RFK & Gaza

designing an ethical framework

In this episode, I’ll be arguing reluctantly for why we should not be moved by Robert Kennedy’s very moving speech announcing the end of his campaign.

Religion and politics are both personality cults. They decide who we believe, not what we believe. They’re emotional attachments to someone we think is better than us—wiser, more loving, more powerful, more important, more sympathetic.

I think that each of us has a power that no public figure does—to change our minds. It’s up to us to see things as they are and think clearly. In the end, it’s the only thing we control. My purpose is to continue looking systematically at ideas, particularly our own moral framework.

This was inadvertently helped by a commenter on Mary McLaughlin’s article, Why RFK Jr. Makes Me Cry. My first inclination was that Bobby gives good people hope. Why did I need to mess that up? This argument showed me why. I’ll recount it, changing his/her pseudonym to The Moral Critic.

---

moral inconsistency & virtue signaling

It started with Isaac Middle’s perceptive comment:

For all his flaws, Bobby is the figure most responsible for mainstreaming anti-Jibby Jab discourse. And he has paid the price by being disowned by his family in the most public and humiliating way possible.

I answered:

Where RFK & Trump agree is on Israel and a Biblical endtimes scenario. I agree with you on RFK's sincerity. Perhaps he really believes that the sacrifice of Palestinian children is worth it to be in a position to save generations of children in the US. But I can't agree with him on that, even if he's convinced himself. He could have stood up for Palestine, and have been the only candidate who did, and I would have been 100% behind him. But no candidate is anti-war when they say they'll do whatever it takes to defend Israel. Ukraine is a non-issue, and safe to be against. Israel is engaged in genocide and no hopeful speech can obscure that fact without being propaganda.

Mary wrote:

I agree with you that his stance on Israel is not congruent with his stated beliefs about not taking sides. In fact, that incongruity made me walk away from his campaign. But eventually, in light of what I understand to be a fact (that no anti-Israel presidential candidate has ever won the election,) I decided that I was never going to find a candidate with whom I was in complete agreement on everything. I could choose to not vote—and I still may do that, I haven't decided yet—or I could throw my lot in with the one who seems to have the strongest connection to a moral center. And that, in my opinion, has been RFK, Jr.

But everyone has their issue that matters the most to then, and it sounds as though Israel/Gaza might be the one for you. Is that true?

You also say that any hopeful speech that doesn't mention Israel is propaganda. Why do you believe that?

Kathleen Devanney added:

"I decided that I was never going to find a candidate with whom I was in complete agreement on everything." True enough on that though the Israel piece is likely about more than any one's opinion. More about if you can even have an opinion.

If it's true every congress person has an Israeli handler (Cynthia McKinney I believe has said so) and Israel basically steers our foreign policy—and who knows what else— then going against that disqualifies you from even entering the arena. This is my guess—I don't know.

My assumption—on the generous side with Bobbie—is that he knows what he simply cannot talk about while allowed access to positions of power and without that access he can't improve anything. IDK. The silence across the board from politicians is deafening. And also on central bank parasites—not a lot of campaign promises there either.

Honestly, so many landmines when you know 'they' will do anything to keep control. Real fear for the safety of one’s family must be in play.

Tereza Coraggio:

Thanks, Mary and Kathleen, for your thoughtful replies. I'm so grateful to have you in my life.

I'm a small-scale sovereigntist and believe that people should vote on policies, not personalities, which can't be done with 333M people. And I think the election is theater, scripted for both sides by the same players—or rather all three sides with RFK. Was it Tonika who wrote that Bobby should forget about winning and just speak the truth? He lost every supporter I know, and I have many friends who were active in his campaign, through his staunchly pro-Israel stance. He compromised and is now withdrawing. Could he have won if he hadn't compromised? Who knows?

When you say 'the strongest connection to a moral center,' could you define that, Mary? I think there is a hierarchy of morality based on the degree of harm done, as determined by what I would choose anything else over for my own daughters. So top of my list is torture, being buried alive under rubble, or a slow death from starvation. It would include the anal gang rape that's become policy. If someone like RFK supports these actions, what can be a higher moral standard?

As Kathleen and you point out, the Powers Behind Israel (PBI) determine who can be in politics and what policies are passed. They're behind the WEF and WHO and the CovidCon. They brought down the World Trade Center. They killed JFK and RFK, with the Deep State conspiracy as another circle of psyop. I think RFK knows all of this. If you'd like the evidence on these, I can do an episode presenting it.

RFK's campaign was first announced by Kirsch, Malone and Tucker Carlson. I predicted RFK throwing his support to Trump and I expect Malone to be put in charge of some agency when Trump wins. I think this is why my Mealy-Mouthed Malone video got a second-strike after a year, just before his PsyWar interview came out on YT that's passed a million views. And Trump will win, whether we vote or not, because he's the PBI's chosen one, for all the reasons Isaac gives.

Twelve years ago I did a radio episode called 'Friends Don't Let Friends Condone Genocide.' It's not mentioning Israel that matters, it's condoning genocide. On the practical level, our support of Israel has turned the rest of the world against us, except for a handful of other consumer nations. When the petrodollar falls, it's not Israel who'll supply us. But, as an apocaloptimist, perhaps that will be good for us.

The Moral Critic wrote:

Palestinians have become the current vehicle for morally inconsistent people to virtue signal. What’s with this sudden burning interest in a group that no country in the Middle East would help, nor take up for all these years, and which has been victimized by one corrupt leadership after another? What suddenly turned people’s attention to their very long standing and purposely maintained situation?

Tereza Coraggio:

If my website was still up, I could show you episodes going back 12 years. My daughters' friends say to them, 'your mom was talking about this on the playground.' I have the enemies to show for it.

Palestine has always been the litmus test for whether someone is actually morally consistent or just giving lip service. I don't know if you read my reply to Mary where I show the logical basis for that.

And when you say 'that no country in the Middle East would help,' do you mean take in as refugees like Jordan so that Israel can claim all their land? The corrupt leadership has been funded and empowered by Israel, from the PLO to Hamas.

So what's your theory, since you obviously have one, of 'What suddenly turned people’s attention to their very long standing and purposely maintained situation?' Since clearly no one really cares about anyone else, no matter what's being done to them and how much my own government is forcing me to participate.

The Moral Critic:

We shouldn’t be misled by suggestions that the Palestine issue is problem of Muslims only, since all sorts of people occupy that region, and are even capable of getting along if they are permitted. Suggesting this ancient, land occupancy issue is delineated by religion is disingenuous.

Equating religion and race is another false representation that is used to keep conflicts going.

It’s time for people of conscience to stop playing along with those who fuel interminable war by setting up conflicts, and keeping people mad at each other. I see all of them as useful “tools” of intelligence community and corrupt leaders who are known for throwing away the “tools” when they’re no longer useful.

Tereza Coraggio:

I'm not suggesting Palestine is a problem of Muslims. I'm saying that it's the front line in the battle of empire vs. sovereignty, the only war there's ever been. If you don't care about Palestine, then you are willing to go along with empire when it suits you. And if you say you believe in your own sovereignty, yet don't object when you're the empire, you are ethically inconsistent—which is redundant, since ethics are consistency.

I explained my system for determining my moral positions in my reply to Mary. I showed why Occupied Palestine, aka Israel, is consistent with my ethical system as the most important issue, since ethics is not what's done to us but what we do to others. You've yet to explain your ethical system and how you determine what positions you take a stand on. Since you started this by claiming those who pay attention to Palestine are morally inconsistent and only virtue signaling, please clarify the system of morality you're consistent with.

The Moral Critic:

Between Israel (which is corrupt) and the corrupt organization that has been running the Palestinians, I see no good side to take. The aid that goes to Palestine falls into the hands of these billionaire corruptocrats. I do see most of the western world funding both sides in some way or the other, and preventing resolution.

Currently I see the conflict between Hamas and Israel as the thing that has exacerbated just in time in to take our attention off of extreme criminality and corruption that preceded, and then fed into the Ukraine war. We are also not to see who destroyed the Nordstream pipeline, are not to remember the 20 year debacle of the U.S. in Afghanistan, and are not to pay attention to China's activities in the South Pacific, and plans for Taiwan. Most significantly for the U.S., the people within are not to see that they are ruled by a faceless oligarchy, and that the elected figureheads exercise little to no executive power nor decision making.

My ethical system is 'first of all do no harm'. (So of course I had to leave health care, which no longer allows for ethically practicing within that system.)

Any people should clean up their own house before they start telling others how to clean theirs. The house of the U.S.A. is absolutely filthy, starting at the top, and therefore neither it nor its people have any moral authority to be meddling in the affairs of other countries.

Third Paradigm:

Since Israel first occupied Palestine, the US has given over $300B in foreign aid, most of it military: https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts. The current Pres debates were over which candidate would give the most money to Israel. Netanyahu got 58 standing ovations in Congress. So I agree with you on 'first do no harm.' No one wants the US to 'clean Israel's house.' We want to stop paying for a genocide that couldn't happen if we weren't funding it.

As Mary can attest, I have a pretty good attention span and can hold more than one thing in mind at a time. Here's my article on who destroyed the Nordstream: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/nord-streams-and-the-bagel-of-doom. I have several on Ukraine, here are two: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-west-vs-the-rest and https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/zelensky-howls-at-the-nato-moon.

I don't understand how China's activities in the South Pacific and plans for Taiwan fit your ethical system to clean up your own house. Do you live there?

Who do you think the faceless oligarchy are who rule the US? $300B might be a clue. If you think they're faceless, you don't know. I don't think you should be telling other people they're morally inconsistent and virtue signaling when you haven't put in the time to know who's pulling the strings and corrupting the US system, or whose interest 911 and the 20 yr war in Afghanistan has served.

The Moral Critic:

So far, what I have gathered from your posts here is that you favor Palestine over Israel. You wish for Israel to be defunded, but don't mention this with respect to Palestine. I don't favor either one over the other. Both are led by very corrupt groups.

After I merely pointed out that there are other, larger conflicts going on in the world than your focus of interest, you assigned some of the observations of facts to my ethical system. Why?

Why did you, without evidence, accuse me of not putting in the time to understand who is pulling the strings and corrupting the U.S. system?

I expect that the "intelligence community" will insist upon keeping money flowing to both sides of the conflict, and have all sorts of compromat regarding the pertinent governmental figureheads to ensure that the flow continues.

Third Paradigm:

I appreciate your help in demonstrating how to develop a consistent ethical framework. I've been copying our conversation into an article I'm working on regarding Kennedy. Would you prefer that I include your e-name, if others want to respond, or just link back to there?

What I talk about is systematic debate, starting with defining the question and why it matters, and then defining all the terms within it.

You stated that those to whom Palestine is an issue are morally inconsistent and virtue signaling. 'The Palestine issue' means ending US military support for Israel. You stated your ethical framework as 'First, do no harm.' So the question is whether NOT ending US military support for Israel is morally inconsistent with 'First do no harm.'

Defining terms: 'First' would mean that this would be your priority for actions, donations or endorsements. 'Do', to me, means not only direct actions to physically harm someone but those you pay through your taxes and support with your voice and your votes. 'No' seems self-explanatory. And 'Harm' is something I quantified in my first response to Mary by what I would least want to have happen to my daughters, starting with torture, being buried alive under rubble, being starved to death, or anally gang-raped.

I showed you irrefutable proof that the US supports Israel militarily with $300B and escalating, and politically with 58 standing ovations in Congress. You've said the 'intelligence community' is sending money to Palestine but have given no evidence for that. Even if it was covertly true, what we as taxpayers and voters endorse is what candidates campaign on. Bobby Kennedy has said that he'd do whatever it takes to help Israel and Trump is assembling his 'Zionist Dream Team.’

The Moral Critic:

What I said: “Palestinians have become the current vehicle for morally inconsistent people to virtue signal. “

What you say I said: “You stated that those to whom Palestine is an issue are morally inconsistent and virtue signaling.”

These statements are not the same.

Therefore you lied about what I said.

You also imposed your definition of the Palestinian issue limited to “ending US military support for Israel”, on my statement. My definition of the Palestinian issue encompasses the entire history of the region.

Since you are not accurate in quoting nor paraphrasing what I say, you do not have my permission to carry my content elsewhere. I find your misstatements of what I say to be prohibitive to the so called effort to construct consistent ethical frameworks, and do not wish to collaborate or associate with you, nor engage what is at best, word salad, and at worst willful dissembling.

Tereza Coraggio:

I didn't ask your permission. You posted in a public venue. But I will extend the courtesy of changing your name to a different pseudonym, if you don't want to be associated with what you've said. I've copy-and-pasted your comments so they are accurate quotes. Readers or listeners can decide for themselves if my paraphrase is dissembling or word salad.

When you wrote, "Palestinians have become the current vehicle for morally inconsistent people to virtue signal" it was in response to my comment talking about: "the sacrifice of Palestinian children," that Bobby "could have stood up for Palestine," "no candidate is anti-war when they say they'll do whatever it takes to defend Israel" and "Israel is engaged in genocide."

You weren't making a generic comment, you were telling me I was morally inconsistent in a third-person roundabout way. And I certainly wasn't talking about the history of the region, I was talking about US military support for genocide.

You're insulting, not just me, but all the people who oppose US support for Israel. Some of these have been expelled from college without the degrees they paid for. Some have lost jobs. Some have been beaten and injured. Some journalists have been imprisoned. They've lost the freedom to travel, homes have been raided, and criminal charges filed against them ... for journalism.

And you have the nerve to smugly call this virtue signaling. And to have compete confidence that you're right until you realize other people won't see it that way. I publish my comments under my own name and I stand behind them. If you don't want to defend your position, that's your prerogative. But to insult me and others and then forbid me to quote you is not a choice you have.

---

throwing in a wrench

On my comment thread with Terry Wolfe, Julius Skoolafish posted the most entertaining compliment I’ve ever gotten:

• Front loading washing machine trying to argue with Tereza Coraggio

---

first, do no harm

Sometimes I think that words like genocide work against us. We can’t comprehend it. Of the hundreds of thousands of stories, I want to take one. This is from Caitlin Johnstone’s He Had Two Babies:

He had two babies. Twins. Aysal and Aser, a boy and a girl.

Mohammad Abu Al Qumsan had two babies and a loving wife.

Now he has nobody.

An Israeli airstrike killed both his babies, and their mother, and their grandmother, while he was out collecting their birth certificates. 

They had just been born.

There’s a video of him screaming, screaming the way any of us would scream. The screams of a man who suddenly lost everything a man could possibly lose. Screaming Gaza’s screams. 

Now imagine yourself with a gun. You can have everything that Bobby’s trying to accomplish. You can have free speech, ensured by his buddy Malone who makes sure videos critical of him are taken down. You can have a new CDC or NIH, re-organized by that same buddy who now says he’ll head up the FDA if Bobby taps him for it. He’ll oust the pharmaceutical companies, the ones Malone worked for his whole career.

And you can get healthy school lunches to end the obesity epidemic. Good organic food and exercise, that’s all these kids need. You can give it to them. All you need to do is pull the trigger.

Okay, let’s make it easier. You don’t have to kill them, we’ll do it for you. You don’t even have to watch. You don’t have to listen. All you need to do is give the okay.

That’s the bargain you’re making to endorse Kennedy, Trump or Kamala. Is it worth it?

---

I start by explaining proper nouns as the difference between issues and ethics. I look at the history of the Kennedys and Zionism, from Joseph to Bobby Sr. to Bobby Jr. I examine RFK's flip flop on Roger Waters, the Malone v. Breggin lawsuit, and Bitcoin.

How would it affect Robert F. Kennedy's Presidency if Robert Malone was secretly operating for the CIA? Would Malone head up his FDA, HHS or CDC? Is this a legitimate question Kennedy should be asking? I recount my phone call with the Breggins and a conversation with Tessa Lena, then ask if we should scatter the HHS to the four corners of the commonwealths.

Is Kennedy making himself unelectable and ineffectual? I look at his stances that he is not an anti-vaxxer and is Israel's greatest supporter; that it takes courage to be Robert Malone. But Malone may have thrown him under the ethnically targeted virus bus, and then pivoted to Trump.

Answer: Decentralize, and get out of the way. Mathew Crawford interviewed me on his Rounding the Earth podcast. In this video, I summarize some points and elaborate on others. We talked about geoengineering, the duodecimal system, cryptocurrencies, the Greater Reset, trust in the resistance movement, and telling the truth. I quote from Ellen Brown on How the War on Crypto Triggered a Banking Crisis and CJ Hopkins on The Great Divide. The 90-min interview is linked in the Substack.

Alison McDowell's Camelot Corner analyzes Charles Eisenstein's talk at Bretton Woods and his deep connections in cryptocurrencies. She looks at RFK's talk at a Bitcoin conference and the false story of how the two met. I give my own experiences and observations that led me to conclude both are complicit in what they say that they're against.