We explore real-life reformation here in this informed, online community.
Over the last two years Vladimir Putin has presented the Biden administration and NATO with diplomatic but direct warnings. He has patiently pleaded with the West to cease escalating war with Russia by using Ukraine as a proxy. Too many attacks on his national security affairs will yield a moral military response, say the warnings. The red lines seem very clear to most observers, but President Biden continues to provoke Russia to retaliate defensively, as though Putin could not possibly be serious.
But what if he is serious? What if he is a responsible president protecting the national security interests of his nation? What if he is a reliable protector of his people? What if he takes border issues seriously? Might Putin launch nukes at the US?
He has made it clear that there would be nuclear retaliation if America fired first. But according to Colonel Doug MacGregor, who believes America to be the ongoing irrational aggressor in this war, Putin would not need to use nukes in a military retaliation against America. Russia's tactical weapons are now so precise in their targeting abilities, strategic destruction can be achieved without ever having to resort to widespread nuclear explosions. If Russia wanted to get our attention with an horrendous wake-up call, even one small, accurately placed bomb could do much damage to many American states.
How? Consider rural Hanford, Washington as one strategic target.
Joshua Frank has been looking at this old, shut-down remnant of the Manhattan Project. There’s no town there. Folks moved away in 1942. But Hanford has 177 underground tanks loaded with 56 million gallons of steaming radioactive glop. Two of those tanks are currently leaking, their waste making its way toward groundwater supplies that could eventually reach the Columbia River.
High-level whistleblowers told Frank they feared that a hydrogen buildup in one of those tanks, if ignited, could lead to a Chernobyl-like event here in the United States, resulting in a tragedy unlike anything this country has ever experienced. One small bomb on the facility could cause a major release of radioactive material from coast to coast. Says Frank, “the economy would crash. Major cities would become unlivable.”
“And,” he adds, “there’s precedent for this: in 1957, a massive explosion occurred at Mayak, Hanford’s Cold War sister facility in the then-Soviet Union that manufactured plutonium for nukes. Largely unknown, it was the second biggest peacetime radioactive disaster ever, only “bested” by the Chernobyl accident. In Mayak’s case, a faulty cooling system gave out and the waste in one of the facility’s tanks overheated, causing a radioactive blast equivalent to the force of 70 tons of TNT, contaminating 20,000 square miles. Countless people died and whole villages were forever vacated.”
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2023/03/no_author/nuclear-armageddon-games-in-ukraine/
Any investment in bioscience research comes with 100% risk because one never knows if a particular strategy will produce beneficial outcomes.
Publicly traded pharmaceutical companies have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to maximize profits and the only sure way to generate profits is through regulatory capture.
So Big Pharma just lies about its products and buys off the regulators (and the politicians and the media) every time.
The biggest profits come from giving a drug to the entire population in the name of preventive care — vaccines and now statins.
By pathologizing natural human emotions, the makers of psychopharmaceuticals also seek to sell treatments to nearly the entire population.
Causing harm increases profits by 100x or more (a single injury can produce a lifetime of profitable treatments).
Said simply, causing harm and disease massively increases the size of the market for pharmaceutical products so that’s Big Pharma’s business model today.
Dr. Toby Rogers
The “Putin apologist” smear is as omnipresent today as the same kind of smear was in 2002 in the US, deployed against anyone who questioned the wisdom of the coming war on Iraq. It’s designed to shut down thought. As usual, Hungary is the one dissenter from the EU consensus.
Rod Dreher
The case for getting out of NATO encompasses four fundamental propositions:
First, the Federal budget has become a self-fueling fiscal doomsday machine, even as the Fed has run out of capacity to monetize the skyrocketing public debt.
Second, the only viable starting point for fiscal salvation is slashing the nation’s elephantine Warfare State by at least $500 billion per year.
Third, the route to that end is a return to the “no entangling alliance” wisdom of the Founders, which means bringing the Empire Home, closing the 750 US bases abroad, scuttling much of the US Navy and Army and withdrawing from NATO and similar lesser commitments elsewhere.
Fourthly, jettisoning NATO requires debunking its Origins Story and the false claim that it brought peace and security to post-war America when what it actually did was transform Washington into the War Capital of the World, dominated by a panoptic complex of arms merchants, neocon warmongers and a vast Warfare State nomenklatura.
...
