Both critiques are essential. The challenge is in how to implement change based upon them. Immanent critique requires stealth and tact - acknowledging the realities of income and status as barriers to change. A gestalt shift might be constructed where sudden realization overwhelms the illusions presented by the 'system'. This may be Kennedy's strategy. We shall see. Revolution, on the other hand, requires a base of support sufficient to overcome the paradigm structures that repel reform. Time and patience are required for this. Rush to move without that base and the attempt will be met with overwhelming force.
"We need to push for much bigger and more wholesale changes across the board."
Health care does not lend itself to improvement under capitalism. We need to call for the end of patents on drugs and medical products. We need three branches of society: government, business, and non-profit, and these three should operate as independently of each other as possible. Let the government provide funds to build and maintain hospital buildings with research center buildings, but let the local doctors, scientists, and community run the facilities charging minimal fees to patients. Yes, I know: how could enough money be raised for health through charity? Enormous amounts of money currently go into public health pursuing all the wrong agendas. Maybe we can do better with much less.
Just reread this on Brownstone. Great post, great ideas, as I'd expect. My thoughts, without deep reflection and investigation (although I've paid a great deal of attention to this topic for decades) is - RFK Jr doesn't think we have the numbers and momentum for revolutionary critique to work. So, he's hoping for change from within the system. Which means, best we can hope for is incremental improvement, around the edges. If that's where we are, we're gonna be disappointed. Other possibilities, RFK isn't as pure as we hope. Or - RFK isn't as smart as we hope and misreads his chances of bringing the existing system around. He's likely reluctant to stick his neck out with overt attacks on the system for fear the blowback will succeed and discredit him with little to show for it.
"Hypocrisy" has been one of my frames, i.e. how come the lives of people who die or suffer with complications from Covid are mourned and celebrated, when those who die or are disabled from the vaccine are ridiculed, denied or disappeared? How come it was cheered as good and necessary to fire policemen, firemen, nurses, teachers, etc. who declined the jab (or the booster after a bad reaction) because of "jab or job" mandates, but millions protest federal workers who are let go in cost-cutting measures? How come the "fascist" tendencies of Trump are a threat to democracy and Biden's censorship and propagandizing was celebrated as necessary to suppress "misinformation" (or ignored) all of which was proved true?
That approach, which is close to the immanent critique, does not go over well.
The filter through which I see it all is that we live in a narcissist culture that began with Dr. Spock and included "achievement trophies" for just showing up and being compliant which sadly included just graduating college or getting a professional job/marrying well.
Upton Sinclair had it right. And although I love Planck, times have changed and the organizational structures have become very adept at indoctrinating new generations. Think "McKinsey & Co." - the famous/infamous first employer of many people such as Pete Buttigieg who have proved adept at climbing corporate and political ladders.
Consequently, two other aphorisms come to mind that are applicable to the situation in which Bobby Kennedy finds himself and the concept of revolutionary critique:
- "The more things change, the more they stay the same." - Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr
Mr. Rogers I read this article at Brownstone and followed your link to substack. I want to thank you for your essay which has broadened my view and confirmed my thoughts that RFK Jr is not taking drastic enough measures to meet the desires/needs of the voters.
I do not have solutions to offer, but I would like to suggest a couple of perspectives that must be addressed for long term permanent change.
1. Doctors are not gods nor experts.
Generations were taught and passed on to their children that Doctors knew significantly more than others concerning medicine. Perhaps at one time this was true, but very definately not so today. While Doctors consider themselves the experts, more than one time I knew they were in error and I moved on. But I was only able to do this because I recognized the false worship our society was taught toward scientists and physicians. Each time I was right because I know my body better than the Degree.
2. It is not good to be a victim.
Our society has moved to a place where everyone must be a victim, who can never be wrong and must be coddled or lauded. This shows up in medicine: "oh, I have this wrong with me..."
There is a perverse glory in "being sick or having a condition."
This type of Victimhood REQUIRES the Expert for assistance and excuses. The advertisements on TV help individuals feel like part of a "community" (look, others have it too).
My perspective is that both of these items are powerful emotional chains that have to be broken in order for true lasting change to come. How to go about it with proper arguements?
When I was teaching in China 2009-2019 I got to see the rise of Xi Jinping. They thought this guy was so good that the party was going to give him unlimited terms, and this was in 2015. I thought then, Xi will probably wish that he'd taken his two 5 year terms. He could have slid out in 2023 and left the whole deal for someone else.
This is the immanent critique- China didn't realize the value of 30 years of peaceful transition of power. Difficult to calculate that- into the trillions. The people who would be positioning themselves to take the leadership: the vying of factions would attract immense interest. And money. And the generation that came up from 2000 to 2023, studied abroad, built companies, would have their turn. Who would it be? A reformer? Technocrat? Idealist?
“I want Sherman’s March to the Sea, not inside baseball and compromise with people who don’t share our values.”
.
Agreed. It’s all about values, or rather the branch of philosophy that identifies the standard (life) by which all values are to be judged: ethics. An evil tree cannot produce good fruit. Therefore, if one’s ethical standards are evil (e.g. altruism, utilitarianism) then one’s policies will not produce good fruit because again, in philosophy, policy is the work product of politics, and politics is downstream from ethics which is downstream from epistemology which is downstream from metaphysics. This insight reveals a very challenging conundrum in a democracy wherein the people generally have no understanding of philosophy which means they have no understanding of their ethical presumptions—often false—that inform their political convictions. I believe RFK Jr., having a lifelong affiliation with the collectivist-tilting Democrat Party, falls into this category. In any case, the long-term outlook for healthcare policy, like all other public policies in a democracy, rests not with political leaders, but with the people. If Western citizens never stop to question their own values—their ethics—that informed their behavior during the scamdemic (e.g. Why did I silently condone vaccine mandates or even advocate them? Why did I betray my own critical reasoning in favor of government “experts?” Why did I think that sacrificing the rights of a minority who lost their jobs or freedoms for the alleged benefit of the majority was moral? Why did I go along with the idea that young, healthy people—especially children—should be forced to relinquish the pursuit of their lives, their liberties, and their happiness for the sake of the aged, morbid, and dying? Why do I think it’s the individual’s moral responsibility to act contrary to their own perceived interests and, like a Good German, get an experimental gene therapy or submit to ANY medical procedure or forcibly participate in ANY public health scheme such as Medicare?) The conspiracy of silence that we are now witnessing among the general public on this subject is strong evidence that people really just don’t want to face their own moral contradictions, and that, too, is reason to be skeptical that immanent critique will be successful. Final thought that may give us hope, however: RFK Jr. early on recognized the parallels between the Covid response and its aftermath with the Catholic Church child molestation scandal and the similar public conspiracy of silence that followed. So, while he may not understand the philosophical implications, he at least has insights into the psychological aspects at play.
Talk to the converted. Those are the cases that have the potential to flip this for real. I would pay really good money to watch a panel with you, Zach Bush, Meryl Nass and Madhava Setty. Please 🙏
Hello, I quoted you on my poster during the Canadian truckers' protest.
The rich types (also many scientists, other 'outstanding' people) have been persuaded to follow an agenda that will provide them with a much yearned for security using an enhancing methodology that they are not allowed/strongly advised to not question, analyze too deeply or criticize. They are given a script that they believe in, one that also allows for, as necessary, straight out enrichment.
They are also given clear examples of what happens when any of them turn against 'the methodology/agenda'. The extremely precise curation extends back in history. The Spanish flu isn't and wasn't - it was a vast strategy created to usher in a make-rich scheme for a synthetic drug manufacturing industry (Big Pharma is a large part). The scheme was bolstered by legislation passed by the US congress in the late 1940's and early 1980's - see bailiwick for an exhaustive analysis and exposure (Katherine Watt). Money alone does not explain fully the motivation.
https://x.com/i/grok/share/vDW2VRfLTeAFHnIVPkQYSvynH
You blocked me because you’re a coward and you do not care about truth or kids.
New reader here. What a riveting pleasure to read your mind at work and feel your heart hurt for all that is going on. God bless you
https://x.com/i/grok/share/vDW2VRfLTeAFHnIVPkQYSvynH
Beautiful. Important. Helpful. Thank you so much!!!
iatrogenecide - nice. How about preventagenicide - genecide by "prevention."
Both critiques are essential. The challenge is in how to implement change based upon them. Immanent critique requires stealth and tact - acknowledging the realities of income and status as barriers to change. A gestalt shift might be constructed where sudden realization overwhelms the illusions presented by the 'system'. This may be Kennedy's strategy. We shall see. Revolution, on the other hand, requires a base of support sufficient to overcome the paradigm structures that repel reform. Time and patience are required for this. Rush to move without that base and the attempt will be met with overwhelming force.
"We need to push for much bigger and more wholesale changes across the board."
Health care does not lend itself to improvement under capitalism. We need to call for the end of patents on drugs and medical products. We need three branches of society: government, business, and non-profit, and these three should operate as independently of each other as possible. Let the government provide funds to build and maintain hospital buildings with research center buildings, but let the local doctors, scientists, and community run the facilities charging minimal fees to patients. Yes, I know: how could enough money be raised for health through charity? Enormous amounts of money currently go into public health pursuing all the wrong agendas. Maybe we can do better with much less.
Just reread this on Brownstone. Great post, great ideas, as I'd expect. My thoughts, without deep reflection and investigation (although I've paid a great deal of attention to this topic for decades) is - RFK Jr doesn't think we have the numbers and momentum for revolutionary critique to work. So, he's hoping for change from within the system. Which means, best we can hope for is incremental improvement, around the edges. If that's where we are, we're gonna be disappointed. Other possibilities, RFK isn't as pure as we hope. Or - RFK isn't as smart as we hope and misreads his chances of bringing the existing system around. He's likely reluctant to stick his neck out with overt attacks on the system for fear the blowback will succeed and discredit him with little to show for it.
We are singing the same tune.
"Hypocrisy" has been one of my frames, i.e. how come the lives of people who die or suffer with complications from Covid are mourned and celebrated, when those who die or are disabled from the vaccine are ridiculed, denied or disappeared? How come it was cheered as good and necessary to fire policemen, firemen, nurses, teachers, etc. who declined the jab (or the booster after a bad reaction) because of "jab or job" mandates, but millions protest federal workers who are let go in cost-cutting measures? How come the "fascist" tendencies of Trump are a threat to democracy and Biden's censorship and propagandizing was celebrated as necessary to suppress "misinformation" (or ignored) all of which was proved true?
That approach, which is close to the immanent critique, does not go over well.
The filter through which I see it all is that we live in a narcissist culture that began with Dr. Spock and included "achievement trophies" for just showing up and being compliant which sadly included just graduating college or getting a professional job/marrying well.
Upton Sinclair had it right. And although I love Planck, times have changed and the organizational structures have become very adept at indoctrinating new generations. Think "McKinsey & Co." - the famous/infamous first employer of many people such as Pete Buttigieg who have proved adept at climbing corporate and political ladders.
Consequently, two other aphorisms come to mind that are applicable to the situation in which Bobby Kennedy finds himself and the concept of revolutionary critique:
- "The more things change, the more they stay the same." - Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr
and
- "First, kill all the alpha males." See study by Robert Sapolsky : https://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/11/the-baboon-troop-that-mellowed-out-after-the-alpha-males-died-the-sapolsky-and-share-study.html
Mr. Rogers I read this article at Brownstone and followed your link to substack. I want to thank you for your essay which has broadened my view and confirmed my thoughts that RFK Jr is not taking drastic enough measures to meet the desires/needs of the voters.
I do not have solutions to offer, but I would like to suggest a couple of perspectives that must be addressed for long term permanent change.
1. Doctors are not gods nor experts.
Generations were taught and passed on to their children that Doctors knew significantly more than others concerning medicine. Perhaps at one time this was true, but very definately not so today. While Doctors consider themselves the experts, more than one time I knew they were in error and I moved on. But I was only able to do this because I recognized the false worship our society was taught toward scientists and physicians. Each time I was right because I know my body better than the Degree.
2. It is not good to be a victim.
Our society has moved to a place where everyone must be a victim, who can never be wrong and must be coddled or lauded. This shows up in medicine: "oh, I have this wrong with me..."
There is a perverse glory in "being sick or having a condition."
This type of Victimhood REQUIRES the Expert for assistance and excuses. The advertisements on TV help individuals feel like part of a "community" (look, others have it too).
My perspective is that both of these items are powerful emotional chains that have to be broken in order for true lasting change to come. How to go about it with proper arguements?
When I was teaching in China 2009-2019 I got to see the rise of Xi Jinping. They thought this guy was so good that the party was going to give him unlimited terms, and this was in 2015. I thought then, Xi will probably wish that he'd taken his two 5 year terms. He could have slid out in 2023 and left the whole deal for someone else.
This is the immanent critique- China didn't realize the value of 30 years of peaceful transition of power. Difficult to calculate that- into the trillions. The people who would be positioning themselves to take the leadership: the vying of factions would attract immense interest. And money. And the generation that came up from 2000 to 2023, studied abroad, built companies, would have their turn. Who would it be? A reformer? Technocrat? Idealist?
“I want Sherman’s March to the Sea, not inside baseball and compromise with people who don’t share our values.”
.
Agreed. It’s all about values, or rather the branch of philosophy that identifies the standard (life) by which all values are to be judged: ethics. An evil tree cannot produce good fruit. Therefore, if one’s ethical standards are evil (e.g. altruism, utilitarianism) then one’s policies will not produce good fruit because again, in philosophy, policy is the work product of politics, and politics is downstream from ethics which is downstream from epistemology which is downstream from metaphysics. This insight reveals a very challenging conundrum in a democracy wherein the people generally have no understanding of philosophy which means they have no understanding of their ethical presumptions—often false—that inform their political convictions. I believe RFK Jr., having a lifelong affiliation with the collectivist-tilting Democrat Party, falls into this category. In any case, the long-term outlook for healthcare policy, like all other public policies in a democracy, rests not with political leaders, but with the people. If Western citizens never stop to question their own values—their ethics—that informed their behavior during the scamdemic (e.g. Why did I silently condone vaccine mandates or even advocate them? Why did I betray my own critical reasoning in favor of government “experts?” Why did I think that sacrificing the rights of a minority who lost their jobs or freedoms for the alleged benefit of the majority was moral? Why did I go along with the idea that young, healthy people—especially children—should be forced to relinquish the pursuit of their lives, their liberties, and their happiness for the sake of the aged, morbid, and dying? Why do I think it’s the individual’s moral responsibility to act contrary to their own perceived interests and, like a Good German, get an experimental gene therapy or submit to ANY medical procedure or forcibly participate in ANY public health scheme such as Medicare?) The conspiracy of silence that we are now witnessing among the general public on this subject is strong evidence that people really just don’t want to face their own moral contradictions, and that, too, is reason to be skeptical that immanent critique will be successful. Final thought that may give us hope, however: RFK Jr. early on recognized the parallels between the Covid response and its aftermath with the Catholic Church child molestation scandal and the similar public conspiracy of silence that followed. So, while he may not understand the philosophical implications, he at least has insights into the psychological aspects at play.
Who is controlling the Overton Window? Because it is there where the problem lies.
Talk to the converted. Those are the cases that have the potential to flip this for real. I would pay really good money to watch a panel with you, Zach Bush, Meryl Nass and Madhava Setty. Please 🙏
vaccineInjuryCompensationProgram bob martin what about this comment(s)
Hello, I quoted you on my poster during the Canadian truckers' protest.
The rich types (also many scientists, other 'outstanding' people) have been persuaded to follow an agenda that will provide them with a much yearned for security using an enhancing methodology that they are not allowed/strongly advised to not question, analyze too deeply or criticize. They are given a script that they believe in, one that also allows for, as necessary, straight out enrichment.
They are also given clear examples of what happens when any of them turn against 'the methodology/agenda'. The extremely precise curation extends back in history. The Spanish flu isn't and wasn't - it was a vast strategy created to usher in a make-rich scheme for a synthetic drug manufacturing industry (Big Pharma is a large part). The scheme was bolstered by legislation passed by the US congress in the late 1940's and early 1980's - see bailiwick for an exhaustive analysis and exposure (Katherine Watt). Money alone does not explain fully the motivation.
Drugs play a monumental role in Big Medicine.
Love your mastery of spelling!