(LifeSiteNews) — A leading science and global security organization and keeper of the symbolic “Doomsday Clock” is warning that we are “ living in a time of unprecedented danger” with an “increased risk of nuclear escalation” due primarily to the conflict in Ukraine.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced earlier this week that it had set its Doomsday Clock at “90 seconds to midnight.”
While public-facing science has not exactly covered itself in glory recently, it appears that even a Doomsday Clock is right some of the time.
Gain-of-function, masking, TikTok nurses, mRNA injections, together with appalling nutritional advice and medical professionals promoting gender madness are but a few of the dumpster fires in which “The Science” has chosen to torch its reputation. So why should we listen to the white coats who run the Doomsday Clock?
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists began using the Doomsday Clock in 1947 to “warn the public about how close we are to destroying our world with dangerous technologies of our own making.” Initially concerned with the danger presented by the outbreak of nuclear war, it has considered “possible catastrophic disruptions from climate change in its hand-setting deliberations for the first time in 2007.”
“Ruh-roh,” as Scooby would say. The attachment of The Science to the idea of ruining your life to change the weather is perhaps its most successful attempt to destroy its own credibility to date. Despite the adhesion of the Atomic Scientists to the creed of climate hysteria, I would argue their warnings still have merit.
One feature of living under crisis management is the difficulty in separating the manufactured panic from genuine concerns. Not every crisis is cooked up as a means of opinion management. Regrettably, the news of any real threat is relayed to us through the same channels as those which have made so many enemies in the reality-based community.
There are compelling reasons to take the Doomsday Clock seriously. These reduce to the increasing instability of the world today. The old order of a unipolar world directed by the United States is dissolving. A global realignment is taking place in which new regional and international factions are replacing the predictable alliances of old. The policies of Western corporations, and those of the war faction controlling its foreign policy, are propelling the world into a dangerously precarious state of affairs.
The era of Western prosperity is at an end. This is largely due to the usurious debt-based economic model the West has adopted, leaving its people to bear the brunt of an inflationary crisis which helpfully erodes the value of ever-increasing government debt.
Corporations such as BlackRock are aggressively promoting polices which are accelerating instability and undermining the efficacy of the institutions which might otherwise protect us from some of the consequences of technocratic managerialism and the asset-stripping neoliberal economic reforms it routinely inflicts on its populations. BlackRock admitted its role in ending the last forty years of rising prosperity in the West in a recent document reviewed here.
READ: The end of prosperity? How BlackRock is manipulating the West’s economic downturn
The pace at which Net Zero policies are pursued is worsening the economic instability of the West. Again, BlackRock admits as much in its 2023 Global Outlook, conceding that its enormous influence is leveraging a rate of transition which is effectively de-industrializing much of the West. Added to this, its promotion, along with countless bureaucracies public and private, of the selection and advancement of candidates for reasons other than ability is creating a crisis of competence across our formerly effective companies and institutions.
The costs of these “woke” policies inspired by environmental panic and a drive to “equity” amount to the decline of our quality of life, and permanently lowered expectations for the future. They are undermining the industrial basis of the major economies and degrading the caliber of the managers of our society.
The factionalism in technocracy is explained by its nature. As with all large-scale organizations, BlackRock exists to enlarge its influence and perpetuate itself, even at the expense of everything else. This ethos is strikingly similar to that of the neoconservatives who direct the foreign policy of the West. Despite having won none of the wars they have started, they continue to generate massive profits for themselves and their favored stakeholders by fueling conflict around the world. Their gain is our loss, and the losses are coming home fast for the West.
The war in Ukraine is a compelling reason to make such a dramatic appeal to the people of the world. Our managers have, through deliberate diplomatic failure, precipitated a genuine crisis which no conventional military escalation seems able to resolve. The reason the proxy war between the U.S., its allies, and Russia is so dangerous is because the West has staked its reputation on winning.
What “winning” is supposed to mean has been clear since the West entered the war in April 2022. The goal was to destabilize and isolate Russia through sanctions, bleed its army on the battlefield, and unsettle the Russian population. This would lead to the overthrow of Vladimir Putin and his appearance at The Hague to answer charges of war crimes. The West could then avail itself of the cheap Russian oil, gas, grain, and raw materials it has since largely denied itself. A RAND Corporation assessment of 2019 is taken as the blueprint for this policy, most recently echoed by Senator Lindsey Graham. Speaking as part of a U.S. delegation to Ukraine last Friday, he pressed for more tanks to be sent to Ukraine, as “The world order is at stake.”
The world order he is speaking of is that of the United States’ ability to appoint the governments of its choosing in any state it wishes. This is what happened in Ukraine. Here is the now notorious recording of Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland appointing the Ukrainian Prime Minister in early 2014. Graham is half right. That world order has already come to an end.
To step back from the insanity of these fever dreams is to return once more to reality. These are the notions on which the managers of this war have staked their reputation. It is for this reason they are dangerous. The power of the neoconservatives and of the political managers who ally with their devastating project of Liberal interventionism will be seriously undermined in a defeat against Russia.
A further casualty of this war will be a return – with a vengeance – of the credibility gap which plagued the U.S. government in the last years of the Vietnam war. When the populations of the West, so completely malinformed about the cause and course of this war, discover they have been deliberately misled they will be very unlikely to believe in anything the media tells them for a long time. This is what happened in the early 1970s in the U.S. This time round, the consequences of this war are being felt far closer to home, as the impact of the sanctions is destroying the European standard of living.
The people who direct these events are routinely indifferent to the suffering they cause. In the pursuit of the aims of their death cult they have wrecked nations far abroad and are now wrecking nations some of us call home. What they care about is their own power, and their own humiliation. It is the vanity of murderous liars we must genuinely fear, the narcissism of people habituated to ignoring the opinion and welfare of the common man and woman. To such people, who will invoke the highest moral principles in service of the basest deeds, nothing is worse than the loss of face.
The threat of nuclear annihilation is therefore real. The Bulletin, were it to concern itself solely with this threat (as it should), would be justified in moving the clock to its closest position to midnight in its 75 year history. This means we are, in their estimation, closer to global catastrophe than at any other time.
If we consider when the clock was at its furthest position from disaster, we may begin to understand the issues which have brought it dangerously close to midnight:
In 1991, with the end of the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, the first treaty to provide for deep cuts to the two countries’ strategic nuclear weapons arsenals, prompting the Bulletin to set the clock hand to 17 minutes to midnight.
At the time, there was much talk of a “peace dividend.” This was the idea that the arms race between NATO and the Soviet Union would end with the resulting money being spent on improving life for ordinary people, rather than on the perpetual war machine we have been given instead.
This war machine is a business model more than an instrument of spreading democracy. It is branded as such to win the only war the West has won since Japan: the information war.
We are directed to the brink of a nuclear exchange by factions upon whose power and influence rely on the projection of an image of success underwritten by their unquestioned right to do as they please. Both of these elements, which apply equally to technocratic bureaucracies and to the neoconservatives alike, are threatened by the mounting realization that Ukraine is not winning the war. These people may very well press for escalation to save face, as with doubts widely surfacing in a once uniformly gung-ho media it seems they are losing the power to overmatch reality with propaganda.
The threat of such a loss makes these people dangerous. Yet it is an under-reported fact that many populations are turning against every destabilizing measure taken by the management. From the war in Ukraine to the insanity of Net Zero, public opposition is rising to these disastrous measures taken without their consent and at the expense of their way of life.
The message of the Atomic Scientists is a valuable weapon for the reality based community. It is a stick with which to chastise the management over their inhumane and self-serving policies which have produced crises on a scale beyond their capability to resolve. The threat of nuclear annihilation may be the alarm which sounds, to those still in need of convincing, that it is time to bring the policy of regime change home.