It's all coming together nicely. I just think it's funny that people here have known this for at least 2 years. We are the news.
I've been a little slow getting to the news the past few weeks. Today's headlines were very juicy though.
Mainstream media next week:
"Higher gas prices disproportionately affect communities of color: damning proof that Trump is a racist"
All I heard was "hot as a pistol." I love it!
It turns out the black, asian, and hispanic republicans were also correct.
The fact-checkers say it's the symbol for the Ukrainian land forces. Here's the symbol:
https://mil.in.ua/uk/articles/suhoputni-vijska-zbrojnyh-syl-ukrayiny-stanom-na-2009-rik/
I see the circle in the middle as well, but there are no crossed swords so who knows?
It's true...golf carts can be very useful.
Just think how much money will be made in the future by making movies, tv shows, games, books, clothing, toys, etc. based on this movie we've been watching for over 2 years.
Well, at least it will force more to look into the topic. Maybe they will find something that inspires them to question the narrative they've been fed.
That's awesome isn't it? I love how they said they don't allow the f-word or any reference to it. That would mean every "F" would have to be removed from all license plates in the state. They shot themselves in the foot.
I think Trump started the process by signing the USMCA.
It's just their 5G towers mucking up everything.
Well, Ukraine is receiving help from NATO countries, so what's wrong with Russia having help from their allies?
Funny, I just watched an episode of Stargate SG-1 from the early 90's that shows how the "aliens" used injectable nanotech that replicated to alter human DNA and compromise immune systems. The only way to fix it was to use "Thor's Hammer".
Black Mirror had a good episode that included this scenario, sort of. Now imagine when you finally find a place to charge your car, you're denied service because your social credit score is too low.
Joe tried to do the same thing in his speech the other day but lucky for him they put a folder for him to grab so he wouldn't look so stupid haha.
I haven't thought about a thread, but I'd love to share more information I have on various topics. I spent most of 2017-2020 writing research papers, so I have plenty to start with.
Here are all the sources I used for my paper:
Bazell, Robert J. “CBW Ban: Nixon Would Exclude Tear Gas and Herbicides”, Science, New Series, Vol. 172, No. 3980 (1971): 246-248. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1731029.
Bender, Gerald. “Correspondence”, Africa Today, Vol. 18, No. 3, China and Africa (1971): 106-107. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4185185.
Bennett, Ivan L. “The Significance of Chemical and Biological Warfare for the People”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 65, No. 1 (1970): 271-279. https://www.jstor.org/stable/59759.
Boffey, Philip M. Herbicides in Vietnam: AAAS Study Finds Widespread Devastation, Science, New Series, Vol. 171, No. 3966 (1971): 43-47. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1731077.
Carlson, Elof Axel. “Commentary: International Symposium on Herbicides in the Vietnam War: An Appraisal”, Bioscience, Vol. 33, No. 8 (1983): 507-512. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1309140.
“Chemical and Biological Warfare”, Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. 23, No. 4 (1970): 2-14. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3823128.
Davis, Donald E. “Herbicides in Peace and War”, BioScience, Vol. 29, No. 2 (1979): 84+91-94. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1307743.
Huynh Kim Khanh. “Year One of Postcolonial Vietnam”, Southeast Asian Affairs (1977): 287-305. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27908323.
Johnstone, L. Craig. “Ecocide and the Geneva Protocol”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 49, No. 4 (1971): 711-720. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20037875.
Koppes, Clayton R. “Review: Agent Orange and the Official History of Vietnam”, Reviews in American History, Vol. 13, No. 1 (1985): 131-135. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2702023.
Langer, Elinor. “Chemical and Biological Warfare (I): The Research Program”, Science, New Series, Vol. 155, No. 3759 (1967): 174-179. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1721126.
Langer, Elinor. “Chemical and Biological Warfare (II): The Weapons and the Policies”, Science, New Series, Vol. 155, No. 3760 (1967): 299-303. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1720654.
Massey, Rachel. “The ‘Drug War’ in Colombia: Echoes of Vietnam”, Journal of Public Health Policy, Vol. 22, No. 3 (2001): 280-285. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3343142.
McClintock, Cynthia. “The War on Drugs: The Peruvian Case”, Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, Vol. 30, No. 2/3 (1988): 127-142. https://www.jstor.org/stable/165983.
Meselson, Matthew S. “Chemical and Biological Weapons”, Scientific American, Vol. 222, No. 5 (1970): 15-25. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/24925799.
Mody, Navroz. “Chemical Warfare in Vietnam”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 5, No. 24 (1970): 948-949. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4360110.
Ng Shui Meng. “Vietnam in Perspective”, Southeast Asian Affairs (1975): 201-211. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27908257.
Norman, A.G. “Studies on Plant Growth-Regulating Substances”, Botanical Gazette, Vol. 107, No. 4 (1946): 475. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2472679.
Norman, Colin. “Vietnam’s Herbicide Legacy”, Science, New Series, Vol. 219, No. 4589 (1983): 1196-1197. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1690665.
Peterson, Gale E. “The Discovery and Development of 2,4-D”, Agricultural History, Vol. 41, No. 3 (1967): 243-254. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3740338.
Rasmussen, Nicolas. “Plant Hormones in War and Peace: Science, Industry, and Government in the Development of Herbicides in 1940s America”, Isis, Vol. 92, No. 2 (2001): 291-316. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3080630.
Schmitz, David F. and Natalie Fousekis. “Frank Church, the Senate, and the Emergence of Dissent on the Vietnam War”, Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 63, No. 4 (1994): 561-581. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3639949.
Shapley, Deborah. “Herbicides: Agent Orange Stockpile May Go to the South Americans”, Science, New Series, Vol. 180, No. 4081 (1973): 43-45. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1735291.
Sodhy, Pamela. “The Malaysian Connection in the Vietnam War”, Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol. 9, No. 1 (1987): 38-53. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25797931.
Stanford Biology Study Group, “The Destruction of Indochina”, Instant Research on Peace and Violence, Vol. 2, No. 1 (1972): 2-8. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40724622.
Stone, Richard. “Agent Orange’s Bitter Harvest”, Science, New Series, Vol. 315, No. 5809 (2007): 176-179. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20035179.
Tschirley, Fred H. “Defoliation in Vietnam”, Science, New Series, Vol. 163, No. 3869 (1969): 779-786. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1726473.
Tran-Duc-Thao. “Vietnam and Eastern Asia”, The Far Eastern Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 4, French Indochina (1947): 409-413. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2049436.
Westing, Arthur H. “Ecological Effects of Military Defoliation on the Forests of South Vietnam”, BioScience, Vol. 21, No. 17 (1971): 893-898. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1295667.
In my other comment I quoted from a paper I wrote on Vietnam in college. I can tell you that, aside from herbicides like agent orange, we used many methods in attempts to destroy the Vietnamese. Rain-making was one of those methods, though it wasn't as effective as we'd hoped. It's just crazy that many still think rain-making is fantasy, yet we have officially disclosed that we did just that all over SE Asia in the 1960s-1970s. I'm sure it probably goes back further than that.
This topic made me go back and read a paper I wrote in college a few years ago on the use of herbicides in Vietnam. We've been in this business a LONG time:
"During the 1920's the United States took the lead in promoting international prohibitions of chemical and biological warfare. One effort, the 1922 Treaty of Washington outlawing ‘the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases’ was ratified by the U.S. Senate but rejected by France because of provisions, unrelated to chemical warfare, that placed strict limitations on submarines. The treaty never went into effect. In 1925 the United States tried again with the Geneva Protocol, which repeated the earlier ban on chemical weapons and added a prohibition of ‘bacteriological warfare.’ It was sent to the Senate in January 1926, where it met a returning wave of isolationism and a wall of opposition led by the American Legion and the American Chemical Society.”
"The first use of gas in World War I was not the German attack with chlorine in 1915 but a French attack in 1914-with tear gas."
In 1969-1970, "India, Mexico, Pakistan, Sweden and 17 other nations proposed in the General Assembly a resolution holding that the Geneva Protocol prohibits the use in war of all chemical agents directed at men, animals or plants. The resolution was passed by a vote of 80 to three, with 36 abstentions. Portugal, Australia and the U.S. voted against the resolution.”
"The U.S. Army manual The Law of Land Warfare, last issued in the 1950's, states that the Geneva Protocol is ‘not binding on this country’.”
I have 17 pages of research on this topic and it's all very disturbing to see how everything progressed. First, we used plant-growth regulators in the 1930's and 1940's to do positive things like increase the growth-rate for tomatoes by 300x. It only took a few years before we were using the same concept, but in reverse, to destroy plants. Fort Detrick was the main source for this research. Of course, the consequences were deadly to plants, animals, and humans alike. Lord help us.
Funding of the Azov Battalion was famously halted in 2018, according to the article.
The article says:
"Funding of the Azov Battalion was famously halted in 2018..."
Doesn't that mean Trump did halt the funding?
Sauce please? It looks good on paper but...
The only issue I see is that Africa is heavily backed by Chinese investments...Just as Europe is backed with heavy US investment. A continent will follow the lead of their investors for the most part it seems.