Illustration released by Hezbollah Military Media depicting Israeli soldiers fleeing from a military vehicle during combat operations.

Uprooted Palestinians

June 3, 2026

Despite renewed talk in Washington of a ceasefire in Lebanon, the reality facing Israeli occupation forces deployed in southern Lebanon appears markedly different, according to military affairs correspondent Yaniv Kubovich in Haaretz.

Israeli occupation troops operating in the area say there is little sense of any genuine de-escalation. Drones, aerial attacks, rocket fire, and attempts to target soldiers continue to occupy commanders and troops on the ground, despite US President Donald Trump’s assertion that Hezbollah had agreed to halt attacks on Israeli forces. Solely on Tuesday, the occupation forces reportedly faced ten drone-related attack attempts. The only tangible change, soldiers say, has been a reduction in launches toward the occupied territories and the suspension of attacks in Beirut.

Kubovich reports that the Israeli military maintains that the US-backed ceasefire directives do not apply to the areas where ground forces are operating. Field commanders say neither the threat environment nor operational tasks have changed and that fighting continues at nearly the same intensity.

According to the report, the Israeli military has drawn a distinction between areas under Northern Command responsibility—including buffer zones and territories entered during ground operations—and areas overseen directly by the General Staff, including Beirut, major urban centers, and deeper regions of Lebanon. While little has changed in the first category, military attacks in the second were halted following a direct request from Trump.

Senior officers described an unprecedented situation in which authority over the use of force is no longer determined solely by the Israeli occupation government or military leadership but is increasingly influenced by decisions made in the White House. Planned strikes against targets in Beirut and elsewhere in Lebanon—including operations requiring extensive preparation by the air force, intelligence services, and other military branches—were reportedly canceled at the last moment.

The situation has reportedly generated unease within the Zionist entity’s military leadership. Many officers say they have never operated under conditions where battlefield decisions with direct consequences for troops are so immediately affected by a foreign government’s political choices.

For commanders, uncertainty has become a defining feature of the conflict. Commanders prepare large-scale plans, mobilize forces, and ready complex operations without any guarantee of their execution. Some military officers also believe recent public statements by the Zionist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the defense minister undermined military initiatives. According to those officers, key targets had been awaiting favorable operational conditions, but inflammatory political rhetoric increased international and political pressure, complicating their execution.

Kubovich further reports that military and security officials presented political leaders with multiple escalation scenarios ahead of a proposed expansion of military operations. Some options included strikes deep inside Lebanon and broader campaigns targeting Hezbollah’s centers of influence.

The military reportedly believed such operations could inflict greater damage on Hezbollah but would require substantial resources and lengthy preparations. Ultimately, the plans were not fully approved. The operation that did proceed was more limited than the alternatives proposed and has now also been suspended following the US push for a ceasefire.

According to military and security sources, a widening gap between actual battlefield outcomes and the rhetoric promoted by political leaders and official spokespersons has fueled frustration and eroded public confidence among Israeli settlers.

In this context, Israeli military officials acknowledge that while Hezbollah has suffered significant blows, it has not been defeated. Its command structure remains intact, much of its organizational framework survives, and substantial capabilities have been preserved for the future.

Field commanders have also warned against a return to the institutional culture that prevailed before the October 7 attacks. They argue that conformity with senior leadership is increasing while critical voices are being marginalized. According to officers, the perspectives of commanders on the ground are often ignored, and few within the military are willing to challenge operational decisions.

Israel currently maintains military operations across Lebanon, Syria, and the Gaza Strip. Each front demands significant manpower, intelligence resources, logistical support, and defensive capabilities. Field commanders warn that such a posture is unsustainable without a clear strategic vision. Reserve forces are already under severe strain, while regular units continue to face rapid attrition.

One senior reserve officer summarized the dilemma: “The issue is not how much territory can be occupied. The issue is who will hold it a year from now. If the state does not define a strategy for all fronts, the Israeli military will eventually reach its breaking point.”

Former Israeli Army Chief: Current Situation in Lebanon Is Pointless

The concerns raised by serving officers and security officials are echoed by prominent figures from Israel’s military establishment. As criticism grows over the absence of a clear strategy, former Chief of Staff Dan Halutz has joined a widening chorus of voices questioning the government’s conduct of the war and warning that continued military operations without defined political objectives risk further deepening the Israeli occupation’s strategic predicament.

Halutz said military leaders must establish clear limits and demand solutions from the government.

Speaking to Radio 103FM about developments on the northern front and in southern Lebanon, Halutz delivered a scathing assessment of the government’s conduct.

“They sent our soldiers like sitting ducks into a shooting range. They are exposed. These soldiers are doing everything they can with courage, but they have been given undefined objectives and no clear path to achieving them,” he said.

Halutz also criticized the capture of Beaufort Castle (Qalaat Al-Shaqif), arguing that Netanyahu was seeking “symbolic victories” rather than strategic achievements.

“We seized Beaufort Castle, and Netanyahu was looking for symbols. Suddenly he remembered Begin’s symbolism from 44 years ago and clung to it. The castle means nothing without a comprehensive strategy,” he said, adding that the insistence on maintaining the current situation in Lebanon serves no purpose.

Asked whether military leaders should tell the government that enough is enough, Halutz answered unequivocally in the affirmative. “Of course. They should say, ‘This is enough.’ Let’s stop and consider another solution.’” Halutz expressed little confidence that Netanyahu’s political and diplomatic circle would challenge his decision.

[…]

Via https://uprootedpalestinians.wordpress.com/2026/06/03/israeli-military-admits-strategic-deadlock-in-lebanon-as-officers-warn-occupation-is-unsustainable/

Over the past eight or so days, the US has targeted Iranian vessels as well as targets on the Iranian mainland. This included non-Iranian oil vessels. In essence, this was the US seeking to escalate the blockade of the blockade.

At first, Iran’s response was proportional. The US could tolerate that response.

In fact, it was beneficial to the US to continue the exchange of blows but keep them relatively limited, as it would slowly but surely erode Iran’s deterrence without imposing intolerable costs on the US.

But yesterday, Iran moved to change that equation.

After the US struck a Botswana-flagged tanker as part of Trump’s blockade, the Iranians counter-escalated disproportionally.

Tehran struck Kuwait International Airport as well as a US base in Kuwait, Ali Al-Salem.

It struck the 5th Fleet facilities in Bahrain. (Full extent of damage unknown.)

It struck Jordan. (Full extent of damage unknown.)

It struck northern Iraq. (Full extent of damage unknown.)

It struck the UAE. (Full extent of damage unknown.)

It struck the Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar. (Full extent of damage unknown.)

It was a demonstration – and reminder – that Tehran retains escalation dominance.

Whereas the US is comfortable with either a possible deal or a low-level exchange of fire, but not a return to full-scale war, Tehran is comfortable with a possible deal or a full-scale war, but not with a low-level exchange of fire that erodes Iran’s deterrence and allows for Trump’s “blockade of the blockade” to become effective.

The area where both can actually be comfortable is some sort of a deal. Reaching it, however, is a different story.

[…]

Via https://tritaparsi.substack.com/p/iran-moved-to-change-the-us-iran

Episode 1 Introduction to Human Prehistory

Human Prehistory and the First Civilizations

Dr Brian Fagan (2003)

Film Review

Six million years ago primates known as hominids, which showed, began to appear among African apes. Two and half millions years ago, hominids had developed sufficiently to establish themselves as a human species.

The term prehistory covers all history prior to written records and is derived from:

• archeological remains
• oral history
• fragmentary written accounts
• biological and zoological fossil remains
• radioactive dating and other scientific disciplines

The modern human species Homo sapiens first appeared 100,000 years ago in Africa and eventually spread across the globe. The features that distinguish Homo sapiens from more primitive hominids are the capacity for

• rational thought
• future planning
• conceptualizing theoretical ideas
• art
• cultivation of wild grasses
• domestication of animals

In 5,000 BC Native Americans, at the time the most skilled farmers in the world, first adopted agriculture in the New World.

The world’s earliest civilizations arose in the eastern Mediterranean in Egypt and Mesopotamia. This would be followed by the Minoan civilization on Crete and Mycenaean civilization in Greece and the Xia dynasty in China.

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/video/15061946/15061950

Residents living near artificial intelligence (AI) data centers are reporting symptoms — including dizziness, nausea, vertigo, insomnia, headaches and anxiety — that they believe are directly related to the centers’ noise pollution.

According to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, the noise emitted by data centers can be heard and felt hundreds of feet away, and noise levels can reach up to 96 decibels — for 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Sound levels exceeding 85 decibels are considered dangerous and potentially damaging to human hearing, depending on the duration of the exposure.

Data centers also emit infrasound, a low-frequency (below 20 Hertz) rumble that the human ear can’t hear, but the body feels as pressure or vibration.

Infrasound generated by data centers is “the new enemy,” Futurism reported earlier this month. The centers’ cooling systems, power generators and server racks are suspected infrasound culprits.

‘Infrasound’ may negatively affect heart functioning

Some data centers have been built as close as 50 feet from people’s homes.

Residents exposed to infrasound from data centers are reporting symptoms similar to EMR Syndrome, which is linked to the electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted by cell towers, cellphones and Wi-Fi networks.

This symptom overlap comes as no surprise to Paul Héroux, Ph.D., associate professor of medicine at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, and a medical scientist in the McGill University Health Center surgery department.

“Sound, electric and magnetic fields of the same frequency have some overlap in their biological effects because they are similarly disruptive energy injections,” Héroux said.

Héroux is also vice chair of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, a “consortium of scientists, doctors and researchers” who study wireless radiation and make recommendations for wireless radiation exposure, “based on the best peer-reviewed research publications.”

According to Héroux, infrasound at high volumes can directly affect the human central nervous system, causing disorientation, anxiety, panic, bowel spasms, nausea, vomiting, eventual organ rupture and even death.

He pointed out that in 1957, French scientist Vladimir Gavreau began experimenting with low-frequency acoustics to create an audio weapon for the French military.

Just five years ago, German researchers published results from an in-vitro study showing that after just one hour of exposure, high levels of infrasound interfered with the heart muscle’s ability to contract properly.

Based on those findings, it’s possible that chronic exposure to infrasound from data centers could negatively affect heart function, Héroux said.

W. Scott McCollough, lead attorney for Children’s Health Defense (CHD) EMR & Wireless cases, also wasn’t surprised that exposure to infrasound emitted by data centers and radiofrequency (RF) radiation from cell towers and other devices can trigger similar symptoms. He said:

“Infrasound waves come from periodic pressure fluctuations, very akin to how modern radio systems modulate RF energy to carry information. The modulation leads to asymmetric bursts of energy with sharp peaks and valleys. Both lead to resonance and amplification, leading to stronger peaks in energy or sound pressure.”

‘Not in my backyard’: Most U.S. adults don’t want a data center near them

The average data center is roughly 100,000 square feet — large enough to fit nearly two football fields. Proponents of the gigantic infrastructures argue they are necessary for the U.S. to keep its competitive edge over China in the AI revolution.

But local residents — especially women — are sounding the alarm. Critics warn that the center will likely harm nearby residents, including children, and the surrounding environment.

Last month, Maine was poised to become the first state to enact a moratorium on new data centers. However, Gov. Janet Mills vetoed the bill. She wrote in a letter explaining her decision:

“A moratorium is appropriate given the impacts of massive data centers in other states on the environment and on electricity rates. But the final version of this bill fails to allow for a specific project in the Town of Jay that enjoys strong local support from its host community and region.”

Maine is one of at least 11 states that have proposed legislation to restrict or ban data center development since late 2025.

A Gallup poll conducted in March found that 7 in 10 U.S. adults oppose having a data center in their area. Only 7% said they were strongly in favor. Fifty-five percent of women said they strongly opposed data centers, compared to 43% of men.

AI data centers have already drawn fierce, bipartisan criticism for their water and electricity consumption and environmental impact.

Miriam Eckenfels, director of CHD’s EMR & Wireless Program, said she sees similarities in the U.S. situation between data centers and new cell towers, which are also known to cause harm to human health and the environment.

In both cases, companies that stand to profit try to put up infrastructure close to where people live, learn and play. “People don’t want them, so they oppose them,” Eckenfels said.

Local communities should have the right to say no to such developments. “These decisions must be made at the local level and not in Washington D.C., where folks are far removed from the reality on the ground and the negative consequences.”

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/ai-data-centers-noise-pollution-nausea-insomnia/

Japan has achieved dramatic long-term declines in childhood tooth decay — despite never implementing nationwide water fluoridation and only recently recommending fluoridated toothpaste, according to a new study in BMC Public Health.

The research, by Yoshihisa Yamashita, D.D.S, Ph.D., of Kyushu Dental University, describes Japan’s experience as a “natural social experiment” that could reshape how public health experts address preventing dental cavities at the population level.

Unlike many other high-income countries, Japan has historically limited fluoride exposure during childhood — which makes the country a “unique and underexplored case.”

Using decades of national dental survey data, the study found that average rates of tooth decay among Japanese 12-year-olds fell steadily over roughly 40 years.

Levels dropped from a peak national Decayed, Missing, and Filled Teeth (DMFT) index score of 4.75 in 1984 to just 0.53 in 2023 —  “well below levels historically reported in populations exposed to systemic fluoride through community water fluoridation,” according to the study. DMFT is the standard international measure of decayed, missing and filled teeth.

“This trajectory unfolded in the absence of nationwide community water fluoridation,” the paper states. High-fluoride toothpaste was not widely available in Japan until 2017 and was not officially recommended for school-aged children until 2023, according to the study.

Dr. Griffin Cole, conference chairman of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, said the study’s method of using national dental records across an entire population, rather than measuring fluoride exposure among a small group, provided important evidence on oral health.

“By examining real-world outcomes, Yamashita’s analysis provides strong evidence of what we already know: Oral health can improve through nutrition, behavior and broader public health measures, rather than adding fluoride chemicals to our water supplies,” he said.

The findings are the latest to challenge long-standing assumptions promoted by organizations such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Dental Association that systemic fluoride exposure through community water fluoridation explains large-scale reductions in tooth decay.

Decades-old study by U.S. researchers still used to justify fluoridation?

The study compared modern Japanese cavity rates with historic U.S. data collected by early fluoride researcher and dentist H. Trendley Dean in the 1930s and 1940s, and later consolidated by F.J. McClure.

Despite a small study size and issues with collection bias, Dean’s research formed the scientific foundation for North American fluoridation policies by showing lower cavity rates in four communities with naturally fluoridated water supplies.

But according to the new study, Japan’s current cavity rate is substantially lower than the minimum levels observed in Dean’s high-fluoride communities — even though Japan’s drinking water contains effectively no added fluoride.

Yamashita said it was also notable that Japan has only recently introduced high-fluoride toothpaste. Most toothpaste previously available contained less than 1,000 parts per million (ppm).

Popular children’s toothpaste brands in the U.S., including kids’ Crest and Colgate, contain about 1,100 ppm.

The paper argues that broader social and behavioral changes likely play a major role in reducing tooth decay.

The author suggested several possible contributing factors, including:

• A long-term decline in sugar consumption and shifts in dietary habits.
• Changes in childhood feeding and parenting practices, including reductions in prolonged bottle feeding.
• Universal access to dental care through Japan’s national health insurance system.
• Improved oral hygiene awareness and preventive behaviors as a result of greater healthcare access.

Fluoride ‘not a magic bullet for controlling tooth decay’

Japan’s per-capita sugar consumption has declined by more than 30% since the 1970s, according to national statistics cited in the paper.

However, the author noted that cavity rates continued falling even after sugar intake stabilized, suggesting that multiple factors likely worked together over time.

Dr. Hardy Limeback, professor emeritus in the Faculty of Dentistry at the University of Toronto, told The Defender that a 1996 Japanese study found even lower tooth decay rates in Japan during World War II, when sugar supplies were scarce and rationing took place.

“The effects of total fluoride did not seem to have much effect on the caries rates in Japan in the 20th century,” Limeback said. “In that country, increasing fluoride exposures by means other than fluoridation did not appear to be ‘one of the top 10 public health procedures of the 20th century,’ as claimed for fluoridation by the CDC in America.”

“Fluoride is not a magic bullet for controlling dental decay,” Limeback added. “Limiting sugar intake is.”

Countries should look beyond fluoride for dental health solutions

The study arrives amid renewed international discussion about fluoride safety.

A 2024 U.S. National Toxicology Program review examined possible links between fluoride exposure and lowered IQ in children. A recent Cochrane Review found water fluoridation has minimal effects on dental health.

Following a landmark 2024 judgment that found fluoride at current levels recommended for water fluoridation in the U.S. posed an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health, communities and states across the country stopped adding fluoride to their water.

The ruling also mandated that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate it.

An appeals panel recently vacated that decision. But the EPA has since launched a new investigation into the safety of water fluoridation, as public concern has grown.

Yamashita argued for a “broader multicausal approach” to oral health policy.

“Substantial and sustained reductions in dental caries can be achieved through multicausal pathways,” the paper concludes, “even in the absence of universal water fluoridation.”

Yamashita said countries seeking to reduce tooth decay should consider not only fluoride-based strategies, but also policies addressing diet, early childhood environments, access to care and wider social determinants of health.

He also suggested that a bias toward fluoride has posed a barrier to understanding the multicausal approach that can improve dental health.

“This analysis highlights insights that have long remained unrecognized — not because the evidence was unavailable, but because prevailing frameworks shaped what researchers expected to see,” Yamashita wrote.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/japan-tooth-decay-rates-fell-40-years-without-water-fluoridation/

by Brian Shilhavy

Health Impact NewsBack at the end of March we published the story of Mohamad Safa, a permanent member of the UN and Executive Director of the Patriotic Vision Organization for the past 12 years, and how he resigned from his job and gave up his career so that he could leak information about an alleged UN plan to launch nuclear weapons into Iran. See: Defying Death Threats, Permanent Representative of UN Quits to Leak Information about Plans to Bomb Iran with Nukes

When the U.S. and Israel assassinated Ali Khamenei, the Supreme leader of Iran, at the start of the current Iran war, the U.S. and Israel thought the regime would crumble.However, it was Khamenei himself who for over 3 decades prevented Iran from developing nuclear weapons, stating that it went against the religious principles of Shia Islam.However, his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, has now succeeded him as the new Supreme leader of Iran, and according to sources inside of Pakistan, which has been the main country trying to create a ceasefire agreement in the current war, Khamenei has now allegedly stated that if Israel and the U.S. resume bombing them again, that Iran has the right to develop their own nuclear weapons, which they claim they can do within two weeks.

This was revealed in an interview yesterday with ex-CIA officer Larry Johnson and journalist Pepe Escobar, who were interviewed by American Pakistani Zulfiqar Ali, who cites sources within Pakistan claiming that this is an urgent message that needs to get out to the rest of the world.

Here is the description of the interview, which is well worth watching:

Are we weeks away from a global power shift? In this explosive interview, insider Zulfiqar Ali, geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar, and former CIA officer Larry Johnson reveal the shocking truth about Iran’s nuclear timeline, the hidden Russian alliance, and the looming “economic tsunami” that will crash the US Petrodollar. Discover why global superpowers are abandoning the United States and how the upcoming resource shortages in oil, gas, and helium will reshape the world economy and the AI revolution.

(If this disappears from YouTube let us know, as we have a backup copy.)

Here is an interesting quote from Pepe Escobar in this interview about President Trump:

“He’s just a minor cog in this gigantic wheel. He’s in fact, I would say he’s a side character in a much, much bigger Shakespearean play. He’s not even the main character. He’s a side character

 

[…]

Via https://healthimpactnews.com/2026/is-nuclear-war-with-iran-and-america-and-israel-imminent/

Dmitry Orlov

June 2, 2026

Currently, Russia faces a bit of a problem. Western nations have taken to supplying the former Ukraine with missiles, drones and components for their manufacture. The US is also involved: the former Ukraine receives targeting information from Palantir and uses Starlink satellite communications. This by no means qualifies as an existential threat but it does pose a political problem for Russia’s leaders.

By “the former Ukraine” I mean what’s left of the former Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, as crafted by Lenin and Stalin out of random bits of the Russian Empire, then let loose by “drunk president” Boris Yeltsin. Since then it has lost half of its population (the younger and more capable half), virtually all of its once mighty industry, and is now a shadow of its former self. It has a very high death rate and a very low birth rate and is undergoing rapid demographic collapse. Its one remaining use (for the West) is to annoy Russia. It is the one and only category in which the former Ukraine remains a success.

The West supplies the former Ukraine with drones and drone components and the Ukrainians use them to launch attacks on civilians in random locations within Russia. They have tried to launch drone attacks to damage military and industrial installations, oil refineries especially, but this has had minimal effect and these locations are at this point fairly well defended with anti-aircraft systems.

And so the Ukrainians have switched to targeting civilians. The number of people killed by Ukrainian missile and drone attacks averages 1,3 deaths per day. This is significantly lower than the 38-40 people per day who die in automobile accidents throughout Russia, but there is a big difference psychologically. In practical terms, nothing much would happen if automobile accident deaths went up to 39,3-41,3. This would, of course, be deplorable, but such a development would only be noticeable to statisticians and they would certainly not start running around with their hair on fire. But drone and missile attacks are different: they cause people to think that not enough is being done to defend them. In turn, this causes politicians and public figures in Russia to leap to action and demand that something be done.

For example, professor Sergei Karaganov has advocated the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Western nations which supply the former Ukraine with missiles and drones. Karaganov’s logic is simple: the West is not sufficiently scared of Russia; nuclear weapons are very scary indeed; therefore, using nuclear weapons against the West would fix this problem. In line with Karaganov’s thinking, the Russian Ministry of Defense has produced a target list of factories that manufacture the missiles and drones which end up in the former Ukraine and, it is reasonable to assume, stands ready to destroy these factories when so ordered. Whether it would do so using conventional or nuclear weapons is yet to be determined. Some people seem to think that Karaganov shouldn’t have proposed this and have even launched personal attacks against him. What some people seem to be missing is a fine distinction between saying that something should be done and actually doing it. Yes, this is a nuance, but it is a very important one.

Some people take issue with the fact that Russia has not yet prevailed militarily in the former Ukraine. Some of them take this to mean that Russia is weak; others claim that the Russian leadership is divided or indecisive or that Putin is overly cautious. They think that Russia should smite the Kiev regime’s forces forthwith and that Russia should triumph and claim all the territory it wants. Both sworn Russophobes and supposedly patriotic Russians are guilty of such wooly thinking.

Indeed, lots of Russians endlessly repeat the mantra that “victory will be ours.” But what does that actually mean? If Russia were to score an outright victory in the Ukraine, smashing the Kiev regime and causing its military to retreat in disarray and dissolve among the civilian population, would that be helpful to Russia? It doesn’t take too much deep thought to discover that it would not be helpful at all.

• Russia would come to control a vast, chaotic territory. It is sparsely peopled by lots of retirees, disabled veterans and war widows. There are some 100.000 fabulously corrupt functionaries, arms dealers and crooks. It is infested by Western agents and mercenaries. Thanks to relentless brainwashing, none of them are particularly well-disposed toward Russia. Incorporating this territory into the Russian Federation would require lifting it up to Russian standards, and this would require massive and unpopular federal budget outlays.

• Then there is the question of how these new, most reluctantly Russian citizens would vote: probably not quite the way Moscow would like. West of the Dniepr river, Russian patriots become rather thin on the ground. After 35 years of splendid isolation, rejoining the fold of the Russian civilization may not be possible for much of the remaining population. It would take several decades to bring these people around, and it is unclear what level of interest exists within Russia for doing so. In 1991, at the time of the collapse of the USSR, 80% to 90% of Russians perceived Ukrainians as a brotherly nation. In 2025, according to polls by the Levada Center (designated as a “foreign agent” by the Russian Ministry of Justice), the proportion of Russians who consider Ukrainians a brotherly nation is approximately 50%-52%. Given this trend, in a few more years attempts to reintegrate the former Ukrainian SSR into Russia would receive considerable pushback.

• Lastly, winning in the former Ukraine would simply prompt the West to start another proxy war against Russia. The list of animals to be sacrificed on the altar of Western Russophobia has already been drawn up and it is quite long: from north to south, there is Finland, the Baltics (too insignificant to mention by name), Poland and Moldova/Transnistria. Here, too, there is a fine difference between members of these sacrificial, notionally Western nations saying that they will fight Russia (and holding training exercises in which they pretend to fight Russia) and them actually doing so, as opposed to running off and hiding.

These are the negatives of a quick, outright Russian victory in the former Ukraine. And then there are also some positives being offered by the lack thereof.

• Perhaps most importantly, this conflict allows Russia to complete a civilizational about-face, from being wedded culturally and economically to the decadent, degenerate and hostile West to establishing amicable, mutually beneficial relationships with the increasingly prosperous, fast-growing and traditionalist countries of Southeast Asia.

• Part of that about-face is a societal transformation within Russia itself. At the beginning of the Special Military Operation in February of 2022, Russia was spontaneously relieved of quite a number of influential citizens of split loyalty who chose to leave Russia. Half of these people have since realized that they had made a mistake and have come back, but the lessons they learned, and imparted to the rest, were invaluable. The basic lesson seems to be simple: “The West has nothing to offer us.”

• Then there is the usefulness of the former Ukraine as a proving ground for new weapons and war-fighting techniques, where the use of armor and large infantry formations is a thing of the past and the line of separation is now a kill zone as wide as 50km patrolled by drones and infiltrated by infantry in groups of two or three under cover of darkness, rain and fog to launch surprise attacks and take over specific fortified locations.

• Finally, the Special Military Operation is a powerful tool of political consolidation. Returning veterans reenter the workforce and, in recognition of their achievements on the battlefield, are promoted to management. Their children receive prime consideration for free education. All of this helps ensure that Russia’s governance structures, both public and private, will remain patriotic and loyal for the next several generations.

For all of these reasons, it is far better for Russia to be winning than to win. Indeed, Russia is winning every day, just a tiny bit. Almost every day the evening news carries stories of conquest of yet another hamlet or village or deserted industrial zone in the western portions of what are now regions of the Russian Federation or the newly established buffer zones in Sumy or Kharkov regions. These tiny conquests are achieved with an absolute minimum of casualties. People have stopped attempting to calculate casualty ratios some time ago, but before that happened numbers such as 7:1 (that is, Ukrainian to Russian casualties) were commonly heard even from Putin himself while ratios of 10:1 and higher were also floated. Overall, the Russian army is growing and the Ukrainian army is shrinking while Western financial support for the Kiev regime is dwindling. This implies that this conflict can’t go on forever and will wind down perhaps as soon as the end of 2026, perhaps a bit later.

Similarly to how it is better for Russia to be winning than to win in the former Ukraine, it is better for Russia to be preparing to nuke Europe than to actually do so. That it is preparing to do so is certainly a fact: Oreshnik missile batteries, which can be nuclear-tipped, have been positioned in Belarus, allowing them to strike anywhere within the European Union within a few minutes. Training exercises have recently been held to make sure crews are ready to arm them with tactical nuclear warheads. Surely, an attempt would first be made to make an impression on EU governments using conventional weapons before resorting to tactical nuclear weapons, but the track toward escalation has already been laid and the escalation train is already rolling down that track, albeit quite slowly.

[…]

Via https://boosty.to/cluborlov/posts/7811018b-986f-4d46-9fea-c3e3e3e1a226

By Jeffrey Tucker May 16, 2026

The grim circumstances behind the death of George Washington (1732-1799), America’s first president and popularly known as the Father of the Country, are not wholly unknown. The details have been reported by historians for more than two centuries.

What’s strange about this dry biographical knowledge is that it is not reported with shock and alarm and hence never conveyed to popular culture with lessons for our lives. This is because Washington’s physicians were following standard protocols when they bled him to death.

The facts: Washington came down with a throat infection. Three doctors, all convinced of the settled wisdom of the healing arts deployed since the Middle Ages, participated in draining blood from his body, to the point that they took 5 pints or fully half his blood, while giving him an enema on top of it all.

They literally drained the life out of him, not from malice but simply by following the established protocols as recommended by the best physicians at the time.

To invoke a popular phrase, where is the outrage? Nineteenth-century biographies reported the details but celebrated Washington for his bravery in enduring the treatment, then called phlebotomy, which was considered the best science.

John Marshall’s (later Justice) famous early biography, published in five volumes from 1804 to 1807, simply says:

“Believing bloodletting to be necessary, he procured a bleeder who took from his arm twelve or fourteen ounces of blood, but he would not permit a messenger to be despatched for his family physician until the appearance of day. About eleven in the morning Doctor Craik arrived; and perceiving the extreme danger of the case, requested that two consulting physicians should be immediately sent for. The utmost exertions of medical skill were applied in vain. The powers of life were manifestly yielding to the force of the disorder; speaking, which was painful from the beginning, became almost impracticable: respiration became more and more contracted and imperfect, until half past eleven on Saturday night; when, retaining the full possession of his intellect, he expired without a struggle.”

Necessary. Medical skill. Protocols. Best Practices. Standards of Care. Death. No one knows why: just a yielding to the forces of disorder.

That account set the tone. No one dared say that the doctors killed him – a very clear example of iatrogenic death – because no one believed that. So long as it is credentialed experts doing the killing, we are led to believe that nothing really went wrong. The system works, just that sometimes the system cannot stop the inevitable.

That consensus surrounding Phlebotomy began to change in the coming decades, even if some experts were still on board as late as 1842. By the end of the 19th century, bleeding had been thoroughly discredited. Still, the overall judgment that the doctors did the best they could with the tools and knowledge they had remained. It’s as if the literary culture simply could not grasp the fullness of the implications that it was the physicians themselves who turned a common flu into a death event by draining the former president’s blood from his body.

Another biography written for kids in 1917 by Calista McCabe Courtenay comes closer to the truth.

“Before morning of the third day, he was very ill and when the doctors came, they bled him. It was the stupid practice of those days and in a few hours Washington was so weakened as to be past hope of recovery. He died on December 14, 1799, as bravely as he had lived.”

Even on the 250th anniversary of the nation’s founding, the full lesson of this horrible death has not sunk in.

The most recent and most celebrated biography is by Ron Chernow. Even here, while we get more detail, the account is lacking in severe judgment against the medical professionals, much less what that implies.

Although he experienced hoarseness and chest congestion that evening [November 12, 1799], Washington’s mood was cheerful. He smarted at old political wounds from onetime allies. When he read aloud a newspaper story that James Madison had nominated James Monroe for Virginia governor, he allowed himself some acerbic comments. He spurned Lear’s advice to take medicine. “You know I never take anything for a cold,” he protested. “Let it go as it came.” Instead, he sat up late in his library before mounting the steps to his bedroom.

Martha expressed dismay that he had not come upstairs earlier, but he said that he had done so as soon as he had finished his business. In the middle of the night, he awoke with a raw, inflamed throat. When he shook Martha awake, she grew alarmed by his labored breathing and wanted to fetch a servant, but he feared she might catch a chill on this cold night. Once again relying on his body’s restorative powers, he had Martha wait until daybreak to call for help.

When a slave named Caroline kindled a fire in the early morning, Martha asked her to scout out Tobias Lear, who found Washington breathing with difficulty and scarcely able “to utter a word intelligibly.” Christopher Sheels propped up his master in a chair by the fire as Lear sent a swift slave to Alexandria for Dr. Craik, the Scottish physician who had served Washington with such fervent devotion since the French and Indian War.

Meanwhile, to soothe his flaming throat, Washington consumed a syrupy blend of molasses, vinegar, and butter… With preternatural self-control, he had an overseer named George Rawlins bleed him before Dr. Craik arrived. When Rawlins blanched, Washington gently but firmly pressed him. “Don’t be afraid,” he said, and once Rawlins had sliced into the skin, making the blood run freely, he added, “The orifice is not large enough.”

Martha showed better medical judgment and pleaded for a halt to the bleeding, but Washington urged Rawlins on, saying “More, more!” until nearly a pint of blood had been drained. A piece of moist flannel was wrapped around his throat while his feet were soaked in warm water. As they awaited Dr. Craik, Martha summoned the eminent Dr. Gustavus Richard Brown of Port Tobacco.

Dr. Craik, arriving first, perpetuated the medieval treatments already in use, emptying more blood and applying to the throat cantharides, a preparation made from dried beetles, to draw the inflammation to the surface. He also had Washington inhale steam from a teapot filled with vinegar and hot water. When Washington tilted back his head to gargle sage tea mixed with vinegar, he nearly suffocated.

Alarmed, Dr. Craik summoned a third doctor, Elisha Cullen Dick, a young Mason from Alexandria, who had studied under Dr. Benjamin Rush. Upon entering, he joined Craik in siphoning off more blood, which “came very slow, was thick, and did not produce any symptoms of fainting,” wrote Lear. They also evacuated Washington’s bowels with an enema. Joined at last by Dr. Brown, they took two more pints from Washington’s depleted body.

It has been estimated that Washington surrendered five pints of blood altogether, or about half of his body’s total supply. Dr. Dick recommended a still rare and highly experimental procedure—a tracheotomy that would have punched open a hole in Washington’s trachea, easing his breathing—only to be overruled by Craik and Brown. “I shall never cease to regret that the operation was not performed,” Dick said afterward, likening the three physicians to drowning men grasping at straws.

It is highly improbable, however, that Washington would have survived such a procedure, given his already weakened state….It was December 14, 1799. Washington had died at age sixty-seven.

The implications of such an account are profound concerning the purported wisdom of medical consensus. Every generation imagines that it is way ahead of the others in the past in terms of science and medicine. Sure, what they did in the past was grim, barbaric, ignorant, cruel, not based in science but we are so much better. And yet in every age, the physicians have always believed that. Nor is it enough to say that knowledge is always improving because we know that this is simply not true.

Even now, Washington, D.C. and the psychiatry profession is in an uproar over what appears to be a sudden awareness that what is called “psychiatric medication” is not fixing or medicating a “chemical imbalance” at all but rather sedating and creating a dependency that allows for further medicating in a vicious cycle. It seems rather obvious now, thanks to decades of work by outside writers and activists, but it was not apparent until recently. Lobotomies have not been repudiated so much as chemicalized.

And only a few years ago at the height of the worst of Covid, between 10,000 and 17,000 people in New York City were likely killed by the hospital protocols that involved ventilation from which most people died. Ventilation in this case was a death sentence not that different from phlebotomy, a consensus practice that only months after so many were harmed was deeply regretted. Meanwhile, those deploying the practice were indemnified with a liability shield.

We still have no clear answers as to why off-label therapeutics for a coronavirus were taken off the shelf while doctors who distributed Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine with great results are still being persecuted. Vaccine refuseniks were demonized as prolonging the pandemic, and then the product turned out to be one of the more dangerous ever distributed.

The New York Times attacked the idea that Ivermectin could be effective against Hantavirus as disinformation; after all, a “vaccine” is on its way, no doubt one declared to be both safe and effective. Remember that vaccination was discovered around the same time that Washington was bled to death by a generation of physicians that could not think its way out of an existing paradigm. Bleeding is finally gone but it took another 75 or so years.

From that time forward, vaccination as a go-to intervention for everyone has benefited from subsidies, celebrity endorsements, patents, mandates, a philosophical overlay over utilitarianism, agency blessings, media campaigns, liability shields, suppression of data of injury and death, and the demonization of any resistors. Is it any wonder so many now have their doubts?

What’s happening in medicine right now is a massive rethinking of many conventional practices coming out of the allopathic monopoly that is a century old. In pursuit of keeping an orthodoxy in place, how many healthy practices have been left behind from other traditions such as Chinese medicine, homeopathy, chiropathy, or naturopathy, all of which are discouraged by conventional insurance and disparaged by pharma-funded media? How many practices today called the Standard of Care will in a generation or two be regarded as obviously horrible as the practice of bleeding?

George Washington’s terrible fate ought to have sounded a national alarm to ring through our long history. The lesson should be never to replace epistemic humility in medicine with institutionalized dogma. That lesson did not stick because then and now, the prevailing medical wisdom gets a pass even when it kills people. Even the Father of the Country. 

[…]

Via https://brownstone.org/articles/george-washington-father-of-the-country-killed-by-doctors/