Anti-Nuke Activists Fight for Iran’s Nukes In the 1980s, Helen Caldicott, a key leader of Physicians for Social Responsibility

By Daniel Greenfield @ Sultan Knish Blog

In the 1980s, Helen Caldicott, a key leader of Physicians for Social Responsibility leader, compared a Trident nuclear missile to “a gas oven full of Jews burning up.” These days, Caldicott’s social media feed is a stream of Iranian, Houthi and Hamas propaganda denouncing the Jewish State and opposing strikes on Iran. It wasn’t the US Navy that was set on burning Jews up in ovens but the anti-nuclear activist. 

The ‘Auschwitz’ slogan was popular among opponents of America’s nuclear weapons.

“I say with a deep consciousness of these words that Trident is the Auschwitz of Puget Sound,” Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen infamously declared in 1981.

There was no such outrage about all the ‘Auschwitzes’ being built by Hitler’s former allies in the USSR or his former allies in the Middle East. A generation after accusing American nuclear missiles of being “Auschwitz”, anti-nuclear groups defended the Iranian nuclear ‘Auschwitzes’ publicly dedicated to “Death to America”, “Death to Israel” and killing millions of Jews.

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, founded in part by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and Physicians for Social Responsibility won a Nobel Peace Prize for its opposition to the existence of nuclear weapons. Its slogan was ‘We must eliminate nuclear weapons before they eliminate us.’ Unless the nukes are in the hands of Islamic terrorists.

After Israel launched its campaign to end Iran’s nuclear weapons program, ICAN denied that Iran was developing nuclear weapons and instead condemned Israel for striking Iran’s nukes.

International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War condemned Israel and instead urged it to create “a Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone.” Then IPPNW laid the blame on America and other countries for having caused the whole problem by refusing to give up their own nuclear weapons. And, contravening reality, the leftist group argued that “there is no military solution to the growing risk of nuclear proliferation.”

No doubt if America and Israel unilaterally disarm, Iran would never nuke both of them.

During the Cold War, IPPNW promoted Soviet arms control proposals, now it promotes Iran’s proposals for “negotiations” and “diplomacy”. Physicians for Social Responsibility, which helped found the movement, was accused of being a Communist front group. The Soviet Union may be gone, but ICAN, IPPNW and PSR believe that only American nukes are bad nukes.

Other campaigners for nuclear disarmament have been behaving the same way.

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which claims to be fighting for a “nuclear-free world”, is campaigning to scrap nuclear weapons in the UK and the US, but to keep them in Iran. Alongside calls to end nuclear weapons elsewhere, it demands “No war in Iran” and urges the “US and the UK to step back from the brink”. The ‘brink’ being ending Iran’s nuclear weapons.

According to CND, which spent 70 years warning that the UK’s nuclear weapons posed a threat to mankind, Iran’s nuclear program does not pose a threat and we should just leave it alone.

“Instead of taking steps to disarm its nuclear weapons,” CND complained that the UK is updating its launch platforms. After calling for “diplomatic and economic pressure on nuclear-armed, genocidal Israel” with sanctions and an embargo, and demanding that the UK abandon its nuclear capabilities, the group had nothing to say about Iran’s nukes.

Turns out that the only bomb that the “Ban the Bomb” campaign wanted to ban was ours.

Back From the Brink claimed that Israel’s strikes on Iran were an example of “brute nuclear force” demonstrating that the group, which also goes by Prevent Nuclear War, can’t define “nuclear”. “No country, including Israel, the United States, Russia nor China should have nuclear weapons,” it insisted, and then urged members to attend ‘No Kings’ rallies.

Beyond Nuclear Power, working for “a world free from nuclear power and nuclear energy”, put up a post with a poster urging “Don’t attack Iran” and then cited Al Jazeera, a terrorist propaganda network run by Iran’s ally, Qatar, to argue that Iran wasn’t really building a bomb. A day earlier, BNP had claimed that President Trump’s plan for nuclear power was “unhinged” and that the ‘Golden Dome’ defense program “spells doom for US taxpayers and world peace”.

According to the anti-nuclear group, a plan to block missiles “threatens to trigger another nuclear arms race and risks war in space” while Iran’s nuclear program is just misunderstood.

The position of the Ploughshares Fund was never in doubt. The organization, funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, was a key part of the Obama ‘echo chamber’ that used every dirty trick to push the Iran nuclear sellout. One of the radical groups funded by Ploughshares published Kaveh Afrasiabi, later arrested as an Iranian foreign agent, who was traded to Iran in a hostage deal. Ploughshares funded the National Iranian American Council: accused by many of being Iran’s lobby in the United States, making Ploughshares rather close to an Iran front.

Since hypocritical anti-nuclear organizations proliferate even as the actual risk of a nuclear war continues to drop, there’s also the Nuclear Threat Initiative founded by CNN’s Ted Turner.

NTI’s current head is Ernest Moniz, Obama’s Energy Secretary, who helped sell the Iran nuclear deal with distortions and misstatements, is back at it, telling PBS that “we cannot bomb the program out of existence.” Eric Brewer, an NTI honcho who formerly served on Obama’s National Security Council, paradoxically insisted that Israel’s attacks on Iran’s nuclear weapons program “make an Iranian bomb more likely.” This is in keeping with Obama’s inversion rhetoric.

The Center for Arms Control & Non-Proliferation, headed by former Rep. John Tierney, who had taken part in a NIAC meeting, promoted similar claims that Israel’s attacks “could finally push Iran to go nuclear.”

The one thing virtually every anti-nuclear group has is a relentless conviction that every Western nuclear program, no matter how peaceful, will lead to Armageddon, and a childlike faith that the nuclear programs of America’s enemies are peaceful unless we provoke them.

The only possible reason a terrorist state that chants “Death to America” and has cheap energy coming out of the ground might possibly turn its otherwise mostly useless nuclear program into a nuclear bomb would be if we or the Israeli provoke the otherwise peacefully nuclear Iranians.

Even America’s defenses against nuclear weapons are worse than Iran’s nukes.

The Arms Control Association, officially dedicated to eliminating the threat of nuclear weapons, claims that President Trump’s call for zero enrichment is “an unnecessary, unrealistic objective to prevent an Iranian bomb” but that the Golden Dome is “a misguided and dangerous approach to securing the American homeland.”

The Golden Dome is dangerous and misguided, but Iran’s nuclear enrichment is of no concern.

What the nuclear hypocrisy of the anti-nuke activists reveals once again is that they were never opposed to nuclear proliferation, only to the ability of free nations to defend themselves against the Communist regimes and Islamic terrorists who threaten them. Anti-proliferation was always a leftist trojan horse for empowering the enemies of civilization to encircle and destroy it.

When anti-nuclear activists go into the streets to protest for Iran’s nukes, they reveal that none of their hysteria about nukes was serious or sincere. It was only a trick to dismantle our defenses and aid our enemies. The same ‘anti-proliferation’ organizations that acted to advance the USSR’s agendas now plot to aid the nuclear arsenal of an Islamic terror state.

They’re not anti-proliferation; they’re anti-civilization.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine. Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.  Thank you for reading.

 

Good Laugh For Today: New York State Says It Will Build A New Nuclear Power Plant

June 24, 2025 Francis Menton @ Manhattan Contrarian

 In case you missed it, here is New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s breathless announcement from yesterday: “Governor Hochul Directs New York Power Authority to Develop a Zero-Emission Advanced Nuclear Energy Technology Power Plant.” And here is Hochul’s picture of herself making the announcement:

       

oes something here seem like it doesn’t quite fit? Yes, it was just four years ago, in April 2021, that New York completed the forced closure of the two perfectly functional Indian Point nuclear plants, with combined generating capacity of about 2 GW, for no other reason than relentless opposition from environmentalists and NIMBYs. And yet now the Governor is saying that the plan is to start over and build a new nuclear plant at some unspecified place.

Before getting to a few of the problems, let’s start with some of the excited language from the Governor’s press release:

Governor Kathy Hochul today directed the New York Power Authority (NYPA) to develop and construct a zero-emission advanced nuclear power plant in Upstate New York to support a reliable and affordable electric grid, while providing the necessary zero-emission electricity to achieve a clean energy economy. . . . “As New York State electrifies its economy, deactivates aging fossil fuel power generation and continues to attract large manufacturers that create good-paying jobs, we must embrace an energy policy of abundance that centers on energy independence and supply chain security to ensure New York controls its energy future,” Governor Hochul said. . . .

NYPA, in coordination with the Department of Public Service (DPS), will seek to develop at least one new nuclear energy facility with a combined capacity of no less than one gigawatt of electricity, either alone or in partnership with private entities, to support the state's electric grid and the people and businesses that rely on it. NYPA will immediately begin evaluation of technologies, business models, and locations for this first nuclear power plant and will secure the key partnerships needed for the project. This process will include site and technology feasibility assessments as well as consideration of financing options, in coordination with the forthcoming studies included in the master plan. . . .

Now who wouldn’t want “a reliable and affordable electric grid” that provides “the necessary zero-emission electricity to achieve a clean energy economy”? Not meaning to be the grinch here, but let me lay out a few of the problems that I have with the approach to energy policy for New York as described by our Governor:

• Are we really talking about just one new nuclear plant with just one GW of generation capacity? That is barely a drop in the bucket compared to the immediate need, and doesn’t even meaningfully address the problem of keeping the grid operating as we pursue a statutorily-mandated transition to mostly wind and solar generation. The State’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act of 2019 (CLCPA) demands closure of at least 20 GW of dispatchable power plants running on natural gas; and the State’s Independent System Operator, NYISO, has stated that the State needs at least 20 GW of what they call “dispatchable emissions-free resources” (DEFR) to replace the natural gas generation. Nuclear is the only plausible DEFR. So why we are going to build only one GW of new nuclear capacity? Wouldn’t you think the Governor would at least mention the rather large disparity between the identified need and her plan?

• The Governor’s announcement doesn’t say anything about the timeline, beyond making it clear that this project hasn’t even gotten to the most preliminary of preliminary steps. (“NYPA will immediately begin evaluation of technologies, business models, and locations for this first nuclear power plant. . . .”). We don’t even know the “technology” or the “business model” yet, let alone the location. The most recent nuclear plant to begin operation in the United States — Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Georgia — took 15 years from start of construction in 2009 until commencement of operation in 2024. Fifteen years from now is 2040, by which year the CLCPA mandates that New York produce all its electricity from “zero-emissions” sources. But before Governor Hochul’s unicorn power plant can begin construction, we must have not just selection of technology, business model, and location, but also such things as preparation and completion of an EIS, permitting, design, awarding of a contract, financing, and, don’t let me forget, defeat of a few dozen litigations attempting to block the project. We will be very, very lucky if this plant is ready to operate by 2045. 2050 would be more likely — if it ever operates at all.

• Shouldn’t there be at least some mention by the Gov that the CLCPA plan for a “zero emissions” electricity grid by 2040 has become completely unachievable — indeed, ridiculous? 20+ GW of reliable natural gas generation will go away by the mid-2030s, to be replaced by — what? One 1 GW nuclear plant, to maybe become available some time post-2045? That’s a complete joke. How about Hochul’s other plan for 6 GW/24 GWh of “grid-scale” battery storage? Per calculations at this post from March 2024, New York would need at least 720 hours of average usage, which is 12,240 GWh of energy storage, to reliably back up a grid predominantly powered by wind and sun; the 24 GWh in our Gov’s plan would be about 0.2% of that requirement. Another complete joke. Is there a third proposal? Not that I can find.

So what is Governor Hochul even thinking when she puts out a proposal for a single new nuclear power plant, describing it as supporting a future “reliable and affordable electric grid,” when she knows that her proposal represents at best 5% of what is needed and at least 5 to 10 years too late? What this proposal clearly is not is a serious plan to move toward a “zero-emissions” grid by the statutory mandate of 2040. Being charitable toward our Governor, perhaps the idea here is to lay down a marker, so that when her 1 GW nuclear plant proposal gets killed by some combination of environmental activism and bureaucratic stumbling, she will be able to say that she tried to put forth a solution but got blocked. The alternative hypothesis — that Governor Hochul actually thinks her 1 GW nuclear plant proposal is a relevant solution to the problem at hand — would imply that the Gov operates at essentially a kindergarten level of incompetence.

I’ll let you pick which of these two alternatives is more likely. Meanwhile, let this be your good laugh for today.

Biden Officials Edging Toward Nuclear Reckoning Over Ukraine

White House advisers are thinking about what could lead to the unthinkable.

by Dave Patterson | Nov 26, 2024 @ Liberty Nation News, Tags: Articles, Military Affairs, Opinion

Inside the Biden White House, after more than 1,000 days of brutal conflict in Ukraine, officials at some level are considering a new strategy. It appears the “as-long-it-takes” approach is taking too long, and President-elect Donald Trump’s national security team is readying to take over. It seems Joe Biden’s coterie of official geopolitical thinkers is floating the notion of providing nuclear weapons to Ukraine.

Biden Officials Offer Unthinkable Solution

These conversations were a reaction to what current members of NATO and Biden’s national security team anticipate is Trump’s intention to secure a negotiated peace in Ukraine. The question on the table is if peace in Ukraine is predicated on an agreed-to ceasefire, how is the ceasefire guaranteed? One answer was posited in an Off the Press post that referred to a New York Times article, “Trump’s Vow to End the War Could Leave Ukraine With Few Options”:

“So, US and European officials are discussing deterrence as a possible security guarantee for Ukraine, such as stockpiling a conventional arsenal sufficient to strike a punishing blow if Russia violates a ceasefire. Several officials even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union. That would be an instant and enormous deterrent. But such a step would be complicated and have serious implications.”

These are the kinds of conversations that go on when there are no adults in the room. The concept of returning nuclear weapons suggests that, as a member of the former Warsaw Bloc countries, Ukraine had autonomy in the employment of atomic warheads. In fact, these were Soviet Union-era weapons that belonged to and were under the command and control of the Kremlin, or so it was thought.

New evidence, however, suggests Ukraine had more control over the use of the weapons than originally believed. “These records cut sharply against the rationale for this historical resignation: that Ukraine was incapable of the technical means of operating nuclear weapons and that such weapons wouldn’t do much for its security even if it could,” The National Interest reported. Ukraine was sacrificing its security in the interest of international guarantees. Nonetheless, those weapons were removed from Ukraine in 1994 in compliance with the Security Assurances in Connection With Ukraine’s Accession to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Countries that signed the treaty, also called the Budapest Memorandum, were the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, the United States, and Northern Ireland. The memorandum effectively declared that if Kyiv gave up the nuclear weapons stored in Ukraine, the signatories of the non-proliferation agreement would “refrain from threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.” Well, obviously, the Russian Federation violated the treaty. Moscow has a long history of engaging in such violations.

What Will Putin Do?

The lunacy of threatening to introduce modern nuclear weapons, which is what they would be, presumably since bringing back the original weapons is not possible, is mind-boggling. Who would have command and control over these weapons? With a ceasefire violation by Russia, wouldn’t Ukraine be more likely to resort to using the nuclear weapons if it could? And if operational control of the weapons remained with the United States or some other nuclear NATO nation, by whose authority would they be used? The lack of will displayed by the United States and NATO so far indicates the weapons would not be employed. So where is the deterrence value?

Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened to use the Kremlin’s tactical nuclear arsenal based on a reduced threshold, and now NATO and US national security officials believe he will back down and be deterred if Ukraine once again is a nuclear nation. This comes from Biden officials whose constant mantra has been, “Don’t do anything that would escalate the conflict.”

Bored? Check This Out!

When the United States provided longer range capability for Kyiv to strike targets deeper inside Russia, Putin reacted strongly. “Putin has warned, even before releasing the revised nuclear doctrine, that the use of long-range missiles supplied by the West to attack Russia would constitute war,” Liberty Nation News reported. Imagine Moscow’s reaction even if the return of nuclear weapons to Ukraine were under the guise of ensuring a ceasefire. Did anyone actually think through musing about the deterrent effect of returning nuclear warheads to Ukraine? The United States and select NATO countries have nuclear-capable weapons in Europe. Installing some in Ukraine would be unnecessary atomic belt and suspenders.

Trump is going to have enough on his plate negotiating an end to the Russian invasion of Ukraine without unnamed US officials sitting around spit-balling about deploying nukes to Ukraine. Such thinking is dangerous and the act of desperation by an administration in the death throes of a failed foreign policy. Worse yet, Putin might consider such notions to be authentic US and NATO planning and use such ravings as a pretext for reacting in a dangerous manner. Did anyone on the Biden team even consider this catastrophic possibility?

The views expressed are those of the author and not of any other affiliate.

~

Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.

Read More From Dave Patterson National Security Correspondent

Escalation? Putin Reacts to Long-Range Missiles in Ukraine

Biden makes provocative call to muddy the waters before Inauguration Day. 

By Dave Patterson | Nov 20, 2024 @ Liberty Nation News, Tags:  Articles, Military Affairs, Opinion

Just two days after President Joe Biden removed the limitations on Ukraine’s use of long-range tactical missiles, Kyiv launched six ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) into Russia. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had requested permission to hit military locations inside Russia with these weapons for almost a year. In response, Russian President Vladimir Putin reduced the threshold for his country to employ nuclear weapons.

Putin Reduces Threshold for Using Nuclear Weapons

When Biden relented and permitted the use of longer-range missiles, the White House said the decision was a response to the 11,000 North Korean combat forces joining Moscow’s troops to win back lost real estate in the Kursk Oblast. The reversal of US policy was surprising since the reason for the prohibition was that Ukraine striking inside Russia would escalate the conflict. “The United States previously limited Ukraine to using the Army Tactical Missile System within its own territory out of concern, in part, that Russia could respond with force against US and allies’ interests beyond Ukraine,” a prominent Washington, DC, news source speculated.

Nonetheless, Putin’s reaction was not long in coming. On Nov. 19, the Kremlin leader signed a revised nuclear deterrence doctrine for the use of its atomic weapons. The New York Times explained:

“Asked whether Russia could respond with nuclear weapons to such [long-range missile] strikes Dmitri S. Peskov, Mr. Putin’s spokesman, repeated the new doctrine’s language that Russia ‘reserves the right’ to use such weapons to respond to a conventional-weapons attack that creates a ‘critical threat’ to its ‘sovereignty and territorial integrity.'”

The United States, France, and the UK, all nuclear-capable, assisting Ukraine, opened the aperture of acceptable rationale for Russia to activate its nuclear arsenal. “The new doctrine asserts that Russia could use nuclear arms in the event of an attack by a nation backed by a nuclear power,” the NYT reported.

According to an Associated Press description of the Kremlin’s new “Basic Principles of State Policy on Nuclear Deterrence,” it now includes possession by an adversary of atomic weapons that could attack Russia, and military exercises close to the Russian border are justification for Moscow to deploy nuclear weapons. It also includes potential attacks against its ally Belarus with conventional weapons as a reason for Russia to retaliate with nukes.

In the past, common wisdom maintained that if belligerents kept the level of combat to conventional weapons, nuclear weapons would not be utilized. However, Putin has warned, even before releasing the revised nuclear doctrine, that the use of long-range missiles supplied by the West to attack Russia would constitute war. Regarding Ukraine employing ATACMS inside Russia, “Asked … if such a Ukrainian attack could potentially trigger a nuclear response, Peskov answered affirmatively,” the AP reported. Also concerning is what most nations in the nuclear club believe to be a foundational principle of nuclear deterrence, “compliance with international obligations in the field of arms control” was previously part of Russia’s nuclear doctrine. The concept is missing in the latest version.

New Nuclear Doctrine Complicates Trump’s Deterrence Policy

What this means for US national security policy going forward is debatable. Many believe it is a slippery slope to World War III. The consensus is that the introduction of ATACMS into the Ukraine conflict will not result in the use of nuclear weapons by Russia and a response in kind by the United States and NATO. However, most observers believe the current elevated tensions in the Ukraine-Russia war will significantly impact the decision-making of President-elect Donald Trump, waiting in the wings.

Two schools of thought on the Kyiv-Moscow problem facing the incoming Trump administration: The first is that the use of long-range missiles and the reaction inside Russia will provide Trump a stronger hand in negotiating a solution to the fighting with both sides.

Bored? Check This Out!

On the other hand, the second line of thinking is that the Biden administration has muddied the waters, undermining Trump’s negotiating position. A Just the News report makes a compelling argument. It explained that former National Security Chief of Staff Fred Fleitz believed that Biden was against Ukraine using “US-made missiles to strike deep inside Russia before the election, and his lame-duck decision this weekend to authorize it now smacks of an effort to thwart Trump’s effort to create a ceasefire and peace deal.”

The more apt criticism is that Biden authorizing Kyiv to employ the long-range capability of ATACMS now is an example of US incrementalism, which has devastated the Ukraine war effort. Every delivery of Western weaponry to help the Ukrainians has been months after requested and needed.

However, whichever line of reasoning prevails, it’s safe to say that Trump and his national security team will have their work cut out on day one.

The views expressed are those of the author and not of any other affiliate.

~

Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.

Read More From Dave Patterson

Scary ‘Nuclear Challenges’ Faced by United States

The Defense Intelligence Agency just released a new assessment, and it’s chilling. 

By  Dave Patterson | Oct 31, 2024 @ Liberty Nation News, Tags Articles, Military Affairs, Opinion

If you aren’t worried about America’s nuclear deterrence, you should be. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) just released its latest assessment of the nuclear capabilities of America’s most dangerous enemies: Nuclear Challenges: The Growing Capabilities of Strategic Competitors and Regional Rivals. Replace the word “challenges” with “threats,” and you get a better picture of the dire situation. China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran continue to grow larger on America’s nuclear threat windscreen.

Nuclear Challenges

Over the past four years, America’s nuclear posture has been deemed inadequate. In this presidential election, leadership choices becomes even more significant. The DIA report executive summary opens with a sobering analysis:

“Russia, China, and North Korea are modernizing their legacy stockpiles by incorporating advanced technologies to penetrate or avoid missile defense systems. Countries are also developing nuclear weapons with smaller yields, improved precision, and increased range for military of coercive use … Beijing has far surpassed earlier growth estimates assessed in 2018 and is currently exceeding 500 deliverable nuclear warheads in its stockpile.”

The report estimates that China will reach 1,000 warheads by the year 2030. Perhaps more troubling from a deterrence perspective is that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) emphasizes lower yield, more tactical atomic weapons. Moving away from high yield in the mega-ton category gives the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) more flexibility and makes the use of nuclear weapons more suitable for a “proportional” response, as the report suggests. However, the PLA’s more “appealing” choice of tactical nuclear weapons makes the US deterrence calculus more difficult. Furthermore, the DIA analysis asserts, “The PLA is implementing a launch-on-warning posture where it would be able to, upon warning of [a] missile strike, launch a counterstrike before an enemy first strike can detonate.” Russian President Vladimir Putin announced Russia is assisting China to establish a ballistic missile “early warning system.”

There seems to be little desire on the part of Beijing to engage in nuclear disarmament talks as China’s nuclear capability is in ascendancy. The Biden-Harris administration’s first attempts to create a mutual accommodation relationship with the PRC set the stage for a geopolitical mismatch that has continued until this day. 

 

The Chinese gained the negotiation’s upper hand and have not let go. Despite the Biden-Harris administration’s entreaties to Chinese leadership to cease aggressive activities against Taiwan, the intensity has increased. In addition, the military collaboration between the PLA and Russia’s armed forces has grown.

Russia sustains its stockpile of 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads with a bomber force, submarine fleet, and ground-launched intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver the warheads. Additionally, Russia claims to have nuclear weapons capable of avoiding US countermeasures. Sino-Russian military exercises have increased in frequency and magnitude. “Russia launched its largest navy drills of the post-Soviet era … alongside Chinese warships, the latest sign of deepening military cooperation between the two global powers. The drills will continue until September 16 and will involve more than 400 warships, submarines, and other maritime vessels,” France 24 reported.

Other Global Actors Present Threats

North Korea presents a unique problem for the United States. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Pyongyang’s missile testing became less frequent, around 50 for nearly three years, during the Trump administration (no tests in 2018). North Korean tests began again in earnest with the Biden-Harris national security team in position. Between January 2021 and April 2023, there were more than 130 test firings by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). The DIA assessment of North Korea’s nuclear capability concludes: 

“North Korea has demonstrated the capability to produce plutonium and highly enriched uranium, has conducted nuclear tests, and has developed new ballistic missiles systems intended to strike regional and CONUS [Continental United States] targets.” 

The DPRK’s recent military agreement with Russia makes North Korea a more formidable threat than in the past.

Give Cable TV the Boot – Check This Out!

The Middle East teeters on the brink of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons. Recent attacks on Israel by Iran are testimony to Tehran’s missile capability for launching a nuclear warhead. The failure of Barack Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to limit the development of ballistic missile technology is one of the reasons the Trump administration withdrew from the agreement. As a result, “The Iranian missile force is the largest in the Middle East and can strike targets up to 2,000 km (over 1,200 miles) from Iran’s borders.” Numerous recent assessments reveal Iran may be on the cusp of having the wherewithal to develop a nuclear weapon. The Biden-Harris administration has failed to check Iran’s aggression through its proxies or Tehran’s direct attacks on Israel.

There have been few times in America’s recent history when the threat to the US homeland has been as significant. As Election Day looms, voters must consider the US position in a dangerous world. It is not growing less perilous. The DIA report is a call to action.

The views expressed are those of the author and not of any other affiliate.

~

Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.

 

Read More From Dave Patterson

DOD’s Innovative Micro-Reactor Tied Up and Down in Red Tape

The ground-breaking initiative to provide nuclear power to a military installation disappeared. 

By Dave Patterson | Jun 26, 2024 @ Liberty Nation News, Tags:  Articles, Military Affairs, Opinion

(Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

Heralded as a first-of-its-kind initiative to power a US Air Force base with a micro-reactor, the Eielson, AFB, Alaska small nuclear reactor project has dropped off the radar. The proposal to establish a pilot program at one of the coldest northern-tier bases was to determine the feasibility of using a miniature nuclear plant to replace a reported 800 tons of coal the base uses each day. So, what happened?

In 2021, when Liberty Nation News first reported the story, the Eielson, AFB micro-reactor pilot project was promising. As LNN explained:

“The microreactor project will have significant government oversight to ensure safety provided by the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Along with efficient production of electricity, the GAO [Government Accountability Office] explained, the microreactors can be produced more quickly, less expensively, and more efficiently, and ‘the entire reactor could be factory assembled under controlled environment conditions with quality control procedures.'”

Then, the program hit a snag. Being able to be “produced more quickly, less expensively, and more efficiently” met the slow, expensive, and breathtakingly inefficient Department of Defense (DOD) acquisition system. No project could have had more going for it to be developed and put into operation. Congress passed the FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act that “required the Secretary of Energy to report on a pilot program to provide resilience for DOD facilities by contracting with a commercial entity to build and operate at least one licensed micro-reactor by December 31, 2027.”

The Micro-Reactor Had Strong Administration Backing

Additionally, the Eielson AFB micro-reactor had the backing of former President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 13972, which directed the Secretary of Defense to “establish and implement a plan to demonstrate the energy flexibility capability and cost-effectiveness of a Nuclear Regulatory Commission-licensed micro-reactor at a domestic military installation.” Congressional legislative authorization and a presidential directive told the DOD to develop and operate a micro-reactor to power a military base. The Air Force was the military department to make the project happen, and Eielson AFB, Alaska, was chosen as the pilot base. What could go wrong?

It’s simple. The program was thrown into the US Air Force and Defense Logistics Agency competitive source selection process. This is supposed to allow for fair and equitable competition for procurements, but instead it subjects programs of record to interminable processes with the attending delays. The Request for Proposal (RFP) was supposed to be released in Spring 2022, but as of February, the Draft RFP was not through the review process in the DOD’s acquisition office. By August 2022, no Micro-Reactor Pilot project at Eielson AFB request for contractors’ proposal submissions was released. “As a first pilot program of its kind, the Department of the Air Force (DAF) Micro-Reactor program must undergo significant scrutiny and coordination from the agencies involved in its success,” explained Eielson Micro-Reactor Quarterly Update.

Fast forward to the end of September, approximately six months late, the Air Force released the RFP. In January 2023, the time for contractor proposal submission was closed, and the evaluation of the proposals began. Seven months later, in August 2023, the DOD issued a Notice of Intent to Award a contract. In other words, the Pentagon had selected a winner.

But not so fast: While the ink was drying on the award notice, it was rescinded. One of the competitors who did not win filed a protest with the Court of Federal Claims. The process stopped. In March 2024, a bidder filed a formal protest with the Government Accountability Office, and a stop work order was issued.

Promising Program Stopped in Its Tracks

As the latest report from Eielson AFB explained, the micro-reactor project is paused. Additional proposal reviews, “anticipated to conclude by the end of Summer 2024,” are ongoing. So, the pilot energy program hit the bureaucratic wall. The Air Force maintained it “still aims to meet the 2027 timeline for the project.” With the track record for meeting scheduled events, that sounds more aspirational than actual. 

What was to be a first-of-its-kind clean energy program that would provide a “reliable and resilient energy supply for critical national security infrastructure” is just another defense program that has fallen prey to a system hostile to innovation and getting programs to the warfighter in a timely fashion. One would have thought that with the Biden administration’s focus on clean energy, this program would have had special emphasis, but evidently not. In the end, when the Eielson AFB Micro-Reactor is operational, count on it being after 2027 and over cost. 

The views expressed are those of the author and not of any other affiliate. 

Read More From Dave Patterson

Nuclear Power Radiation — Part 2

Radiation from Facility Accidents, Man-made Disasters, and Natural Disasters  

John Droz jr. May 07, 2024 @ Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues

Recently, I posted a commentary arguing that there are good reasons to categorize Nuclear power as a “renewable” source of electrical energy, followed by another post: Nuclear Power Radiation — Part 1. That outlined radiation from normal nuclear power operations, waste, and misc. This Part 2 will briefly cover the rest of the well-known nuclear radiation possibilities…

1 - Nuclear Power Accidents

US nuclear power facilities are built to be extraordinarily safe. Even when there are accidents, there are backup systems — and often backups to the backups. The most familiar nuclear accident to us is the Three Mile Island problem in 1957. This summary states it well:

“A cooling malfunction caused part of the core to melt in a reactor, resulting in a limited off-site release of radioactivity over a multi-state area. Doses off-site were less than normal background radiation.  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission determined the accident “led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community.”

Considering the consequences, the rhetoric about this event seems out of proportion.

2 - Nuclear Power Man-Made Disasters 

The most famous case here was in Chernobyl (Ukraine: 1986). What is rarely covered by mainstream media (surprise!) is: a) there are no other nuclear reactors in the world that have the Chernobyl design, and b) the reactor failure was reportedly caused purposefully — i.e., it was not an accident.

The truth of what happened may be as evasive as the full story of the Kennedy assassination. My understanding (from reliable sources), was that there was a dispute within the facility between two groups (let’s say engineers and administrators). The issue reportedly was who was really in charge? Each group tried to “prove” to the other that they were in control — and in the process they purposefully shut off several safety mechanisms. The 100% predictable result was a catastrophic failure.

This is a reasonable account about this disaster (which soft-pedals the dispute part). Despite all the alarmism, the official total is only 45± deaths:

The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation has concluded that:

a) two Chernobyl plant workers died due to the explosion on the night of the accident,

b) 28 people died within a few weeks as a result of acute radiation syndrome, and

c) there have been 15 fatalities from thyroid cancer. Other than those 45± deaths, "there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 20 years after the accident."

3 - Nuclear Power Natural Disasters  

The classic case here is Fukushima (Japan: 2011). Again, my understanding (from reliable sources) is not what has generally been reported. The two indisputable facts are: a) Japan was hit by a tsunami, generated by a record undersea earthquake, and b) the tsunami was so large that it flooded the diesel backup power units (sitting on the ground), that were there to properly shut down the core in an emergency.

The part that I heard was that Japanese officials had been advised prior to this event, that to be extra safe, they should elevate the backup diesel generators off the ground. That had not been done. If it had been there very likely would have been no nuclear power failure. That said, considering that there never had been anything remotely like that tsunami, their delay is understandable.

Let’s keep things in perspective:  

a) there were about 20,000 deaths due to the tsunami, and  

b) less than ten fatalities due to the nuclear power plant failures. Here is a reasonably balanced discussion of the Fukushima nuclear disasters

Takeaway Regretfully, what the mainstream media reports on any nuclear facility problem, is not an objective, factual explanation, but rather an alarmist exaggeration of reality. In other words, once again political science is trying to take over Real Science.

Considering that there are some 435 operating nuclear power facilities (worldwide), and almost all are operating basically 24/7/365, the safety of nuclear power is exceptionally good. Worldwide, over the last 60± years, less than 100 people have died from a nuclear power plant failure.

By comparison, there have been WAY more deaths related to industrial wind turbines! (See this table, where the good people tabulating the data stopped keeping track in 2012, due to the huge increase in workload.)

Another perspective is that 40,000± people die annually from US car accidents, that would roughly translate to 2 million deaths over the same 60± year period.

This is yet another example of why having critically thinking citizens is the best defense against dishonest and ignorant purveyors of information. Remember that fear is the primary tool used to control people…

---

Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:

• Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.
• WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.
• C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.
• Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.
• Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2023 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time - but why would you?

Leave a comment

Thanks for reading Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues! Please pass a link to this article on to other associates who might benefit. They can subscribe for FREE to receive new posts (typically about once a week).

Nuclear Is A Renewable Energy

Wind and Solar lobbyists are fighting this reality  

By John Droz jr. Apr 30, 2024 @ Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues 

As a physicist, I believe that one of the reasons that intelligent energy policies have not gained sufficient traction is that we are allowing those with political agendas (vs independent scientists) to define some key energy terms.

[One thing I know from golf, is that a match is usually won or lost at the first tee — where the terms and conditions are agreed on.]

Outside of “fiscal responsibility” and “all of the above” the most significant misused concept that we have unwittingly gone along with is the term “renewable” energy.

Giving some critical thought to this moniker is no academic matter, as what is defined as “renewable” determines what sources of electricity are eligible for massive handouts and other preferential treatments.

In other words, what is legally defined as a “renewable” will have profound technical, economic, and environmental consequences on the United States.

The renewable energy lobby is extremely aggressive on all aspects of legality, and has made sure that only politically favored energy sources are awarded these perks (e.g., see here). Note that in that definition, “renewable” energy is not defined by what it does (or does not) do, but rather by a list of politically acceptable sources!

To my knowledge, there is no “official” definition of this bandied-about term. When asked, the meanings proffered vary quite a bit, but the key difference between a renewable and non-renewable energy source is usually the rate of replenishment.

Consider this typical definition: “Renewable is an energy resource that is replaced in a reasonable amount of time (our lifetime, our children’s lifetime)…”

Such a word as “reasonable” is subjective — not scientific. Who determines what is a reasonable amount of time, and what is it: 20 years? 100 years? 500 years?

The reason the definition of renewable is focused on time, derives from the concern that we may exhaust some electrical energy sources, relatively soon.

But how much is enough to have? For instance, if we have 100 years of some fuel, would the replenishment rate really be that important?

Clearly, within the next 100 years of use, there will be some profound changes made regarding the efficiency and applications of said fuel’s implementation — in ways we have little understanding of today.

At the time there were well-reasoned expectations in 1950 about what would happen in the year 2000. The message is that almost ALL of the best guesses were wrong. A good example is that today we use LESS renewable energy than we did in 1950!

In the same vein, prior technology predictions by experts (like Einstein) have also proven to be significantly off the mark. Who among us will stand to say that we have a better understanding of technology than Einstein?

In that light, let’s look at the case for nuclear being “renewable.”

First, we should answer how much longer will our nuclear fuel supply last. Consider:

a) This says: “The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2008 jointly produced a report saying that uranium resources are adequate to meet nuclear energy needs for at least the next 100 years at present consumption levels. More efficient fast reactors could extend that period to more than 2,500 years.”

It is absurd to say that a 2500-year supply doesn’t qualify this as renewable.

b) In addition, there are several proven alternatives to uranium as a source. One example is Thorium (which is much more plentiful than uranium).

[Read this 2023 study about “The Sustainability of Mineral Resources.” Note that it states “no tools are currently available to allow a comprehensive evaluation of mineral raw material abundance“.]

c) Bernard Cohen (Professor Emeritus of Physics at Pittsburgh University) has stated that breeder reactors have enough raw material energy sources to last us over a Billion years. That’s Billion with a “B”.

When considering these sample facts, an important thing to keep in mind is this quote from some scientists at an excellent University of Michigan site: “Only 50 years ago, nuclear energy was an exotic, futuristic technology, the subject of experimentation and far-fetched ideas.”

Hard as it might seem to believe, most of this nuclear development has occurred in just the tiny space of 50± years — so having any fuel supply that lasts 100± years could cover an enormous amount of new development.

Second, some definitions of “Renewable” include a reference to “power derived from natural sources”. Of course, that is amusingly non-descriptive since essentially all sources of electrical power are based on natural materials, and that includes nuclear.

To read more about this I’d strongly recommend Bill Tucker’s excellent book Terrestrial Energy, or a more condensed discussion he wrote.

A third factor sometimes appearing in the definition of “Renewable” is a reference to a power source’s ability to reduce CO2 (i.e., to be a “clean” source). That same University of Michigan site (above) has this very informative graph about how (worldwide) we have been able to reduce CO2 since 1973.

Now, for the sake of comparison, let’s quickly look at the flip side of this question, at the poster child for renewables: wind energy.

The indisputable fact is that an indispensable part of wind power electricity production is the requirement of LARGE amounts of rare-earth metals. Each wind turbine is reported to have several thousands of pounds of rare-earth materials (typically 2000± pounds per MW. An average-size wind turbine today is something like 5 MW.)

This study concluded that all rare-earth materials might be gone in 20± years! And several more reports warn us of the very limited supplies of these materials, like this.

I could go on, but just considering this information, which is the true renewable: wind energy or nuclear power?

---

Here are other materials from this scientist that you might find interesting:

My Substack Commentaries for 2023 (arranged by topic)

Check out the chronological Archives of my entire Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2023 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time - but why would you?

Leave a comment

Share

Thanks for reading Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues! Please pass a link to this article on to other associates who might benefit. They can subscribe for FREE to receive new posts (typically about once a week).

Another Candidate For The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time?

March 30, 2024/ Francis Menton @ Manhattan Contrarian

I have written a long series of posts, now 32 in number, titled “The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time.” Go to this link if you want to read some or all of those posts. The fraud in question in those posts is the intentional alteration of pre-existing temperature (or, in one case, sea level) records to create a narrative of dangerous climate change that, without the alterations, lacks support in the raw data. In the most recent post in this series, number 32, I remarked, “No other scientific fraud in world history comes close to this one in scope or significance.”

The climate-data-alteration fraud is hugely significant because the altered data provide the fundamental support for the ongoing multi-trillion-dollar effort of the Left to transform the world energy system, and ultimately the entire world economy. As the least expensive and most reliable forms of energy production get restricted, billions of people stand to see their lives impoverished to the extent of tens of thousands of dollars per year each. Is it remotely possible for any other fraud to come anywhere close to this one in significance?

As unlikely as it may seem, now along comes a second plausible candidate for the title. This fraud goes by the common acronym of “LNT,” which stands for the “linear no threshold” hypothesis of causation of diseases, particularly cancer, from environmental factors. The LNT hypothesis is the basis for huge swaths of enormously costly regulation, probably the large majority of environmental regulatory cost outside the sphere of “climate.” In a March 7 article in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, a guy named Edward Calabrese makes the case that the LNT hypothesis has been advanced by means of intentional fraud since its inception nearly 100 years ago. The title of the article is “Cancer risk assessment, its wretched history and what it means for public health.”

The LNT hypothesis theorizes that if a chemical or phenomenon (e.g., radiation) is established as dangerous at some dosage, no matter how high, then it must also be dangerous at small dosages, no matter how tiny. That conclusion follows if the relation of dose to danger is linear, with no threshold below which the danger goes away. A tiny dose may have a tiny danger, but as long as the dose/danger relationship is linear without threshold, then there is no safe dose.

Calabrese’s article provides a thorough history of the origins of the LNT hypothesis, and how it was advanced and promoted by the suppression of definitive contrary evidence. By the 1970s the LNT hypothesis had the backing of the National Academy of Sciences, and had been adopted by the EPA as the basis for regulating hazardous chemicals and radiation. The EPA continues to use the LNT approach in its regulatory efforts today, even as evidence accumulates that it is wrong and has been based on fraud from the outset. 

And thus the LNT hypothesis is the fundamental reason why nuclear power plants are so expensive and difficult to build; why no long-term solution for storage of spent nuclear fuel can be found; why EPA constantly proposes new regulations lowering allowable levels of emissions of chemical substances like mercury or PCBs; why pesticides and herbicides like glyphosate become the subject of multi-billion dollar liability disasters; and so forth.

The LNT hypothesis may at first seem intuitively likely to be true. For example, it is established that large doses of radiation can induce mutations that can lead to cancer. So why then couldn’t a single item of radiation, like one alpha particle or a single gamma ray, induce the mutation that initiates the disease? But Calabrese points out that the LNT hypothesis presumes that mutations are rare, and that the body has no capacity to repair ongoing mutations. What research has revealed is that, far from being rare, mutations are extremely common; and the body has a large capacity to repair them. Thus a small external source of mutations, like background or low-dose radiation, is easily dealt with, and if anything helps to stimulate and exercise the body’s natural repair system. Only when an external force causes very extensive mutations exceeding the body’s capacity to repair — i.e., when some threshold is crossed — does the external force increase the risk of cancer or other disease. From Calabrese, page 16:

[T]he most dominating cause of evolution is our metabolism which induces millions of mutations per day in each cell, with 99.99999% being repaired each day. If our repair systems were not so exceptionally good, life would not exist. Our metabolism produces about 200 million times more genetic damage events per cell per day than that induced by background radiation. There is no contest between the two. What this means is that our body is our biggest enemy; it also means that it is also our best friend. The body’s great repair mechanisms evolved not to prevent and repair damage from background radiation but to fix the damage that our metabolism induces each day. Thus, the body’s repair systems are designed by nature to protect our bodies against ourselves, with background radiation being a very tiny and insignificant factor.

So how did the LNT hypothesis gain such enormous sway, and become the basis for extensive and destructive government decision-making for decades? Calabrese points out that, by contrast to the threshold hypothesis, the LNT hypothesis has the potential to induce great fear in the public, and thus to stimulate large opportunities for funding and career advancement:

[T]he experts got the radiation and chemical mutation idea wrong from the start but they convinced many that they were correct and created debilitating fear in the population at the same time. We also learned that one of the reasons that these great scientists created such fears was to advance their careers and to get a constant flow of government grant monies.

Calabrese’s article is long (18 two-column single-space pages) and goes into detail of the names involved, the particular pieces of evidence suppressed along the way, the manipulation of members of committees to get to desired outcomes, and so forth. It has a lengthy bibliography, including references to multiple prior articles of his own where he has been piecing together and building the story of the LNT fraud for years. If you are interested in this subject, I highly recommend this article.

Meanwhile, our government and its “experts” merrily go forth regulating on the basis of the LNT hypothesis, and imposing enormous costs on society for no benefit. From Calabrese’s Conclusion:

[The scientists who promoted the LNT hypothesis] were driven by ideological and self-serving professional biases that would lead to both falsifications of the research record and suppression of key scientific findings, all to establish the LNT model for hereditary and cancer risk assessment, replacing the threshold dose-response model. This troubling history has now been revealed in a long series of peer-reviewed publications by the author and summarized in a broad conversational manner in this Commentary. This troubling history remained hidden from regulatory agencies around the globe since its inception. These groups simply and uncritically accepted a flawed and corrupt history, assuming that it was accurate and reliable. Yet this path of historical ignorance led the US EPA, and other national regulatory agencies, to accept a dishonest foundation upon which to base and frame cancer risk assessment, terribly failing in their public service mission.

As of today, there is no evident retreat by EPA or other U.S. regulatory agencies from the LNT model. Fear sells, and they have no ability or incentive to self-correct.

Is this fraud even greater than the climate data alteration fraud? I still vote for that one as being the more significant. But reasonable people could disagree.

When It Comes To The Powers Arrayed Against Israel, There’s A Simple Solution

March 30, 2024 By Jerold Levoritz @ American Thinker 

Editor's Note:   I've not asked for nor have I received permission to publish this piece, but I think it's an important piece that needs as wide a distribution as possible because this helps to explain the corrupt, illogical, irrational, and universal condemnation of Israel by the world's powers.  If American Thinker or Raymond Ibrahim object, I will break it down to a link.   RK

Despite regularly watching Caroline Glick, I don’t like doing so. That’s because her relentlessly realistic understanding of Israel’s position in the world tears me apart. A recent interview with Mike Benz, director of the Foundation of Freedom Online (embedded at the end of this post), is one of the most poignant I have seen because it explains so much. However, once one understands what’s really going on, there is a solution, and it’s a relatively simple one.

We who care about Israel and its survival compulsively scratch our heads and wonder why the media, the intelligence community, our elected politicians, the United Nations, the European Union, and a slurry of individual nations can be so taken up with anti-Semitic rhetoric and seek to neuter or destroy the only Jewish state in the world. Why would any mentally sound individual or political body curry favor with Iran and hang Israel out to dry?

Mike Benz clearly explains the intentions of those who engage in squelching Israel. Let me cut to the chase: Money, power, and control, mainly relating to petroleum resources, drive the current anti-Israel sentiment among the nominally civilized nations.

The process leading to this situation has been methodical and insidious. The US military-industrial complex has weaponized our civilian institutions to serve its needs. In a world that no longer recognizes kinetic military conquest as a means of acquiring territory and commodities, the only way to guarantee constantly increasing government funding for the military is through the soft military mobilization of civilian entities like the electronic media, the press, NGOs, corporate entities, and seemingly unrelated governmental agencies like the FDA.

Instead of buying tanks and warships, the Pentagon now purchases influence to limit competing narratives among the masses. Everything is paid for either by the military or wealthy industrial stakeholders. Money greases the wheels at every level through direct purchase of services, kickback contributions, jobs for retirees, and unethical influence peddling.

The US government collects money from the American people and then gives it to the military. The US military distributes it to other government agencies that, in turn, distribute it to non-governmental institutions. Some of these private recipients of government money are the universities that have established entire sections advising the military on how to limit the information available to the taxpayers.

Each social media company has a unit that has as its sole purpose to deplatform and demonetize people supporting competing understandings of social problems. The open internet of the 1990s has become a closed loop, so “things don’t get out of hand.”

Most particularly, the oil and gas industry shells out lots of money upfront in order to obtain the proper government policies that will benefit it. For example, under the influence of these energy companies, the US government has eased sanctions on Iran so they can export oil and gas to China.

China acquires Iranian energy by exercising its influence with the Biden administration and those in Congress who agree with or do not oppose the loosening of Iranian sanctions. America has at this moment a peculiar problem with the Biden family conflict of interest that is undermining US foreign policy. Their questionable behavior is well-documented but still unaddressed.

Immediately after World War II and the modern state of Israel was established, Britain assumed from the Nazis the role of despoiler of the Jews. The British took concentration camp survivors and imprisoned them on Cyprus for the crime of wanting to immigrate to the nascent state of Israel. Then, they provided officers, training, and arms to the Jordanians to weaken Jewish defense efforts in British-mandate Palestine.

Under the British, the “west bank” was emptied of its Jews. Those who recall correctly will remember that the League of Nations gave to Britain the Palestinian mandate to establish a home for the Jews. Instead, the British tried to rig the game so the Jews would lose that opportunity because of their battlefield losses.

The Brits had no authority to put Jews back in concentration camps, but they did it anyway. Perhaps they hated the Jews. However, at the end of the day, their sole goal was to retain the favor of oil-producing Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia. They chose oil over the lives of the Palestinian Jews and the remnants of the concentration camps.

It is no different today, with American and British support for Iran arising from Iran being the third or fourth largest source of petroleum in the world. Today’s Israel is being sacrificed for oil again. America is groveling at Iran’s feet to secure that oil for world consumption. The groveling is for monetary gain, with industrial conglomerates funneling money back to the politicians’ campaigns. If Israel insists on standing in the way, it must be weakened or eliminated.

Now, we reach the easy solution for this constant vying for petroleum resources among the powerful elites. There are just too many people who want to stay warm in their homes. If it were up to the sadists and psychopaths among the powerful, a catastrophic decline of population would be the way they would reduce energy consumption.

That the human population is likely to decrease on its own does not seem to reduce the zeal of these violence-prone advocates of forced population suffering. However, a less distasteful approach would be for everyone to support the production of adequate levels of energy for our current denizens. This can be accomplished by developing Liquid Floride Thorium Reactors (LFTR). The technology is available and would make oil cheaper than dirt because of the competition of plentiful nuclear power.

For the technically inclined, here are the undisputed facts. According to physics Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia, a ton of thorium could produce as much energy as 200 tons of uranium or 3,500,000 tons of coal. If converted to electricity at 50% efficiency, 820 keV/u is equivalent to 11 billion kilowatt-hours per metric ton of thorium/

Given that it is Israel who is being scapegoated by the world’s wealthy, I suggest Israel make it their raison d’etre to immediately begin developing working LFTR units to undercut oil prices.

This approach will save the lives of billions of people slated for extinction by the Darwinians among the wealthy. It will aid in undermining the cabal of information manipulators, beginning with our overly-endowed military. Once LFTR is in place, that will allow for quieter relations among all nations of the world, with each man able to live under his own vine and fig tree (Biblical reference) in peace.

Image: The first commercial oil well in Saudi Arabia. Public domain.