https://www.rt.com/russia/607871-russia-new-nuclear-doctrine/

1. State policy on Nuclear Deterrence is defensive by nature, it is aimed at maintaining the nuclear forces potential at the level sufficient for nuclear deterrence, and guarantees protection of national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State, and deterrence of a potential adversary from aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies. In the event of a military conflict, this Policy provides for the prevention of an escalation of military actions and their termination on conditions that are acceptable for the Russian Federation and/or its allies.

2. The Russian Federation considers nuclear weapons as a means of deterrence, their use being an extreme and compelled measure, and takes all necessary efforts to reduce nuclear threat and prevent aggravation of interstate relations, that could trigger military conflicts, including nuclear ones.

3. The Russian Federation ensures nuclear deterrence toward a potential adversary, which is understood to mean any individual states or military coalitions (blocs, alliances) which see the Russian Federation as a potential adversary and possess nuclear arms and/or other weapons of mass destruction or conventional forces with a significant combat capability. Nuclear deterrence is also ensured toward any states which provide the territory, airspace, and/or maritime space under their control as well as resources for preparing and conducting an aggression against the Russian Federation.

4. An aggression of any single state from a military coalition (bloc, alliance) against the Russian Federation and/or its allies will be regarded as an aggression of the coalition (bloc, alliance) as a whole. An aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies of any non-nuclear state with the participation or support of a nuclear state will be regarded as their joint attack.

5. The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear arms and/or other weapons of mass destruction against itself and/or its allies, as well as in the event of an aggression against the Russian Federation and/or the Republic of Belarus as constituents of the Union State using conventional arms, if such an aggression creates a critical threat for their sovereignty and/or territorial integrity.

6. The decision to use nuclear weapons is taken by the President of the Russian Federation.

Thus spake Elon Musk on X (someone fetch plz)

Anyway, it's on the US Dollar Bill:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novus_ordo_seclorum

"New order of the ages" from Virgil

The mottos were coined by Charles Thomson, the secretary of the Congress of the Confederation.[1][2] Thomson derived the phrase Novus ordo seclorum from a poem by the Roman poet Virgil. He wrote that the phrase signified "the beginning of the New American Era" as of the date of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, which was depicted in Roman numerals at the base of the pyramid on the seal.

So Why did Elon tweet that? Some more on the mythology and symbolism here

But really, I actually thought it scrolling through the nonsense on YT home-page. The toilet seems the best place for people freaking out about comments about garbage-people, (when Trump was compared to Hitler and suffered assassination attempts from deranged people), just because there was a full house at MSG.

The world is topsy turvy

https://www.rt.com/news/606657-bezos-explain-wapo-non-endorsement/

“Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working,” the entrepreneur wrote, adding that “most people believe the media is biased.”

“Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election,” he continued. “What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one.”

[Sound of penny dropping]

KEK

Journalists are supposed to be unbiased

1. Immigration policy critique: Harris faced criticism for not providing a clear answer when asked about the Biden administration's stance on decriminalizing illegal border crossings.

2. Infrastructure plan: Harris was questioned about the administration's infrastructure plan, and critics argue that she didn't provide a detailed response on how the plan would be funded.

3. Healthcare policy: During the interview, Baier pointed out that the administration's healthcare policies seemed to be shifting, and Harris didn't provide a clear explanation of the changes.

4. Past campaign stances: Baier also questioned Harris about her previous stance on certain issues during her presidential campaign, and she didn't directly address the discrepancies between her current and past positions.

5. Climate change: Critics argue that Harris didn't provide enough details on the administration's climate change initiatives and how they plan to achieve their goals.