The above image was made with stable diffusion using the prompt 'painting of a man in a suit speaking to a crowd.'
I like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and think his candidacy is good for the country, though there's little chance of him ever being on a presidential ballot. Someone seems to think he's got a chance, though. Mainstream media has been doing hit piece after hit piece on him. Many are succumbing to the anti-Kennedy propaganda.
The other day a relative posted some of this propaganda on Facebook. It was a piece from the Daily Beast with a misleading headline. 'RFK Jr. Said COVID-19 May Have Been ‘Ethnically Targeted’ to Spare Jews and Chinese, Then Denied Saying It' was the headline. Actually, Kennedy said "In fact, COVID-19, there’s an argument that it is ethnically targeted..." My understanding is that saying there's an argument to be made for something is different from portraying something as fact. According to this Tweet, Kennedy was talking about the implications of this study, which showed that covid impacted different peoples differently.
New York Post and Daily Beast removed essential context to create headlines that maximized outrage. But they do have a point that talking about ethnically targeted bioweapons at all is problematic. It was a bonehead move on Kennedy's part to go there, even at a social event where the assumption of privacy was reasonable. It made it hard to reply to my relative's Facebook post. But I did reply, highlighting the media misrepresentation.
"He's a dangerous man," was all I got back, along with this 10 minute long MSNBC hit piece on Kennedy. This piece was almost a word-for-word rehashing of a 2019 Washington Post article about a measles outbreak in Samoa that killed dozens of children. Both pieces implied that Kennedy was to blame for the deaths. And if all my relative did was watch the MSNBC segment, I can understand why she might conclude that he was dangerous.
The context for this story is that 2 infants died after receiving the MMR vaccine. Apparently, nurses had been mixing muscle relaxers in with the vaccines before administering the vaccines and it killed two kids. Mainstream media placed the blame squarely with the nurses, and they were indeed culpable. But they were also part of a vaccination program, and that program itself was ultimately responsible.
The question of responsibility is important here because the Samoan government drastically scaled back its MMR vaccinations of young children after those two were killed. At the same time, Kennedy was hanging out with important people and a prominent vaccine questioner in Samoa. The media implied that this was evidence that Kennedy somehow had a hand in Samoan public health policy. It seems more likely that Samoan public health officials made their own choices.
And yet, again, it's a bad look for Kennedy. I personally think measles vaccination does far more good than harm. If Kennedy thinks differently, that's fine, but it does paint an easy target on his back. Also, if Kennedy thinks differently, he probably does have legit information supporting his views. And his standards of evidence aren't low.
To be honest, seeing legacy media go after Kennedy this way is kind of exciting. It means he's gaining momentum in the mainstream. Kennedy's nonstop engagement with the alternative press is starting to pay off. From my perspective, he still looks like the best candidate on the field.
Read my novels:
See my NFTs:
