RFK Jnr Gets a Jolt on the Third Rail
Riding high in the polls as the incorruptible knight in shining armour, the curious incident of the betrayal of Roger Waters raises questions about how malleable RFK Jnr really is.
Some electric railway systems have a third rail that runs parallel to the tracks to power the trains. Touching it usually results in death by electrocution. On 27th May, Robert F Kennedy Jnr touched the third rail of American politics. The only reason he’s still alive is because he took his hand off the rail at lightning speed with a retraction of his sinful utterings.
I think it’s fair to say that most people in the freedom movement, across the political spectrum, are excited by the Kennedy presidential candidacy. So excited that they are pretending this incident either never happened, or that it doesn’t matter. I can’t ignore it because it felt like a glitch in the matrix. Ignore it at your peril.
Before we launch into what happened, let’s get clear on what the third rail is. Israel is the third rail. It is the tail that wags the dog of American politics and, since virtually every other country in the West is a satellite state of the now crumbling US empire, Israel wags a lot of dogs in the Western hemisphere. Any serious political contender knows there is absolutely no hope of advancement until the obligatory oath of allegiance to the state of Israel is sworn. It goes something like this: “I support Israel’s right to exist, and its right to security.” To which it is sometimes permissible to add: “And I support the right of Palestinians to self-determination” since it is well understood that Israel’s ‘right to security’ and Palestinian ‘self-determination’ are mutually exclusive from Israel’s perspective.
I say it’s sometimes permissible to add this because it depends on how rabidly supportive of Israel the political candidate is. If their faction demands frothing-at-the-mouth Zionism, Palestinian self-determination is left out of the oath. It can, however, be added to signify begrudging support where a large number of constituents belonging to a particular faction sympathise with Palestinian rights. In this case, Palestinian self-determination is added as a token gesture to signify to those constituents only that the candidate is a little squeamish about a potential Palestinian genocide or ethnic cleansing and will express regret if it transpires.
The McCarthyite anti anti-Semitism circus ramped up several notches in around 2018 following the deeply flawed International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) re-definition of anti-Semitism, the aim of which was to mute growing criticism of Israel’s increasingly criminal and brutal oppression of Palestinians. Since then, the number of clowns offering their services to the circus has grown exponentially. It feels like we are fast approaching peak anti anti-Semitism – the point at which the failure to book your summer holidays in Israel will be denounced as rank anti-Semitism. Dull and practical considerations regarding the impossibility of Israel being able to accommodate the entire Western tourist population will not be deemed admissible evidence in the coming anti-Semitism trials.
Given the hysteria surrounding anti-Semitism, you can be forgiven for not remembering or even knowing what actual anti-Semitism is. So here is the sane, rational definition of anti-Semitism provided by Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL), not to be confused with the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM), who are the antithesis of everything that JVL stands for. The JVL definition is:
“Antisemitism is a form of racism. It consists in prejudice, hostility or hatred towards Jews as Jews. It may take the form of denial of rights; direct, indirect or institutional discrimination; prejudice-based behaviour; verbal or written statements; or violence. Such manifestations draw on stereotypes – characteristics which all Jews are presumed to share.”
JVL’s explainer about anti-Semitism in political discourse is a rational antidote to the deliberate conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism that the IHRA and the McCarthyite circus clowns seek to propagate:
“Free speech is legally protected. Within these legal limits political discourse can be robust and may cause offence. There is no right not to be offended. The fact that some people or groups are offended does not in itself mean that a statement is antisemitic or racist. A statement is only antisemitic if it shows prejudice, hostility or hatred against Jews as Jews.
The terms ‘Zionism’ and ‘Zionist’ describe a political ideology and its adherents. They are key concepts in the discussion of Israel/Palestine. They are routinely used, approvingly, by supporters of Israel, but critically by campaigners for Palestinian rights, who identify Zionist ideology and the Zionist movement as responsible for Palestinian dispossession. Criticising Zionism or Israel as a state does not constitute criticising Jews as individuals or as a people, and is not evidence of antisemitism.”
I am satisfied that everything I say in this article is anchored in these principles. It is therefore of no interest to me whether anything in this article either causes offence or attracts approbation.
So, what happened to RFK Jnr? Thankfully The Hill has done some fair and accurate reporting of the RFK Jnr kidnapping. Kidnapping!? Bear with me. The story of how RFK Jnr was taken hostage starts, oddly enough, with one of the most iconic British bands in history.
Roger Waters of Pink Floyd fame has been taking a good deal of flak from the anti anti-Semitism circus for what the McCarthyite clowns described as wearing “what appeared to be a Nazi SS uniform during a concert in Germany.” Yes, the unbridled appetite for sniffing out anti-Semitism has led to Waters being investigated in Berlin for wearing “clothing [that] resembles the clothing of an SS officer.” [emphasis added]. In other words, bad fashion.
I once recall agreeing with an argument that lamented the fact that satire, however good it may be, serves as a societal avoidance mechanism for dismantling corrupt power structures. It’s political fecklessness dressed up as humour. And that’s why Western political systems broadly welcome satire. Better to have the plebs laughing at the criminals than putting their heads on spikes. However, the beginning of fascism tends to be marked by the end of satire because fascists are both extremely humourless and thin-skinned. One fascist cheerleading clown remarked on Twitter that “there is never a good reason to dress up as a Nazi. Full Stop.”
Actually, I can think of one very good reason to dress up as a Nazi. It’s called acting, and that’s what Roger Waters was doing. As he explained to the clowns: “The elements of my performance that have been questioned are quite clearly a statement in opposition to fascism, injustice, and bigotry in all its forms... The depiction of an unhinged fascist demagogue has been a feature of my shows since Pink Floyd's The Wall in 1980.”
Even Twitter felt the need to add an explainer to the clown’s tweet in one of its ‘readers added context’ notes: “Roger Waters is a musician who helped write an album and musical drama called ‘The Wall’ and he’s portraying a character in it, hallucinating a fascist dystopia with crossed hammers as their logo. It is a satire and warning of the danger of fascists like the Nazis.” [emphasis added]. Ah, sweet sanity, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways.
Waters’ real crime, as hinted at in the linked clown land piece, was that he “floated an inflatable pig marked with the Star of David at his concerts.” Waters is a very vocal proponent of Palestinian rights and believes that Israel is an apartheid state. Contrary to what the anti anti-Semitism clowns would have you believe, this is hardly a controversial position to take. In 2017, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak talked about a “slippery slope to apartheid”. For a concise and robust argument on why Israel is an apartheid state (as opposed to just being on a ‘slippery slope’), look no further than this piece by Ran Greenstein, an Israeli-born associate professor in the sociology department at the University of the Witwatersrand, in Johannesburg, South Africa. The title of the article is “If this isn’t apartheid, then what is it?” It was written in 2013, and it’s fair to say that the situation in Israel has deteriorated markedly since then.
Now, RFK Jnr touched the third rail on the 27th May when he tweeted in support of the famous Pink Floyd musician, saying:
“Roger you are the global hero Orwell had in mind when he said ‘in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act’. The high priests of the totalitarian orthodoxies are trying to silence you with censorship, gaslighting and defamation. Please keep speaking truth to power.”
People had barely gotten a chance to praise him for his bravery when, about a day later, he deleted that tweet and started backing away from the third rail with this tweet:
“In my remarks about Roger Waters, I was referring to his dissent on COVID and the war in Ukraine. I have only recently learned about some of his other views, which I do not share.” [emphasis added]
That tweet reeked of bullshit because everyone knows that Roger Waters has done nothing in the way of dissenting on covid. He has in fact proved himself to be a one-trick pony (Palestinian rights), refusing steadfastly to engage in dissenting against the official fascist covid narrative. In that respect, he’s a member of a very big club of anti-fascists who can only see fascism when it deploys old-school guns and tanks, but are blind to 21st century fascism delivered in the form of global house arrest of citizens, at the tip of a syringe needle, in QR codes for accessing basic services, and in digital ID,15-minute cities and CBDCs. Fascism has moved with the times, but the self-declared anti-fascists who make a career out of anti-fascism don’t seem able to keep up.
Seemingly unable to tolerate the whiff of his own bullshit, RFK Jnr deleted that tweet even faster than the first one. But things only got worse. He then made a statement to The Hill TV and it’s a must-see. In his awkward statement, he claims to have taken down his tweet in support of Roger Waters because he was unaware of Water’s position on Israel.
I believe that what you are seeing in The Hill’s video clip is a man betraying an ally, putting a knife in his back but trying to do it as gently as he can in the hope that this will ameliorate his disloyalty. The moment that you realise you’re watching a hostage video comes when Kennedy delivers a poorly rehearsed, stilted utterance of the oath of allegiance to Israel:
“My position on Israel is that I support it, my family has a long relationship with Israel, I support its right to exist, and its right to protect its security.”
It’s the textbook Israel foreign policy oath except for the inclusion of a reference to a “family relationship”. I sense two things going on here, both semi- or unconscious, and both distasteful. First, there’s the reference to the dynastic Kennedy family involvement in American politics, thrown in as a political asset. Then there’s the far more distasteful insinuation that this family tradition of supporting Israeli brutality is justification for continuing an immoral foreign policy under a new member of the dynasty. Hey, this thing runs in the family – it’s genetic!
I have watched videos of RFK Jnr for three years now and this is the first time I have seen him broken and defeated. He may as well have said: “My captors are treating me well. Do not be concerned for my safety. Long live Israel.” It was sad for that reason alone, but there’s lots more to be depressed about, which I’ll get into.
RFK Jnr then pauses and looks blankly away from the camera, perhaps quietly praying for his forced confession to end. But the reporter prolongs his torture with a simple reminder of the other side of the equation in Israel’s security: “And the Palestinians?”
Kennedy awkwardly stutters: “And a humane outcome and a recognition ultimately of the aspirations of the Palestinian people. That is important for everybody.”
Taken at face value, this exposes the dishonesty of RFK Jnr’s rejection of Waters’ stance on Israel as being incompatible with his own. The reporter could have pointed out to him that his stated position on Israel is in fact no different from that of Waters. After all, they both seem to support Palestinian rights, and Waters has never denied Israel’s right to exist or its right to security. But he has vocally advocated for Palestinian rights because it is the Palestinians who are being oppressed under an apartheid system. But when a politician says he supports Israel’s right to security and Palestinian self-determination in the same breath, the meaning of that disingenuous statement is instinctively understood. It is not meant to be taken at face value. That’s why Kennedy squirms. He squirms because he has integrity and he lost it in that moment.
Max Blumenthal is razor sharp in his response to Briahna Joy Gray’s question regarding the plausibility of Kennedy’s declared ignorance of Water’s “other views” at the time he sent his first supportive tweet:
“I don’t think this is credible. He knows that Roger Waters is the world’s most famous supporter of liberating Palestinians from open-air prisons like the Gaza strip, hideous refugee camps…and 70-plus years of ethnic cleansing. He has to know that. Roger Waters actually never opposed covid mandates, so I don’t even know what he's talking about there. It appears with this walk-back he has fallen under pressure from one of the most powerful and undemocratic forces opposed to the First amendment in the US and that is the Israel lobby.” [emphasis added]
Max Blumenthal adds that “for the first time we’ve seen a Gallup poll show that more Democrats support Palestine over Israel. It’s a bad way of framing the question but it shows that he’s out of step with the [Democratic Party] grass roots base”.
Can Kennedy’s decision to throw Roger Waters under the bus be swept under the rug? Putting aside the small matter of Kennedy’s prioritisation of lobby interests over Democrat voters’ demands, we may have just witnessed a Democrat presidential candidate whose main campaign pledge is to do battle with the powerful financial interests corrupting American politics getting his teeth kicked in by one of the most powerful lobby groups in America. Not a great look, especially given he’s barely out of the starting block. Some valid questions to ask: Who is sponsoring his campaign? What other deals might be done to secure the keys to the White House? What would a Kennedy administration deliver once all the other powerful financial interests that run American politics have finished slapping him around?
Another key pillar of Kennedy’s campaign pledge is his opposition to American interventionism and US forever wars. He has repeatedly echoed Mark Twain’s sentiments that you cannot run an empire abroad and a democracy at home. The two are mutually exclusive, and ordinary Americans are finally beginning to see the connection between a political system that rides roughshod over the rest of humanity abroad and its sudden willingness to turn totalitarian on the home front.
There doesn’t seem to be an apartheid regime that the US won’t get fully behind. As Glenn Greenwald pointed out in 2016, after serving as the key protector of South Africa’s apartheid regime, the US is playing the same role with Israel, and it’s costing the US taxpayer nearly $4 billion annually. Tucker Carlson played a huge role in pointing out the obvious domestic economic impact of the forever wars – the vast diversion of resources to military adventurism that could be put to better use at home. He also got cancelled for pointing that out to Americans, along with numerous other hard truths.
There’s a serious disconnect between Kennedy’s opposition to US militarism and his foreign policy oath of allegiance to Israel. A key pillar of the American empire abroad is its unwavering financial, military and political support of Israel. So, I’m not quite sure how he reconciles his commitment to reining in the military empire abroad with his pledge of allegiance to Israel’s war economy. His initial support for Rogers seemed to suggest, albeit for a fleeting moment, that he recognised Israel was a significant piece of the gruesome US empire abroad.
Having said all that, we can’t entirely rule out the possibility that Kennedy really is, in his own expression of his family relationship to Israel, a hereditary, bred-in-the-bone Zionist and genuinely regrets having supported someone with whom he was unknowingly at odds. For me, as a non-partisan pro-freedom advocate, that only magnifies the stench of disappointment emanating from this incident. And it doesn’t change the fact that Kennedy is destined to run aground on the fundamental contradiction of wanting a peaceful revolution in America while unequivocally supporting Israeli brutality.
I know there are some in the freedom movement who either support Israeli brutality against Palestinians or are indifferent to it. I wonder how they reconcile demanding dignity for themselves with indifference to the humiliation meted out daily to Palestinians — humiliation which is fully endorsed by the very governments from whom the freedom movement are demanding a halt to the wretched totalitarian agenda.
Mark Twain’s ominous warning about the contradiction of empire abroad and democracy at home has been elaborated on in the aptly titled book Tyranny Comes Home – The Domestic Fate of US Militarism. As Kennedy demonstrates fealty to Israel while making daily promises to deliver a fatal blow to the corrupt domestic US political juggernaut, we should all reflect on Mark Twain’s prescient words:
“But it was impossible to save the Great Republic. She was rotten to the heart. Lust of conquest had long ago done its work; trampling upon the helpless abroad had taught her, by a natural process, to endure with apathy the like at home; multitudes who had applauded the crushing of other people’s liberties, lived to suffer for their mistake in their own persons.”