of the state.
	But his analogy here is that he's also part of, I think, this campaign is reminding the American people of the alternative, that his uncle is bearing the light, the flag.
	The memory of the Kennedy, his father and his uncle, and the legacy of their true legacy and of what that legacy could still be.
	And part of that is correcting the historical record.
	That there has been a smear campaign launched by the intelligence community and the national security community to rewrite what his uncle John did as president.
	And his point here is that...
	They were the ones begging and screaming and squealing for war, including sending a quarter of a million Americans into Vietnam.
	But also they wanted to go into Laos.
	They also wanted to go into Cuba.
	They also wanted to go into a bunch of other places, as well as wage nuclear war, not do treaties, not see the world in a different framework or filter that he's describing as the appropriate and best one.
	But that is an example that all he sent to Vietnam were people who were supposed to not...
	Instead of sending the quarter of a million that the military said, he said, I'll only send advisors.
	I'm not going to send anybody that can engage in combat.
	And his point is to the significance of the number of people that Kennedy authorized is that it's less than the number of people he authorized in bringing in the National Guard to make sure the University of Mississippi could be integrated.
	That's the point he makes is to show people the significance of it.
	Also to analogize and remind them of Kennedy was more concerned with civil rights in Mississippi than he was trying to escalate in Vietnam.
	He was trying to de-escalate in Vietnam as exemplified by that comparison.
	Okay.
	Okay, and I had mentioned, Robert, do we know that the military-industrial complex lied to Trump about anything other than the number of troops remaining in Syria trying to go to war with Iran?
	Are there any other things that we definitively know the military misled Trump about?
	Yes, because Colonel McGregor has talked about it, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, that they precluded that withdrawal from being done on much better terms than ultimately Biden did.
	By lying to him about what was in place and what was in plan.
	And McGregor actually had a plan to make that happen before...
	They lied to him about other things.
	They lied to him about Julian Assange.
	They lied to him about Edward Snowden.
	They lied to him about a wide range of topics.
	They lied to him about Ukraine.
	They lied to him about the Biden family's corruption in Ukraine.
	They lied to him about Zelensky.
	They always lied to him about Putin.
	They lied to him about aspects of China.
	They lied to him.
	John Bolton lied to him about peace deal in North Korea that he was very close, Trump was, to accomplishing.
	But for John Bolton, we can go on and on and on at what will be ultimately proven to be the litany of lies they continue to tell throughout his entire first term.
	Okay.
	Before he died in October of 1963, he heard that a Green Beret had died.
	In Vietnam, and he asked one of his aides to give him a total casualty list.
	And the aide came back, and the casualty list had 75 Americans on it who had died in Vietnam.
	And he said, that's too much.
	We're not going to have a single more American die.
	That day, he signed National Security Order 263 that ordered every U.S. service person home from Vietnam, with the first thousand leaving the next month.
	Beginning in November.
	And that, he died a month later.
	And a week after his death, that order was remanded.
	And President Johnson ended up sending 250,000 troops.
	By President Johnson.
	President Johnson ended up sending 250,000 troops.
	Ultimately, 560,000.
	56,000 never came home, including my cousin.
	George Skakel, who died in the Tet Offensive, and we killed a million Vietnamese.
	And, you know, we've then gone off on this path with a military-industrial complex, which President Eisenhower warned about a week before, three days before my uncle took office, in the best speech that he ever gave and one of the most important in history, where he warned America.
	And if we did not take great pains to avoid it, the emerging military-industrial complex would devour our democracy.
	It would destroy American values from within.
	And my uncle knew that.
	He knew that speech.
	And he spent three years, his thousand days in office, fighting against the rise of the military-industrial complex.
	After his death, we went down that path that Eisenhower predicted.
	And that's where we are today.
	And it's time now to reverse that.
	It's time.
	I wish you would say, maybe it's not too crass, I wish you would say after my uncle's murder, not after my uncle's death.
	it sounds almost like natural causes.
	Woo!
	Thank you.
	As I said before, peace comes from a changed attitude.
	At the bottom of the war mentality.
	At the bottom of the war mentality that casts the world into a drama of enemies and threats and lies at the base view of human nature.
	When you see humans as fundamentally selfish and all nations as fundamentally evil, then all you have available to change their behavior is threats and bribes.
	Peace comes from a different place.
	It starts by seeing within others and within ourselves.
	That which is not selfish, but is brave and generous and idealistic and has good intentions.
	And I'm not saying that we should ignore the base elements of human nature or the dangers of the world.
	But if that's all that we see, and we're going to be stuck forever in the mentality of war, and that's where the military-industrial complex wants to keep us, and we will reap forever its poisonous fruits.
	The Charter Corps for the future of our nation's military and foreign policy all return once again to the words of John F. Kennedy.
	He said, "America's weapons are not provocative.
	They are carefully controlled.
	They are designed to deter and capable of selective use.
	Our military forces are committed to peace and disciplined in self-restraint." Our diplomats are instructed to avoid unnecessary irritants and purely rhetorical hostility.
	End quote.
	The current administration is going to be in power for another year and a half, but the danger of reckless escalation and nuclear brinksmanship is real and present.
	I therefore call on our present leadership to adopt President Kennedy's I call on them to fulfill John F. Kennedy's declaration.
	I call on the military establishment to exercise discipline, self-restraint.
	I call upon the State Department to avoid unnecessary irritants and hostile rhetoric.
	And here's the most important thing of all.
	I call on every American to join in a new peace movement, to make your voices heard, to reject the insanity of escalation, and to celebrate no longer the wartime president, but a president who keeps the peace.
	They have to impeach the president who kept the peace.
	And what kind of peace?
	I'll end with one more piece of wisdom from my uncle.
	"What kind of peace do we seek?
	Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war.
	Not a piece of the grave or the security of a slave.
	I'm talking about a genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on Earth worth living." The kind that enables people and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children.
	Not merely a piece for all men and women, not merely a piece for our time, but a piece for all time.
	Thank you all very much.
	Amazing.
	I'm going to close the speech down so that should be it.
	Robert.
	Great, great speech.
	Great recall to his uncle's legacy.
	Great recall to his father's 1968 campaign by recalling what President Kennedy called for in 1963.
	And, you know, encapsulated in a shifting mindset towards peace, reminding people that you cannot have war abroad and prosperity at home.
	You cannot have an imperium abroad and democracy at home.
	That we do not, in the American tradition, go searching abroad for monsters to destroy.
	So we never fall into that trap of comic book villainy, ensnaring us into unnecessary international conflicts that undermine our own peace and prosperity long term.
	That we shouldn't be engaged in provocations and rhetorical hostilities.
	That we should be engaged in self-discipline, self-restraint.
	Not constant, continuous provocation and escalation.
	That what we seek is not the security of a slave, nor the constant threat of war, but is a meaningful piece within a realpolitik understanding that celebrates both sides of human nature.
	That recognizes the evils that lurk within, but also the greatness that it can exhibit if we listen to it in the first place.
	So a great peace speech, a great policy speech, a great historical contact speech, a great speech to current application of current matters and issues, a particular direct call to action to the Biden administration and a direct call to the broader public to join a new peace movement to return to the path not taken after the assassination of his uncle President.
	Robert, the kid has found me and I think he's gotten persistent.
	Let me just do this.
	I'm going to end this.
	Yeah, go put it in the freezer.
	And I'm going to make iced coffee out of that.
	Don't drop it.
	I'm going to read...
	Let me read some Rumble rants that have come up.
	And then, Robert, what we could do...
	I could end it on Rumble, and you can continue this on Locals, and then I'll end the stream afterwards.
	Oh, I'll be on...
	Yeah, we can wrap it up this stream here.
	I'll be on later tonight at Bourbon with Barnes to do a follow-up there for any additional questions people have.
	At 9-ish Eastern Time at VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com Viva Rumble Tip.
	Click anywhere in the video to pause or restart.
	It's simple.
	I'm an idiot.
	Flying score.
	I can't figure it out.
	Tin stacks.
	RFK will not speak in front of tasseled flags.
	Where we go when we go, all ghosts in the machine.
	I'm not sure I get the second reference, but I'll look it up.
	I'm not your buddy guy from my previous chat.
	You guys think my analysis is incorrectly about controlled demolition.
	Also, I think McCarthyism got a bad rap for something that was needed then and still needed now.
	Robert, maybe you'll tackle that one later.
	I'm not sure I can tackle McCarthyism.
	And let me just, if I go, how much do we have in local?
	Only one locals tip, just Mighty Pay reminded me that that means pay is French for peace.
	That's right.
	A very, very cool little acronym there.
	Mighty Pay, thank you for the tips in there.
	All right, Robert, this was...
	Let me just get this window out.
	I don't want to say this was the most important stream that we've done, but I can now retrospectively understand it certainly was.
	Having watched RFK's speech, I now understand it a lot more thoroughly, but having listened to JFK's speech, and you understand what a big, fat middle finger that was to the...
	Well, I guess someone got the last middle finger, and I'm not trying to be glib.
	It's like, you know...
	It was a throwdown to the war machine, and the war machine succeeded then, and we've seen the horrendous consequences for America and the world since.
	And Robert Kennedy Jr. is reminding us of what could have been and what still can be.
	And in that way, his campaign is very much a successor to Seek a Newer World, the title of his father's 1968 campaign book.
	All right, amazing.
	So what I'm going to do, I'm going to end it.
	Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Locals, Rumble, thank you all.
	I might be live tomorrow, subject to confirmation with Chef Gruel.
	So if you don't know him from Twitter, you probably do, but look him up.
	I think that might be on tomorrow afternoon.
	So to be confirmed right now, this was amazing.
	Robert, thank you.
	And everybody else, thank you for being here.
	And I will see you all tomorrow.
	And those who are going to go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com for bourbon with Barnes tonight, you know where to go.
	All right.
	Ending it.
	And see you all later.

▲