Skip to main content

Black market nukes: Iran saber-rattling is a farce

I was watching Gerald Celente today and Iran came up. For some reason, the thought of buying a nuclear weapon on the black market flashed into my head. If Iran were intent on "wiping Israel off the map" - as the imperialists claim - why wouldn't they just buy nukes off the black market? They have a fully operational intelligence service. Its acronym is, ironically, MISIRI. So, if drug lords can buy these things, surely a nationally funded intelligence service can. Here's a YouTube video discussing the trek of some freelance journalists to hunt down black market nukes in Bulgaria. It might be a bit of a tall tale but it can't be far from the truth. These nukes are far from accounted for.

It just goes to show that the saber-rattling from Washington DC & Co. is all a big farce put forward by the war-mongers to justify the war they want.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Constitution has gone to the dogs

Actually, it should have gone to the dogs, but didn't. I'm talking about  Leona Helmsley's estate , of course. The contract clause of the Constitution says, "No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts..." This means that private contracts cannot be changed by legislative edict. This clause is incredibly important because the willingness of private individuals to engage in profitable enterprise - which is the foundation of social welfare - crucially depends on their belief that they can realize a profit. In turn, their belief that they can realize a profit depends on their belief that they can hold parties to a contract liable to the terms in the contract. For example, lenders must have confidence that they can repossess the collateral for a loan if the loan is defaulted on. Otherwise, they will not take the risk of giving the loan in the first place. When lenders are too scared to lend, everyone is worse off. In the case of Leona Hel...
2 comments
Read more

What Law Is

Law What is law? Frederic Bastiat, in his treatise The Law, defines law as the collective use of force. As much as I love Bastiat’s treatise, I think his definition is not sufficiently analytical. It is certainly the case that the law plays a role in the collective use of force but the law is something more basic than this. We can begin by looking at law as it is today. The website for the Oregon courts has an excellent summary [1] of modern law and courts. I will quote it at length: Throughout history, people have had disputes and have needed some means to settle their disputes. As civil societies develop, they need an orderly system of conflict resolution. One system that developed in "western" cultures is the "law court" or court of law. In England, those early law courts developed a "body of law" called the common law, which defined both the rights of the people and the government and the duties people owe each other and their government. T...
2 comments
Read more