RFK Defends His Position On Israel - Dave Smith POTP Ep#1088
I already respected Dave Smith a lot, but the way he handled this interview earned himself a few more points. I was expecting him to engage in some light sparring during the interview, but he surprised me and went very hard on RFK. One moment was particularly interesting, and has gone somewhat viral. At
1:05:52, Dave asks "Do you have concerns for the level of Israeli influence in our politics here in The United States of America?" After the longest pause of the entire interview, RFK answers that he doesn't know because he isn't a politician!
On a
subsequent episode of the podcast, Dave muses on this exchange:
But what I found most interesting about the debate/interview is that RFK Junior's opening arguments were all explicitly built on the commonly accepted mythology of WWII. This is what inspired my post the other day that sent Jovan to the fainting couch, and set off the latest thread hubbub. This mythology is the lynchpin of all the rhetoric that justifies our never-ending empire. It is how one of the greatest American subversives of the 20th century, William F. Buckley, turned American conservatism into a movement that openly embraces totalitarianism and an enormous federal government, just so long as it used to bolster a certain foreign policy.
On Taboos
When I piss people off, it is almost without exception because I attack a political taboo. But to be clear, I don't think all taboos are bad. When taboos have been selected for over many generations, and especially when equivalent taboos exist across different cultures, I think they are likely to serve a good purpose. But when a taboo is explicitly used for political purposes, is enforced rigorously in a political context, and forbids discussion of relatively recent historical events, alarm bells should go off. These are the taboos that I think need to be attacked without hesitation.
The reason such political taboos are created is to rapidly manufacture consensus where consensus would otherwise not be achieved. This means that if someone is immune to the consequences of breaking a taboo, attacking the underlying proposition the taboo is designed to defend is usually remarkably easy. And this, I believe, is what infuriates those who believe in the taboo. When they are exposed to someone who does not respect the taboo, they have no choice but to logically defend the underlying proposition. But this is very difficult, which is why the political taboo was created in the first place! If logic and common sense could prove what the taboo defends, the taboo wouldn't even be necessary.
Certain political taboos are clearly stronger than others, especially when the cost of breaking the taboo is extremely high (why RFK had to lie), or when the taboo is two or more generations old. So when Jovan asks what the hell is wrong with me to challenge a certain taboo, I don't take him to mean that my position is logically untenable. I take him to mean that he thinks I am a fool for attacking a taboo that enjoys such widespread social acceptance. A good propagandist would
never directly attack such a taboo. For example, Ellul says of the fundamental myths of society: "
Propaganda is forced to build on these presuppositions and to express these myths, for without them nobody would listen". I am fully aware of this, yet I do exactly the opposite! This is because I am not a propagandist. If I were a propagandist, Jovan's critique would be absolutely correct. But I am not interested in "moving the masses". I am a rhetorician and logician whose concern is to convince a small minority who is capable of being convinced.
And even though I absolutely despise our current elite, I am fundamentally an elitist. I just think we need a new and far superior elite that is grounded in the traditions and values of Western Civilization. That is what I fight for, and if I can convince a handful of people to reject these false political taboos because logic compels them to perceive the lie, I will consider my small part in this broader war as well fought.