Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

My last four blogs have focused on the accusations against RFK, Jr. by ‘breaking glass ceiling’ feminist factions, particularly those within his family accusing him of being a ‘conspiracy theorist’ and Traitor to the Values and Principles for which his father, RFK, and uncle, JFK. In the ensuing blogs I will focus on the economics of his platform by examining Kennedy Beacon’s social media platform,

• “Three Cheers for RFK Jr.’s Candidacy” by Jeffrey Sachs and “Kennedy Will Halt The World Health Organization’s Massive Power Grab” by Dawn Pier and corruption and party politics in the UN, World Bank, IMF, and international development community in general.
• “RFK Jr.’s Fight against Financial Authoritarianism Will Restore Liberty and Prosperity” by Adam Garrie and the principles of capitalism under Adam Smith versus Bernard Mandeville and Karl Marx communism under Stalin and Mao.
• “Why Latinos Should Vote for Kennedy” by Esteban Cabrera and examination of American immigration policies and rise to power of minoritist in the US and international development community in the case study of 2002 Colombian Presidential candidate and guerilla FARC captive Ingrid Betancourt.
• “Thought Leader Catherine Austin Fitts on Financial Freedom and Why RFK Jr. Gets It” by Nikos Biggs-Chiropolos and the role that Expat Wives Clubs, consulates, corporations, international schools, and greedy, narcissistic, social climbing expatriates have played in predatory globalization and rise of nationalism and authoritarian governments.   

Author of “Three Cheers for RFK, Jr. ‘s Candidacy,” by Harvard economist and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) advocate Jeff Sachs highlights a number of issues that presidential candidates are faced with at present. As stated in the article, 67% of Americans are dissatisfied with the federal government in Washington, with over a year for American voters to decide who will win the 2024 Presidential elections. Unfortunately, as I have been pointing out since the international development community came up with the SDGs, they will produce the same Increasing Income Inequality as Reaganomics ‘trickle down’ has in the US in the past 40 years for the same reasons. Those who are holding the ‘purse strings’ on public and private sector money for the SDGs hold the same ideologies and agendas as those of the 1980s ‘Golden Age’. While concentration of wealth may have shifted from old guard, WASP Robber Baron heirs and industrialists of the 1800s and early 1900s, to ‘minorities’ (white Catholics and Jews, black, brown, yellow, feminists, and YZ Gens). The ideologies and dysfunctionalities of those in positions of power in commercial, political and social institutions are the same.

As seen in case studies across the globe at national and international levels the ‘minorities’ which have risen to power in the past decades have ONLY been concerned with replacing the elitist white Protestants whose ideologies of frugality, hard work, and equality produced the ‘American Dream’ and US Constitution and Bill of Rights. As historian Nancy Isenberg points out in her book, White Trash. The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America (2016), the ‘race wars’ in the US are not about ‘race’. Instead, they are about ‘class’, which is considered to be “economic stratification created by wealth and privilege.” Regrettably, since the 1980s ‘Golden Age’ Americans are no longer content with ‘Keeping Up with the Jones’ in Valley of the Dolls suburbia, but aspire to ‘Keep Up with the Windsors’ and jet-setting famous celebrities. As American philosopher and Washington political insider James Burnham explained in 1941, the greatest threat to the ‘Modern Age’ has been Managerialism, and NOT capitalism versus communism. These two issues and their intersectionality are explored at great lengths in my current blog series, as well as how the liberals and conservatives have both been guilty of ladder grappling, and serving their own interests at the expense of everyone else’s.  

As Sachs states in his article, it was sixty years ago that the US lost JFK in an assassination that changed the course of American history—as was the intention of the WASP oligarchs in power at the time. However, what Jewish Sachs fails to recognize is that JFK and his brother RFK’s ‘rule’ in the 1960s was not the ‘Kennedy Way’. While RFK, Jr.’s grand-father, J. P. Kennedy (1858 – 1929) was a ‘Man of the People’ in Boston in the early 1900s. His son, Joseph Sr. (1888 – 1969), was an ivy-league Wall Street ‘Golden Boy’ in the Roaring Twenties and fascist Hitler supporter in the 1930s and early 40s like most American industrialists at the time. So, JFK and RFK reign and creation of the Kennedy Camelot, which his widows and descendants have handsomely cashed in on, were anomalies in the Kenndy family and NOT the ‘Kennedy Way’ as Sachs pretends. Sachs, like others in the international development community and academia, claim to be experts in their field, whereas their expertise is limited to stellar brown-nosing careers in the imperialist and globalist institutions which RFK, Jr. ‘s campaign are challenging and denouncing.

The majority of JFK and RFK descendants have embraced the elitist and imperialist ideologies and agendas of Joseph Sr., instead of JP Kennedy who was a champion of the working man and middle class. Like most families which have risen to power in the past, the Kennedys are filled with entitled narcissists and a few ‘black sheep’ such as Bobby, his father, and uncle—who despite their human failings were egalitarians. Unfortunately, the most vocal critics within his family at present have followed the lead of Joseph Sr. in their ideologies and life’s work. As Sachs correctly states in assessing the political climate in the US at present,

The Gallup Survey makes clear that Americans bemoan the corruption of our political system, and notably that it has fallen into the hands of power brokers, against the promise of a system “for the people.” According to Gallup, 80 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the nation’s “moral and ethical climate.” 71 percent are dissatisfied with “the size and influence of major corporations.” A whopping 75 percent are dissatisfied with “the way income and wealth are distributed in the U.S.”

Americans understand the core of the problem. Just 14 percent of Americans are satisfied with “the nation’s campaign laws,” against 62 percent who are dissatisfied (the rest express no opinion). Our national politics have become a cesspool in which policies are almost literally sold to the highest bidder in return for campaign contributions. 

Like most of the ‘experts’ promoting the SDGs he is from the same status quo and corporate globalists that he is criticizing. Sach’s stellar career began in 1980 as an assistant professor at Havard, was promoted to associate professor in 1982, and in 1983 became a professor of economics with tenure. In the ensuing decades at Harvard, he became the Galen L. Stone Professor of International Trade, Director of the Harvard Institute for International Development (1995–1999) and Director of the Center for International Development at Harvard Kennedy School (1999–2002). Furthermore, he is Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, and SDG Advocate for the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.  From 2001 to 2018, he served as Special Advisor to the UN Secretary General, which included Ban Ki-moon’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), whose objectives were to reduce extreme poverty, hunger, and disease by 2015. Sachs is also co-founder of the Millennium Promise Alliance,a non-profit dedicated to ending extreme poverty and hunger, and is co-editor of the World Happiness Report. And in 2010 he became a commissioner for the Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development and was criticized for his adherence to ‘conspiracy theories’ which have correctly claimed that COVID-19 was produced in a lab versus in nature.  

Sachs makes several good points in his article defending RFK, Jr. such as,  

War versus peace? That’s sold to the military-industrial complex (just as JFK’s predecessor, Dwight D. Eisenhower, famously warned us), resulting in perpetual war. Overpriced health care? That’s sold to Big Pharma and Big Health Insurers. Our unhealthy food system? That’s sold to Big Ag. Our polluting energy industry? That one is sold to Big Coal and Big Oil. 

RFK Jr. understands all of this deeply. As an environmental lawyer and lover of the outdoors, he has successfully battled the corporate polluters in court for decades because he knew full well that the politicians wouldn’t stand up to the corporate interests. To call him a conspiracy theorist is only to restate the obvious. The corporate lobbies are, and have long been, in a conspiracy against the public interest. Adam Smith, the genius who first described the modern market economy in 1776, said just that: “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

And if anyone has the right to bemoan conspiracies, it is RFK Jr., whose personal losses came on top of our national calamities in losing his uncle and father to assassinations. After decades of study, I personally believe that JFK fell to a conspiracy of rogue elements of the military-industrial-intelligence complex. The disclosure last month by Paul Landis, the Secret Service agent on JFK’s detail, is further proof of the massive misinformation perpetrated on the public by the Warren Commission, the official account of the JFK assassination. To add insult to injury, Biden continues to keep secret several thousand documents related to the assassination. 

Of all the aims of RFK Jr.’s candidacy, none is more important than retaking American foreign policy from the warmongers and war profiteers. On a sheer dollars-and-sense basis, America’s disastrous wars of choice during the past twenty years have cost the nation an estimated $8 trillion, including military and security outlays plus the horrendous healthcare costs for America’s brave veterans whose bodies and lives were shattered by wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and more that never should have occurred. These reckless wars have done much to push federal debt to 120 percent of GDP from less than half that ratio back in 2000. 

RFK Jr. knows well that the war in Ukraine could have been avoided with wiser and more skillful US diplomacy, as so many of America’s top diplomats insisted before being end-run by the arms merchants. It should be ended now by negotiations, rather than Biden’s plan to shovel tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars more to a disastrous war that is devastating, not saving, Ukraine. 

In his Inaugural Address in 1961, President Kennedy made vivid the great choice of our age: “The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life.” I believe that RFK Jr. is the candidate who will choose to end human poverty while saving human life.  

Let the national debate begin!

Unfortunately, Sachs is part of the elitist and corrupt international development community status quo which RFK, Jr. ‘s is promising to get rid of if elected President. The staffers in the UN, along with staffers in its ‘sister’ organizations the World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund (IMF) have been aiding and abetting warmongering governments and Corporate Greed since their creation in the aftermath of WWII. And since the 1990s ‘civil servants’ in these organizations have been engaged in the same ‘party politics’ between the old guard WASP American and European ‘conservatives’ versus the Woke minoritist and feminist liberals as found at national levels. As seen in the Intercept article, “The Price of Happiness – U.N. Power Broker Jeffrey Sachs Took Millions From the UAE to Research “Well-Being”.”

STARTING IN 2016, the men who run the United Arab Emirates went all-in on positivity. They installed a giant smiley face on the dome crowning a Dubai police station. They created a Ministry of Tolerance and a Ministry of Happiness, as if inspired by George Orwell. And they began funding research, bankrolling prominent global intellectuals to study the psychology and science of bliss.

For women living a second-class existence, activists sentenced to years in prison because of their Facebook posts, and LGBTQ+ people jailed after kissing in public, the UAE is of course not a happy place, and the branding effort might have flopped if not for the efforts of one man: renowned Columbia University economist and United Nations power broker Jeffrey Sachs. Sachs helped the UAE take its message to the world. He supercharged the happiness drive, giving speech after speech linking it to pressing global issues. He called Emirati leaders “exemplary” and “wise.” At one point, he even sat on a Dubai stage with two other white male economists and CNN anchor Richard Quest and helped lead a crowd of Emiratis and expats in a round of “If You’re Happy and You Know It, Clap Your Hands.”

A nonprofit led by Sachs, the U.N. Sustainable Development Solutions Network, known as SDSN, has received at least $3 million from the UAE. The outlay has been used to fund work on the World Happiness Report, an annual ranking of countries’ quality of life, and on the Global Happiness Policy Report, a collection of cheery policy recommendations that accompanies the rankings. The UAE government has separately donated $200,000 to Columbia University for happiness research, according to Sachs, who provided The Intercept with the Columbia and SDSN donation figures in response to questions about their finances. Spending records from the Earth Institute, a research institute at Columbia formerly headed by Sachs, confirm that it hasreceived UAE funding, but a spokesperson for the university declined to say how much.

The happiness project might be easy to dismiss if it didn’t confer legitimacy on a repressive government. Sachs has presented on SDSN’s happiness index everywhere from Google to “Morning Joe,” and within the U.N., where he has advised three successive secretary-generals, he has tethered the happiness work to official sustainability targets. A federation of seven states where political parties are banned, the UAE often finishes ahead of some European countries in the index — results that are touted on the UAE government’s website and in the local press.

“The second you start taking money from authoritarian states to illustrate happiness indexes, dystopian doesn’t even begin to describe it.”

“It’s whitewashing,” scholar Matthew Hedges said of Sachs’s work. In 2018, while conducting research for a dissertation on the UAE’s security strategy, Hedges was detained by Emirati police. In his telling, he spent seven months in a windowless room, sedated with a cocktail of drugs, hearing screams through the walls. His captors repeatedly interrogated him, at one point for 15 hours on end. After being forced to sign a confession saying that he worked for MI6, Britain’s foreign intelligence service, Hedges was convicted without a lawyer present and sentenced to life in prison; he was released only after the U.K. applied diplomatic pressure. “The second you start taking money from authoritarian states to illustrate happiness indexes, dystopian doesn’t even begin to describe it,” said Hedges, who is now a postgraduate scholar at the University of Exeter. “It’s more like a nightmare.”

 A frequent television commentator and prolific writer who once traveled sub-Saharan Africa with Bono to advocate for poor people, Sachs is one of the world’s most famous economists. After a controversial early career as a neoliberal reformer, he remade himself as a progressive, publishing searing and accessible critiques of the U.S. government that have made him a frequent guest on cable news shows. During the 2016 presidential election, Sachs endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders, conferring legitimacy on his campaign at a time when other experts wrote him off. Sanders wrote the foreword to one of Sachs’s books. Pope Francis appointed Sachs to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. Angelina Jolie made a documentary about him.

So in the debate that Sachs is calling for in defense of Freedom of Speech, I turn to another posting on the Kennedy Beacon, “Kennedy Will Halt The World Health Organization’s Massive Power Grab,” noting that staffers in the WHO are part of the UN’s 37k employees which cost taxpayers $3.4B each year to empower and give a voice to while silencing dissenters,  

Along the campaign trail, independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has repeatedly pledged to halt and reverse the pharmaceutical industry’s regulatory capture of US government agencies. Meanwhile, the World Health Organization (WHO), a non-governmental organization originally established to advise and assist government health agencies, is seeking absolute regulatory power over the public health matters of all its 194 member countries (officially referred to in United Nations/ WHO parlance as “member states”).

Corrupt forces at the WHO are threatening to impose their agenda under the guise of the International Health Regulations (IHR) and the newly drafted WHO Pandemic Agreement (WPA) (referred to, until October of this year, as the Pandemic Preparedness Treaty, aka PPT). If adopted, the WPA will position the WHO as sole authority regarding anything related to these independent nations’ health and welfare.  

As Pienh Huang reported for NPR on April 28, 2020, “At a press conference on April 22, Michael Ryan, director of WHO’s Health Emergencies program, summed up the organization’s overarching mission: ‘The mandate we have [is] to establish global standards and to give strong advice to countries regarding rational public health measures.’”

The COVID-19 crisis was a catalyst for the WHO to increase its influence in the sphere of global health and regulatory policy, and the WPA and IHR amendments seek to expand its influence even more by making further inroads toward controlling the health decisions of the world’s population. As former WHO medical officer and scientist Dr. David Bell writes in The American Journal of Economics and Sociology,

The COVID-19 response … ignored norms of epidemic management and human rights to institute a regime of suppression, censorship, and coercion reminiscent of the power systems and governance that were previously condemned.… Public health, presented as a series of health emergencies, is being used once again to facilitate a fascist approach to societal management. The beneficiaries will be the corporations and investors whom the COVID-19 response served well.

See the following video summary, part 2 of a four-part series about the WHO Pandemic Agreement, by Livio Sanchez in collaboration with Global Health Project, an organization dedicated to exposing corruption, improving health outcomes for patients, and increasing accountability in public health and government:

In 2021, at the peak of the COVID-19 crisis, while every measure was being implemented by governments worldwide to ensure that an unproven medical technology, the basis of the mRNA vaccines, would be granted Emergency Use Authorization, the WHO began forging ahead quietly, some would say covertly, to draft and negotiate what would become the WPA, ostensibly to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. Concurrently, a committee of member state representatives went to work to amend the 2005 IHR.

If accepted as written by member states, the WPA would grant the WHO the power to declare a public health emergency based on human, animal, or environmental health concerns (Article 12 and Annex 2); require proof of vaccination against multiple illnesses (Article 18); and, most concerningly, require member states to both investigate and share pathogens with pandemic potential so that all member states have equal opportunity to investigate their usefulness in the development of “preventatives” – in other words, vaccine development. It wouldn’t be an exaggeration to describe this as biological warfare.

Under its previous designation as a “treaty,” the PPT would have required ratification by the US Senate. However, recategorizing it as an “agreement” means that the WPA can be passed by presidential decree. Although as an agreement it lacks legal and political teeth, if the IHR are amended as proposed, the WPA “recommendations” can be made legally-binding.

There are few aspects of life that are not covered in the new WPA, making it a nearly all-encompassing instrument of power that the WHO and those influencing its decisions could wield. There is no mechanism in the existing documents for member states to challenge the WHO’s determination of a public health emergency and the measures it deems necessary to implement. Under the terms of the WPA, the WHO reserves the right to determine what is considered factual and what is considered misinformation or disinformation, and to define all information related to public health. Together, the WPA and the IHR threaten to undermine the individual sovereignty of each of the 194 member states by giving the WHO unprecedented power.

According to the WHO, the WPA has undergone extensive internal and public consultation, with two public hearings held in April and September of 2022. However, to view the public hearing, an individual would have to know how to access the WHO Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) website and successfully navigate to the appropriate page at the correct date and time. Recently, corporate media has attempted to refute legitimate claims of covert activity in the WPA process. However, its refutation relies heavily on sources directly or closely connected to the WHO. In reality, the meetings were not announced to the public in any meaningful way or reported on by the media after the fact.

The WHO’s detractors say that it is, at its core, a corrupt organization. A 2010 Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly report on the H1N1 pandemic cited the WHO’s “lack of transparency” during the review process, as well as the influence of the pharmaceutical industry in their decision-making processes, as major issues affecting their management of the pandemic. Moreover, the Assembly expressed regret at “the highly defensive stance taken by the WHO, whether in terms of being unwilling to accept that a change in definition of a pandemic was made, or an unwillingness to revise its prognosis on the pandemic.”

Most people are under the impression that the WHO is funded by its 194 member states. In reality, according to the WHO website, nearly 80% of the WHO’s funding comes from private or so-called “voluntary” donors. Collectively, the donations from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance (both founded and heavily funded by the Gates Foundation) make Gates-funded organizations collectively the second largest donor to the WHO. Moreover, in a quid pro quo investment scheme that Gates calls “philanthrocapitalism,” Gates multiplies his fortune by investing in the pharmaceutical companies tasked with developing the vaccines that the WHO declares are necessary health solutions. According to Krista Larson of the Associated Press, the Gates Foundation has spent billions of dollars of its more than $70 billion endowment on vaccination development and immunization programs.

As Kennedy noted, during the August 31 episode of his podcast, and as reported by Megan Trimble in US News & World Report, in January 2019, a full year before COVID hit America, the WHO – without scientific citation or any basis for such a declaration – announced that vaccine hesitancy was one of the 10 greatest global health threats.

My next blog will focus on issues brought up by Adam Garrie of the Kennedy Beacon in, “RFK Jr.’s Fight against Financial Authoritarianism Will Restore Liberty and Prosperity” and an analysis of capital markets, under ideologies of Adam Smith and Bernard Mandeville versus communism under Karl Marx and its practice in West and East.