Trump Declares Open “Lawfare” On Fake News

OCTOBER 04, 2022


NY Times:
 Trump Files a Defamation Suit Against CNN


The former president has a history of threatening, and occasionally filing, lawsuits against media organizations whose coverage he deems unfair.


BY Michael M. Grynbaum

The Donald is suing the pink panties off of CNN ($475 Million) — a network which one of his allies is now open-secretly in charge of. Times scribbler Michael M. Grynbaum explains:

“The lawsuit alleges a “campaign of dissuasion in the form of libel and slander” that, Mr. Trump asserts, has recently escalated “as CNN fears the plaintiff will run for president in 2024.

The 29-page suit cites numerous times when CNN hosts and guests criticized Mr. Trump over his policies and his questioning of the 2020 presidential election result. It also laments that some guests have invoked Adolf Hitler and the history of Nazi Germany in criticizing Mr. Trump’s behavior.

A footnote in the lawsuit shows that Mr. Trump’s representatives contacted CNN in July to give notice of prospective litigation and request that the network stop referring to Mr. Trump’s comments about the 2020 election as “lies.”  (emphasis added)

If a media organization like CNN can be sued for calling Trump’s claims about 2020 “lies,” then it logically entails that every other vessel of the Judenpresse Armada can be just as easily targeted for defamation. Indeed, that is exactly what Trump just promised in a recent Truth Social post.

As the pro-Trump billionaire, John Malone, cleanses CNN of its most outspoken Marxist filth, the Trump lawsuit attacks from the outside.
The big-name scum of what was once 24/7 anti-Trump CNN — all gone!

This good news of this lawsuit is actually a perfect follow-up to the piece we published yesterday — about how Trump trapped the Piranha Press in the baited fish net marked “Election Denial.”  With all of the indisputable evidence proving voter fraud (and still plenty more to come!), we don’t see how CNN can squirm out of a charge of slander / libel. It seems to this amateur “legal scholar” that in order to defend their mendacious mantra of “Big Lie,” they will actually have to disprove forensic and video-taped facts like those presented in the documentary film “2000 Mules.” How can they?  And lawsuits also mean DISCOVERY — which may spell big trouble for the perps, particularly if Trump and the all-knowing White Hats know exactly what to ask for.

The Left is already spinning this as a covert attack on the first amendment which will have a “chilling effect” on “freedom of the press.” Dontcha’ just love the way in which these rats, when cornered, always invoke the very US Constitution which they are dedicated to subverting? But that manufactured argument simply won’t fly because there is no right to damaging slander and treasonous subversion. However this plays out, the enemies of the people now understand that (((they))) had better be careful with continuing to push the lie of “The Big Lie.”

One more thing, in closing. — Q also specifically told us that lawsuits were going to be a weapon in their epic war against the Deep State. With “Elon Musk” now locked into a lawsuit with Twitter over its fake accounts, and Trump’s legal attack on CNN (and more media outlets to come) over “The Big Lie” — there is now more reason than ever to “trust the plan.”

Trump promises more anti-media lawsuits to come — and it’s all about “The Crime of the Century” which he will not let go unexposed.
It’s about time the illusion-makers were held accountable — though civil actions will not be enough. They must, in due time, face a firing squad.
Q: “Rest assured, some (MSM) will be arrested as deep cover agents.”

Trump & the Hidden Meaning of J-6

Signatures of some of the January 6 Republicans who voted against certifying the election of 2020


OCTOBER 03, 2022

NY Times:
 They Cemented the Myth of a Stolen Election


On the day the Capitol was attacked, 139 Republicans in the House voted to dispute the Electoral College count.

By inducing both his overt and covert enemies into continuously defending the integrity of the Great Election Steal of 2020, The Donald has skillfully maneuvered Sulzberger’s Times, the Piranha Press and the corrupt and/or cowardly politicians (within both parties) into swimming into a trap net from which they cannot now extricate themselves. And what do trapped schools of fish instinctively do when caught in such a net? They start to frantically  wiggle, and continue to  wiggle and wiggle ever more aggressively. Though the situation is hopeless, they will furiously (and illogically) wiggle until the bitter end; even when — now starved of oxygen and really freaking out — they are hauled up and dumped onto the boat deck itself!

With ever-increasing numbers of normies now open to the question of voter fraud; and with solid Trump allies in position to win Governor’s races in badly defrauded Arizona, badly defrauded Michigan  and badly defrauded Pennsylvania — the wiggling has gotten worse than ever with this dramatic front, top & center page attack on the “Election Denying” Republicans who have since out-muscled the cowards and traitors to now dominate the new Republican Party — the Trump Party.

The article describes the huge shift:

“Five days after the attack on the Capitol last year, the Republican members of the House of Representatives braced for a backlash. Two-thirds of them — 139 in all — had been voting on Jan. 6, 2021, to dispute the Electoral College count that would seal Donald J. Trump’s defeat just as rioters determined to keep the president in power stormed the chamber. One lawmaker after another warned during a conference call that unless Republicans demanded accountability, voters would punish them for inflaming the mob.

More than 20 months later, the opposite has happened. The votes to reject the election results have become a badge of honor within the party, in some cases even a requirement for advancement, as doubts about the election have come to define what it means to be a Trump Republican.” (emphasis added)

As both Q and Trump himself have posted many, many times: “Nothing Can Stop What IComing — and the rotten netted fish at the Times all know it.

“Vote! They know if they lose, it’s over.”

1. Kari Lake appears to be a lock in Arizona. // 2. Doug Mastriano (though said to be “losing”) may win Pennsylvania. // 3. Trapped in the J-6 gefilte fish net — the Fake News has no choice but to keep defending the stolen election (a “sting” operation, actually) of 2020 and the criminal J-6 certification of 2021.

Now, about this Nothing Can Stop What IComing (NCSWIC) code language — which we explained soon after the Big Steal of 2020. It’s worth reviewing at this time because the GOP has — slowly but surely since January 6th™ — been transformed into a fighting party seemingly determined to expose 2020, when the timing is perfect.

An excerpt from our piece, dated November 7, 2020:

In November of 2018, Trump’s DHS established the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) to protect the integrity of US elections. CISA itself oversees another sub-agency to develop the products needed to assist DHS in working with “public safety partners involved in interoperable communications at all levels of government.”

In other words, if something like a blockchain communication embedded in a watermark was indeed added to the ballots, this particular sub-division of CISA (itself a subgroup of DHS) would have been tasked with setting up the sting operation by working with “private vendors” and “public safety partners.” And the name of this sub-group is (dramatic drum roll) — the National Council of StateWide Interoperability Coordinators — official acronym being NCSWIC (here) — initials which also perfectly match Nothing Can Stop What Is Coming.”

Coincidence? We shall know soon enough.

*** END OF EXCERPT ***

Obviously, especially in hindsight, the hidden meanings of NCSWIC and January 6th ™ are closely linked — which is interesting because this imposter “Joe Biden,” on several occasions, also uttered some code language before the 2020 election. Much to the confusion of the Fake News, Biden, on several occasions, predicted an “epiphany” (a sudden manifestation, a revelation) among Republicans who would turn the party against Trump. Of course, as “Biden” himself has since acknowledged, this “epiphany” has gone the exact opposite direction!

For those of you whose Christianity is a bit rusty, the Epiphany – the revelation of Christ to the Maji (The Three Kings) – is observed by most Christian denominations on …….. drum roll please

January 6th…. Coincidence?

The movie continues.

1. Q posts about “Nothing Can Stop What Is Coming” : 2018 – 2020, & one more from 2022 // 2. Trump, just last week, with added word: “Believe!”

Putin Declares Holy War on Globo-Satanic Elite

Vlad the Bad is really “feeling his oats” these days — and there’s not a darn thing that de-balled NATO, the EU, the CFR, the Soros NGOs, Rothschild, the CIA, the UN, the Jurisprudence nor any of the other weapons (disarmed by Putin’s partner, Donald Trump) of the New World Order can do about it. The article describes the boldness and brazenness of Russia’s “defiance” —

“President Putin asserted that Russia would annex four Ukrainian regions and decried the United States for ‘Satanism.’ In starkly confrontational terms, he positioned Russia as fighting an existential battle with Western elites he deemed “the enemy.”

The speech was an extraordinary combination of bluster and menace, mixing conspiratorial riffs against an American-led “neo-colonial system” with an appeal to the world to see Russia as the leader of an uprising against American power. He referred to “the ruling circles of the so-called West” as “the enemy” — and struck a tone of anger and defiance.”

Oh snap! Did Putin really say “Satanism?”  We checked. Yes he did! And not just metaphorically or in passing either — but “outright” Satanism.

Putin:

“Now they have moved on entirely, to a radical denial of moral norms, religion, and family. The dictatorship of the Western elites is directed against all societies, including the peoples of the Western countries themselves. This is a challenge to all.

This is a complete denial of humanity, the overthrow of faith and traditional values. Indeed, The suppression of freedom is taking on the outlines of a ‘reverse religion,’ of outright Satanism. … Do we really want to see perversions that lead to degradation and extinction be imposed on children in our schools from the earliest years, for it to be drilled into them that there are supposedly some genders besides women and men, and offered the chance to undergo sex-change operations?”
Tell it, Vladdy. Tell it!

Gored by Putin’s Holy lance, the Piranha Press — in unison — is squealing over being called out for “Satanism.” Wethinks Vlad the Bad is over the target, no?

* Editor’s Note: Interesting timing with this Satanism stuff because Trump operative Steve Bannon recently described Pennsylvania Demonrat Senate candidate John Fetterman as being “someone who hangs out with Satanic Groomers.”

The Russian crest features a knight trouncing the dragon beneath his horse’s hooves. This is derived from earlier historical renditions of Archangel Michael trouncing Satan.

Following are more choice excerpts from a great leader who, after 20 long years of patient and cunning gradualism, is finally in a position of such strength that he may now deliver the truth with neither anesthesia nor apology — and no longer having to politely refer to Globalist scum  as “our western partners” but rather, as “Satanists” and “enemies.”

Putin:

“We will defend our land with all the powers and means at our disposal.”

“In 1991, at Belovezh Forest, without asking the will of ordinary citizens, representatives of the then-party elites decided to destroy the USSR, and people suddenly found themselves cut off from their motherland. This tore apart and dismembered our nation, becoming a national catastrophe.”

“The battlefield to which fate and history have called us is the battlefield for our people, for great historical Russia, for future generations, our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.”

“Even today, the United States actually occupies Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and other countries, and at the same time cynically call them allies of equal standing.”

1. Russia has liberated FOUR pro-Russian regions of Ukraine for good, in addition to the Crimea from 2014. And de-balled NATO can’t do a darn thing about it because “Patriots Are Now In Control.” // 2. The alleged “sabotage” of Russian pipelines by “Biden” is all just part of the movie. Relax, there won’t actually be any World War III.

Putin’s rhetorical gems and corresponding actions come from a man whom the passionate purists among us once criticized for being too soft on the West — for playing footsies with Russia’s Jewish Oligarchs (who have since fled Russia for Israel, UK and Dubai) — for not recklessly invading Eastern Ukraine back in 2014 — for attending a WEF convention when he was a young security operative — for sucking up to Henry Kissinger — for lighting menorahs with rabbis, etc. Let this serve as a strategic and historical  lesson for ye of the backseat “Are We There Yet?” Chorus who get all worked up and start shrieking “psyop!” or “false opposition!” or “Jew puppet!” the moment one of our favorites utters something about “Covid,” vaccines or Ukraine that sounds too Globalese for our taste — or is discovered to have once attended an event sponsored by “fill-in-the-blank” — or just said something way too conciliatory toward the usual suspects. Keep your eye on the ball, boys & girls — not the head fakes!

When confronting a dangerous beast — equipped with the power to implant thoughts into the malleable minds of many millions of normies — it is calm, cunning, and temporary concessions — not passionate frontal assaults — that will win the war in the end. Of course, probably having had advance knowledge of the rise of Q and Trump surely must have made it much easier for Putin to wait out his “western partners.”

He played the long game with Satan’s minions until he no longer had to. Now, he is completely unchained.
“What is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making. It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.


– Vladimir Putin, 2015 Munich Speech

Media Madness: Inflation Will Save You Money!

SEPTEMBER 26, 2022

NY Times:
 Inflation May Save You Money on Your Taxes

The government adjusts its tax code every year, including the standard deduction and tax brackets. Rising costs mean big changes next year.

BY ANN CARRNS

Finally — after more than one year of steadily rising costs across the entire spectrum of goods and services — a bit of good economic news from “the paper of record.” The criminal debasement of our currency is actually going to “save” us money on our taxes next year! Some astonishingly Orwellian anti-logic, from the article:

“In addition to a big boost to Social Security payments, inflation could help save money on your federal tax bill next year. That’s because the federal government annually adjusts many elements of its complex tax code, including the standard deduction and tax brackets, to reflect inflation and avoid so-called stealth tax increases.

The adjustments also mean you can contribute more next year to retirement savings and other accounts that offer tax breaks, like health savings accounts.

Happy days are here again.

Cheese & crackers! Ms. Ann Carrns — the felonious freelancer who drooled out this demented drivel — ought to be locked up in an insane asylum for spinning the ongoing econo-meltdown into a welcome “tax savings” benefit.

1. Insane-looking Ann Carrns (with her daughter’s dolls) fancies herself as a financial writer. // 2. Cheer up, Mr. & Mrs. America. All that currency debasement will benefit you come tax time! // 3. Because Uncle Sam is your friend.

First of all, the upward adjustments of the tax brackets and standard deductions only represent “savings” in terms of numbers, not actual value, which has been lost due to inflation. You see, the IRS, in its infinite graciousness, allows for the fact the dollar isn’t what is used to be yesterday — and will not in the near future be what it is today either. Indeed, that’s why the adjustments were put in place in the first place, as Carrns herself does explain:

“If the bracket boundaries weren’t periodically adjusted for inflation, more of your income would move into a higher bracket, increasing your tax bill.”

In other words, you’ll be paying “less” only because you are, in reality, earning less in terms of purchasing power.

Secondly, the various adjustments for inflation NEVER keep pace with the understated (rigged) rate of inflation. To therefore describe these adjustments as “savings” — or even break-even — is just as fallacious as referring to a 5% nominal salary increase — when under-reported inflation is at 10% annual — as a “pay raise.” It’s not.

More “good news” from Crazy Carrns:

“The adjustments also mean you can contribute more next year to retirement savings and other accounts that offer tax breaks, like health savings accounts.”

Again, the “more” contributions in this case only means more nominal dollars — not more actual value.

The most exasperating element of this horrible piece of financial propaganda comes in the form of an “Inflation F.A.Q. (Frequently Asked Questions) box — inserted into the body of the article — followed by a reply that is so incomplete that it raises more questions than it answers:

We all know “what” inflation is!

How insulting! Even the dullest of the befuddled boobs in the dimmest corner of the overlapping tyrannical Kingdoms of Normiedom & Libtardia already knows WHAT inflation is: It is a widespread rise in prices. But the High Priests at “the paper of record” NEVER tell the worshipers about the true HOW and WHY of inflation — even though those questions are just as easy to define as the “what.”

Here it is — in a nutshell:

“Inflation is the loss of purchasing power over time caused by excessive expansion (legalized counterfeiting) of the money supply — injected into the economy at unpayable compounding interest (usury) — relative to the amount of goods and services available. The debt virus is injected partly through the banking system in the form of loans (out of nothing) to businesses and consumers; and partly through the Central Bank’s purchase (also with nothing) of government bonds to fund deficits. The ever increasing amounts of debt money chasing a more stable supply of goods debases the value of all existing currency, thus increasing prices.”

There — in just 100 words that an 10-year old, or even a “college educated” economist can digest. Now why can’t the esteemed, and, we presume, very well-shekeled, Ms. Carrns do that for her readers? Hmmm? Truth simplifies. Liars (and idiots) complicate.

Adding insult to idiocy, Ms. Carrns seems to hold a very “inflated” (no pun intended) opinion of her analytical and reporting capabilities. From her Stinked-In bio:

I’m a talented journalist covering personal finance, including health care, retirement, college saving, taxes and more. I excel at making complex topics understandable for readers. My column, “Your Money Adviser,” appears weekly in The New York Times.”

The most severely cracked up of crackpots always think so highly of themselves, and feel compelled to share that opinion with us — ever notice that?

1. The more you print and lend out at interest, the more you drive up the cost of goods and services. // 2. By manipulating interest rates and reserve requirements, The Fed can expand or contract the volume of loans to people and businesses. // 3. Expansion (recovery / boom) or Contraction (recession / bust) is also achieved through the Fed’s buying of U.S. Bonds and other securities with new counterfeit money (expansion), or the selling off of those securities which it holds (contraction).

Why Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) Matters…

Eric Arthur Blair

Most people think that George Orwell was writing about, and against, totalitarianism – especially when they encounter him through the prism of his great dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four.

This view of Orwell is not wrong, but it can miss something. For Orwell was concerned above all about the particular threat posed by totalitarianism to words and language. He was concerned about the threat it posed to our ability to think and speak freely and truthfully. About the threat it posed to our freedom.

He saw, clearly and vividly, that to lose control of words is to lose control of meaning. That is what frightened him about the totalitarianism of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia – these regimes wanted to control the very linguistic substance of thought itself.

And that is why Orwell continues to speak to us so powerfully today. Because words, language and meaning are under threat once more.

Totalitarianism in Orwell’s time

The totalitarian regimes of Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union represented something new and frightening for Orwell. Authoritarian dictatorships, in which power was wielded unaccountably and arbitrarily, had existed before, of course. But what made the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century different was the extent to which they demanded every individual’s complete subservience to the state. They sought to abolish the very basis of individual freedom and autonomy. They wanted to use dictatorial powers to socially engineer the human soul itself, changing and shaping how people think and behave.

Totalitarian regimes set about breaking up clubs, trade unions and other voluntary associations. They were effectively dismantling those areas of social and political life in which people were able to freely and spontaneously associate. The spaces, that is, in which local and national culture develops free of the state and officialdom. These cultural spaces were always tremendously important to Orwell. As he put it in his 1941 essay, ‘England Your England’: ‘All the culture that is most truly native centres round things which even when they are communal are not official – the pub, the football match, the back garden, the fireside and the “nice cup of tea”.’

Totalitarianism may have reached its horrifying zenith in Nazi Germany and Stalin’s USSR. But Orwell was worried about its effect in the West, too. He was concerned about the Sovietisation of Europe through the increasingly prominent and powerful Stalinist Communist Parties. He was also worried about what he saw as Britain’s leftwing ‘Europeanised intelligentsia’, which, like the Communist Parties of Western Europe, seemed to worship state power, particularly in the supranational form of the USSR. And he was concerned above all about the emergence of the totalitarian mindset, and the attempt to re-engineer the deep structures of mind and feeling that lie at the heart of autonomy and liberty.

Orwell could see this mindset flourishing among Britain’s intellectual elite, from the eugenics and top-down socialism of Fabians, like Sidney and Beatrice Webb and HG Wells, to the broader technocratic impulses of the intelligentsia in general. They wanted to remake people ‘for their own good’, or for the benefit of the race or state power. They therefore saw it as desirable to force people to conform to certain prescribed behaviours and attitudes. This threatened the everyday freedom of people who wanted, as Orwell put it, ‘the liberty to have a home of your own, to do what you like in your spare time, to choose your own amusements instead of having them chosen for you from above’.

Edmond O’Brien as Winston Smith and Jan Sterling as Julia, in an adaptation of Nineteen Eighty-Four, 3 June 1955.

In the aftermath of the Second World War, this new intellectual elite started to gain ascendancy. It was effectively a clerisy – a cultural and ruling elite defined by its academic achievements. It had been forged through higher education and academia rather than through traditional forms of privilege and wealth, such as public schools.

Orwell was naturally predisposed against this emergent clerisy. He may have attended Eton, but that’s where Orwell’s education stopped. He was not part of the clerisy’s world. He was not an academic writer, nor did he position himself as such. On the contrary, he saw himself as a popular writer, addressing a broad, non-university-educated audience.

Moreover, Orwell’s antipathy towards this new elite type was long-standing. He had bristled against the rigidity and pomposity of imperial officialdom as a minor colonial police official in Burma between 1922 and 1927. And he had always battled against the top-down socialist great and good, and much of academia, too, who were often very much hand in glove with the Stalinised left.

The hostility was mutual. Indeed, it accounts for the disdain that many academics and their fellow travellers continue to display towards Orwell today.

The importance of words

Nowadays we are all too familiar with this university-educated ruling caste, and its desire to control words and meaning. Just think, for example, of the way in which our cultural and educational elites have turned ‘fascism’ from a historically specific phenomenon into a pejorative that has lost all meaning, to be used to describe anything from Brexit to Boris Johnson’s Tory government – a process Orwell saw beginning with the Stalinist practice of calling Spanish democratic revolutionaries ‘Trotsky-fascists’ (which he documented in Homage to Catalonia (1938)).

Or think of the way in which our cultural and educational elites have transformed the very meanings of the words ‘man’ and ‘woman’, divesting them of any connection to biological reality. Orwell would not have been surprised by this development. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, he shows how the totalitarian state and its intellectuals will try to suppress real facts, and even natural laws, if they diverge from their worldview. Through exerting power over ideas, they seek to shape reality. ‘Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together in new shapes of your own choosing’, says O’Brien, the sinister party intellectual. ‘We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull… You must get rid of these 19th-century ideas about the laws of nature.’

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the totalitarian regime tries to subject history to similar manipulation. As anti-hero Winston Smith tells his lover, Julia:

‘Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.’

As Orwell wrote elsewhere, ‘the historian believes that the past cannot be altered and that a correct knowledge of history is valuable as a matter of course. From the totalitarian point of view history is something to be created rather than learned.’

This totalitarian approach to history is dominant today, from the New York Times’ 1619 Project to statue-toppling. History is something to be erased or conjured up or reshaped as a moral lesson for today. It is used to demonstrate the rectitude of the contemporary establishment.

But it is language that is central to Orwell’s analysis of this form of intellectual manipulation and thought-control. Take ‘Ingsoc’, the philosophy that the regime follows and enforces through the linguistic system of Newspeak. Newspeak is more than mere censorship. It is an attempt to make certain ideas – freedom, autonomy and so on – actually unthinkable or impossible. It is an attempt to eliminate the very possibility of dissent (or ‘thoughtcrime’).

As Syme, who is working on a Newspeak dictionary, tells Winston Smith:

‘The whole aim… is to narrow the range of thought. In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller… Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?’

The parallels between Orwell’s nightmarish vision of totalitarianism and the totalitarian mindset of today, in which language is policed and controlled, should not be overstated. In the dystopia of Nineteen Eighty-Four, the project of eliminating freedom and dissent, as in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, was backed up by a brutal, murderous secret police. There is little of that in our societies today – people are not forcibly silenced or disappeared.

However, they are cancelled, pushed out of their jobs, and sometimes even arrested by the police for what amounts to thoughtcrime. And many more people simply self-censor out of fear of saying the ‘wrong’ thing. Orwell’s concern that words could be erased or their meaning altered, and thought controlled, is not being realised in an openly dictatorial manner. No, it’s being achieved through a creeping cultural and intellectual conformism.

The intellectual turn against freedom

But then that was always Orwell’s worry – that intellectuals giving up on freedom would allow a Big Brother Britain to flourish. As he saw it in The Prevention of Literature (1946), the biggest danger to freedom of speech and thought came not from the threat of dictatorship (which was receding by then) but from intellectuals giving up on freedom, or worse, seeing it as an obstacle to the realisation of their worldview.

Interestingly, his concerns about an intellectual betrayal of freedom were reinforced by a 1944 meeting of the anti-censorship organisation, English PEN. Attending an event to mark the 300th anniversary of Milton’s Areopagitica, Milton’s famous 1644 speech making the case for the ‘Liberty of Unlicenc’d Printing’, Orwell noted that many of the left-wing intellectuals present were unwilling to criticise Soviet Russia or wartime censorship. Indeed, they had become profoundly indifferent or hostile to the question of political liberty and press freedom.

‘In England, the immediate enemies of truthfulness, and hence of freedom of thought, are the press lords, the film magnates, and the bureaucrats’, Orwell wrote, ‘but that on a long view the weakening of the desire for liberty among the intellectuals themselves is the most serious symptom of all’.

Orwell was concerned by the increasing popularity among influential left-wing intellectuals of ‘the much more tenable and dangerous proposition that freedom is undesirable and that intellectual honesty is a form of anti-social selfishness’. The exercise of freedom of speech and thought, the willingness to speak truth to power, was even then becoming seen as something to be frowned upon, a selfish, even elitist act.

An individual speaking freely and honestly, wrote Orwell, is ‘accused of either wanting to shut himself up in an ivory tower, or of making an exhibitionist display of his own personality, or of resisting the inevitable current of history in an attempt to cling to unjustified privilege’.

These are insights which have stood the test of time. Just think of the imprecations against those who challenge the consensus. They are dismissed as ‘contrarians’ and accused of selfishly upsetting people.

And worst of all, think of the way free speech is damned as the right of the privileged. This is possibly one of the greatest lies of our age. Free speech does not support privilege. We all have the capacity to speak, write, think and argue. We might not, as individuals or small groups, have the platforms of a press baron or the BBC. But it is only through our freedom to speak freely that we can challenge those with greater power.

Orwell’s legacy

Orwell is everywhere today. He is taught in schools and his ideas and phrases are part of our common culture. But his value and importance to us lies in his defence of freedom, especially the freedom to speak and write.

His outstanding 1946 essay, ‘Politics and the English Language’, can actually be read as a freedom manual. It is a guide on how to use words and language to fight back.

Of course, it is attacked today as an expression of privilege and of bigotry. Author and commentator Will Self cited ‘Politics and the English Language’ in a 2014 BBC Radio 4 show as proof that Orwell was an ‘authoritarian elitist’. He said: ‘Reading Orwell at his most lucid you can have the distinct impression he’s saying these things, in precisely this way, because he knows that you – and you alone – are exactly the sort of person who’s sufficiently intelligent to comprehend the very essence of what he’s trying to communicate. It’s this the mediocrity-loving English masses respond to – the talented dog-whistler calling them to chow down on a big bowl of conformity.’

Lionel Trilling, another writer and thinker, made a similar point to Self, but in a far more insightful, enlightening way. ‘[Orwell] liberates us’, he wrote in 1952:

‘He tells us that we can understand our political and social life merely by looking around us, he frees us from the need for the inside dope. He implies that our job is not to be intellectual, certainly not to be intellectual in this fashion or that, but merely to be intelligent according to our lights – he restores the old sense of the democracy of the mind, releasing us from the belief that the mind can work only in a technical, professional way and that it must work competitively. He has the effect of making us believe that we may become full members of the society of thinking men. That is why he is a figure for us.’

Orwell should be a figure for us, too – in our battle to restore the democracy of the mind and resist the totalitarian mindset of today. But this will require having the courage of our convictions and our words, as he so often did himself. As he put it in The Prevention of Literature, ‘To write in plain vigorous language one has to think fearlessly’. That Orwell did precisely that was a testament to his belief in the public just as much as his belief in himself. He sets an example and a challenge to us all.

The U.S. Government’s Vast New Privatized Censorship Regime

By Jenin Younes

One warm weekend in October of 2020, three impeccably credentialed epidemiologists—Jayanta Bhattacharya, Sunetra Gupta, and Martin Kulldorff, of Stanford, Oxford, and Harvard Universities respectively—gathered with a few journalists, writers, and economists at an estate in the Berkshires where the American Institute for Economic Research had brought together critics of lockdowns and other COVID-related government restrictions. On Sunday morning shortly before the guests departed, the scientists encapsulated their views—that lockdowns do more harm than good, and that resources should be devoted to protecting the vulnerable rather than shutting society down—in a joint communique dubbed the “Great Barrington Declaration,” after the town in which it was written.

The declaration began circulating on social media and rapidly garnered signatures, including from other highly credentialed scientists. Most mainstream news outlets and the scientists they chose to quote denounced the declaration in no uncertain terms. When contacted by reporters, Drs. Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins of the NIH publicly and vociferously repudiated the “dangerous” declaration, smearing the scientists—all generally considered to be at the top of their fields—as “fringe epidemiologists.” Over the next several months, the three scientists faced a barrage of condemnation: They were called eugenicists and anti-vaxxers; it was falsely asserted that they were “Koch-funded” and that they had written the declaration for financial gain. Attacks on the Great Barrington signatories proliferated throughout social media and in the pages of The New York Times and Guardian.

Yet emails obtained pursuant to a FOIA request later revealed that these attacks were not the products of an independent objective news-gathering process of the type that publications like the Times and the Guardian still like to advertise. Rather, they were the fruits of an aggressive attempt to shape the news by the same government officials whose policies the epidemiologists had criticized. Emails between Fauci and Collins revealed that the two officials had worked together and with media outlets as various as Wired and The Nation to orchestrate a “takedown” of the declaration.

Nor did the targeting of the scientists stop with the bureaucrats they had implicitly criticized. Bhattacharya, Gupta, and Kulldorff soon learned that their declaration was being heavily censored on social media to prevent their scientific opinions from reaching the public. Kulldorff—then the most active of the three online—soon began to experience censorship of his own social media posts. For example, Twitter censored one of Kulldorff’s tweets asserting that:

“Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should. COVID vaccines are important for older, higher-risk people and their caretakers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it. Not children.”

Posts on Kulldorff’s Twitter and LinkedIn criticizing mask and vaccine mandates were labeled misleading or removed entirely. In March of 2021, YouTube took down a video depicting a roundtable discussion that Bhattacharya, Gupta, Kulldorff, and Dr. Scott Atlas had with Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, in which the participants critiqued mask and vaccine mandates.

Because of this censorship, Bhattacharya and Kulldorff are now plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden, a case brought by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, as well as the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), which is representing them and two other individuals, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty and Jill Hines. The plaintiffs allege that the Biden administration and a number of federal agencies coerced social media platforms into censoring them and others for criticizing the government’s COVID policies. In doing so, the Biden administration and relevant agencies had turned any ostensible private action by the social media companies into state action, in violation of the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court has long recognized and Justice Thomas explained in a concurring opinion just last year, “[t]he government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.”

Federal district courts have recently dismissed similar cases on the grounds that the plaintiffs could not prove state action. According to those judges, public admissions by then-White House press secretary Jennifer Psaki that the Biden administration was ordering social media companies to censor certain posts, as well as statements from Psaki, President Biden, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas threatening them with regulatory or other legal action if they declined to do so, still did not suffice to establish that the plaintiffs were censored on social media due to government action. Put another way, the judges declined to take the government at its word. But the Missouri judge reached a different conclusion, determining there was enough evidence in the record to infer that the government was involved in social media censorship, granting the plaintiffs’ request for discovery at the preliminary injunction stage.

Collusion Between Government and “Big Tech” To Suppress Free Speech: Illegal Censorship of Stories involving Covid Jab Refusal

The Missouri documents, along with some obtained through discovery in Berenson v. Twitter and a FOIA request by America First Legal, expose the extent of the administration’s appropriation of big tech to effect a vast and unprecedented regime of viewpoint-based censorship on the information that most Americans see, hear and otherwise consume. At least 11 federal agencies, and around 80 government officials, have been explicitly directing social media companies to take down posts and remove certain accounts that violate the government’s own preferences and guidelines for coverage on topics ranging from COVID restrictions, to the 2020 election, to the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.

Correspondence publicized in Missouri further corroborates the theory that the companies dramatically increased censorship under duress from the government, strengthening the First Amendment claim. For example, shortly after President Biden asserted in July of 2021 that Facebook (Meta) was “killing people” by permitting “misinformation” about COVID vaccines to percolate, an executive from the company contacted the surgeon general to appease the White House. In a text message to Murthy, the executive acknowledged that the “FB team” was “feeling a little aggrieved” as “it’s not great to be accused of killing people,” while he sought to “de-escalate and work together collaboratively.” These are not the words of a person who is acting freely; to the contrary, they denote the mindset of someone who considers himself subordinate to, and subject to punishment by, a superior. Another text, exchanged between Jen Easterly, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and another CISA employee who now works at Microsoft, reads: “Platforms have got to get more comfortable with gov’t. It’s really interesting how hesitant they remain.” This is another incontrovertible piece of evidence that social media companies are censoring content under duress from the government, and not due to their directors’ own ideas of the corporate or common good.

Further, emails expressly establish that the social media companies intensified censorship efforts and removed particular individuals from their platforms in response to the government’s demands. Just a week after President Biden accused social media companies of “killing people,” the Meta executive mentioned above wrote the surgeon general an email telling him, “I wanted to make sure you saw the steps we took just this past week to adjust policies on what we are removing with respect to misinformation, as well as steps taken further to address the ‘disinfo dozen’: we removed 17 additional Pages, Groups, and Instagram accounts tied to [them].” About a month later, the same executive informed Murthy that Meta intended to expand its COVID policies to “further reduce the spread of potentially harmful content” and that the company was “increasing the strength of our demotions for COVID and vaccine-related content.”

Alex Berenson, a former New York Times reporter and a prominent critic of government-imposed COVID restrictions, has publicized internal Twitter communications he obtained through discovery in his own lawsuit showing that high-ranking members of the Biden administration, including White House Senior COVID-19 Advisor Andrew Slavitt, had pushed Twitter to permanently suspend him from the platform. In messages from April 2021, a Twitter employee noted that a meeting with the White House had gone relatively well, though the company’s representatives had fielded “one really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasn’t been kicked off from the platform,” to which “mercifully we had answers” (emphasis added).

About two months later, days after Dr. Fauci publicly deemed Berenson a danger, and immediately following the president’s statement that social media companies were “killing people,” and despite assurances from high-ups at the company that his account was in no danger, Twitter permanently suspended Berenson’s account. If this does not qualify as government censorship of an individual based on official disapproval of his viewpoints, it would be difficult to say what might. Berenson was reinstated on Twitter in July 2022 as part of the settlement in his lawsuit.

In 1963, the Supreme Court, deciding Bantam Books v. Sullivan, held that “public officers’ thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against” booksellers who carried materials containing obscenity could constitute a First Amendment violation. The same reasoning should apply to the Biden administration campaign to pressure tech companies into enforcing its preferred viewpoints.

The question of how the Biden administration has succeeded in jawboning big tech into observing its strictures is not particularly difficult to answer. Tech companies, many of which hold monopoly positions in their markets, have long feared and resisted government regulation. Unquestionably—and as explicitly revealed by the text message exchanged between Murthy and the Twitter executive—the prospect of being held liable for COVID deaths is an alarming one. Just like the booksellers in Bantam, social media platforms undoubtedly “do not lightly disregard” such possible consequences, as Twitter’s use of the term “mercifully” indicates.

It remains to be seen whether Bhattacharya and Kulldorff will be able to show that Fauci and Collins explicitly ordered tech companies to censor them and their Great Barrington Declaration. More discovery lies ahead, from top White House officials including Dr. Fauci, that may yield evidence of even more direct involvement by the government in preventing Americans from hearing their views. But Bhattacharya, Kulldorff, and countless social media users have had their First Amendment rights violated nonetheless.

The government’s involvement in censorship of specific perspectives, and direct role in escalating such censorship, has what is known in First Amendment law as a chilling effect: Fearing the repercussions of articulating certain views, people self-censor by avoiding controversial topics. Countless Americans, including the Missouri plaintiffs, have attested that they do exactly that for fear of losing influential and sometimes lucrative social media accounts, which can contain and convey significant social and intellectual capital.

Moreover, the Supreme Court recognizes that a corollary of the First Amendment right to speak is the right to receive information because “the right to receive ideas follows ineluctably from the sender’s First Amendment right to send them.” All Americans have been deprived—by the United States government—of their First Amendment rights to hear the views of Alex Berenson, as well as Drs. Bhattacharya and Kulldorff, and myriad additional people, like the reporters who broke the Hunter Biden laptop story for the New York Post and found themselves denounced as agents of Russian disinformation, who have been censored by social media platforms at the urging of the U.S. government. That deprivation strangled public debate on multiple issues of undeniably public importance. It allowed Fauci, Collins, and various other government actors and agencies, to mislead the public into believing there was ever a scientific consensus on lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine mandates. It also arguably influenced the 2020 election.

The administration has achieved public acquiescence to its censorship activities by convincing many Americans that the dissemination of “misinformation” and “disinformation” on social media presents a grave threat to public safety and even national security. Over half a century ago, in his notorious concurrence in New York Times v. United States (in which the Nixon administration sought to prevent the newspaper from printing the Pentagon Papers) Justice Hugo Black rejected the view that the government may invoke such concepts to override the First Amendment: “[t]he word ‘security’ is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment,” he wrote. Justice Black cited a 1937 opinion by Justice Charles Hughes explaining that this approach was woefully misguided: “The greater the importance of safeguarding the community from incitements to the overthrow of our institutions by force and violence, the more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press, and free assembly … that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation of constitutional government.”

The Founders of our country understood that line-drawing becomes virtually impossible once censorship begins and that the personal views and biases of those doing the censoring will inevitably come into play. Moreover, they recognized that sunlight is the best disinfectant: The cure for bad speech is good speech. The cure for lies, truth. Silencing people does not mean problematic ideas disappear; it only drives their adherents into echo chambers. People who are booted off Twitter, for example, often turn to Gab and Gettr, where they are less likely to encounter challenges to patently false posts claiming, for example, that COVID vaccines are toxic.

Indeed, this case could not illustrate more clearly the First Amendment’s chief purpose, and why the framers of the Constitution did not create an exception for “misinformation.” Government actors are just as prone to bias, hubris, and error as the rest of us. Drs. Fauci and Collins, enamored of newfound fame and basking in self-righteousness, took it upon themselves to suppress debate about the most important subject of the day. Had Americans learned of the Great Barrington Declaration and been given the opportunity to contemplate its ideas, and had scientists like Bhattacharya, Gupta, and Kulldorff been permitted to speak freely, the history of the pandemic era may have unfolded with far less tragedy—and with far less damage to the institutions that are supposed to protect public health.

Media Mogul Promoted Child-Sex Artist…

The late S.I. Newhouse and his phallic symbols (ears & carrot) pedo rabbit

SEPTEMBER 8, 2022

NY Times:
 
S.I. Newhouse Jr.’s Collection of Modern Masters Comes to Christie’s


Mr. Newhouse, the Condé Nast owner who died in 2017 at 89, used his billions to amass a large collection of blue-chip modern and contemporary art.

We learn in this article that the late media mogul S.I. Newhouse Jr. — like so many of his “elite” tribal ilk — bought and sold high-price garbage that (((they))) have exalted as “art.” No big surprise there. But what caught my attention was the featured “marquee” item in particular.

From the article:

“The marquee Newhouse lot is Jeff Koons’s sculpture “Rabbit” (1986), estimated to fetch between $50 million and $70 million when it is offered May 15 at the Post-War and Contemporary auction. The shiny metallic bunny is one of only four in existence, and the last in private hands.”

Q-ish students of the child-rape cult already know that the rabbit is often used as code by these Satanic monsters. Further exploration of the other works of “artist” Jeff Koons uncovers a pattern of sex-obsession that includes suggestion of child-rape and bestiality. The revelation that one of America’s mightiest media moguls and culture shapers was a purchaser of Mr. Koons suggestive filth is very disturbing — and should tell you a lot about the “who” and “how” of our cultural and moral decay.

Every. Single. Time. — Under. Every. Rock.

Jeff Coons — degenerate “artist” whose million dollar sex & child abuse trash was purchased by the late media mogul S. I. Newhouse — as well as Newhouse’s good friend, queer Hollywood mogul David Geffen

Now, about the Newhouse family.  The Journo Mafia owned by that wretched clan — established in 1922 by an ex-Rabbinical student birth-named Solomon “Sam” Isadore Neuhaus (1895-1979) — and later joined by his brothers Norman & TheodoreNewhouse — ranks only a notch below that of the Jewish Sulzbergers in terms of media power. And the fact that their name — much like that of the Sulzbergers — probably does not “ring a bell” with at least 95% of the public is further evidence of the awesome scope of this devious dynasty’s hidden power.

Papa Sam’s Advance Publications was eventually passed down to his sons —  Sam Newhouse Jr. and Donald Newhouse — who later took the newspaper and magazine operation to a bigger level before adding on cable TV branches to the empire. Newhouse magazine holdings include Vogue, Teen Vogue, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, Architectural Digest, Self, Wired, GQ, Glamour, W, Conde Nast Traveler, Parade and many others. The newspaper element includes dozens of pinko papers across the United States — the largest being the Star Ledger of North New Jersey. Cable holdings include Bright House NetworksRandom House Publishing (later sold), and a controlling stake in Discovery Communications.

Whereas the New York-based Sulzberger lie machine spread its Marxist poison across America by way of its newswire service to other newspapers, the Newhouse Mafia, also originally from New York, spread its propaganda directly through the establishment or purchase of newspapers right in the heart of “fly over country.” David Duke once recalled how he, as a teenager, was confused over the gradual leftward turn and subtle anti-White race-baiting of the formerly conservative New Orleans Picayune newspaper. After what he calls his “awakening,” Duke figured out the mystery. The New York Newhouses had purchased Louisiana’s largest newspaper in 1962, along with another New Orleans paper, the States-Item, which was merged into the Picayune in 1982.

1. S.I. Newhouse Jr. was a relatively anonymous GIANT. // 2. Patriarch Solomon (Sam Sr.) was the son of a “Russian” immigrant (Bolshevik) // 3. Grand Patriarch Sam and sons Sam Jr. (left) and Donald (right).  

Through its Advance Publications and Booth Newspapers arms, the Newhouse crime family — every bit as Globalist / Zionist and libtarded as the Sulzberger Clan, owns newspapers (and affiliated websites) all across America. To name a few …

Prior to his death in 2017, Sam Jr. had amassed an estimated net worth of $9.5 BillionBrother Donald, still living, is now said to be worth $19 Billion — ranking him high up on the Forbes Magazine list. Like so many other elitist “philanthropists,” these money-grubbing Marxists bought up universities under the guise of “charitable endowment” — including Sam’s $15 Million to Syracuse University. The Newhouses are also avid “art” collectors and promoters of the rotten degenerate art that has so poisoned western culture. Sam once owned one of the most valuable paintings in the world, a Jackson Pollock drip painting, titled No. 5, 1948. Have a look at what this insane freak paid many millions of dollars for:

Sam Newhouse Jr. (who looks like a Neanderthal) 
was a collector of degenerate art. He 
bought and later sold Pollock’s “drip paint” garbage to 

fellow degenerate art collector and Hollywood sodomite / rumored pedophile David Geffen (Image 3) — who later sold it to some Gentile chump for $140 Million.

In addition to the Fake News end of Advance Publications, the Newhouses, through magazines, book publishing and cable TV networks, also wield vast influence over American culture, fashion and social taste — none of it good. Disguised as “advice on sex,” Newhouse magazines Vogue and Teen Vogue target impressionable women and teen girls with pornographic articles so explicit they would make a Baltimore crack-house whore blush. In fact, “youse guys” may recall that a few years ago, Teen Vogue caused quite a stir by publishing a tutorial on anal sex — for teenage girls! (here)

Promoting Fake News and moral depravity — that’s what this Satanic scum is all about.

″We never went in for titles. We are, basically, anonymous people
. If I were to walk into a room in New Orleans with the 100 most prominent people in town, there may be two who would know me personally. Most would probably know the name and the connection, but they wouldn’t know me personally or recognize me by my face because my public position is non-existent.″ 

— Norman Newhouse, 1985

“Trusting the Science” of 9/11

In the immediate aftermath of the terror attack of 9/11/2001 — a “dream team” of engineers was summoned to the scene of the astonishing collapse of the Twin Towers in Manhattan. Little did the distinguished professionals know at the time that they were invited only for the purpose of window dressing — to provide the illusion of a forensic investigation into the cause of the collapsed, pulverized and aerosolized man-made mountains of steel and concrete.

One investigator complained to the New York Times:
 
“‘This is almost the dream team of engineers in the country working on this, and our hands are tied,’ said one team member who asked not to be identified. ‘Members have been threatened with dismissal for speaking to the press. FEMA is controlling everything,’ the team member said. ‘
Just give us the money and let us do it, and get the politics out of it.”’

The article continued:

In calling for a new investigation, some structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings.
(Here)

The fix was in, and the “explanation” for the collapse had already been cooked-up by the Deep State illusion makers. The boys from Langley even designed a “computer model” for us –– a children’s cartoon video, in essence — demonstrating how “jet fuel fires” from the penetrating passenger jets caused the steel of the uppermost floors to “buckle” and trigger a “pancake” collapse all the way down to the street, a quarter mile below. A handful of science whores then “peer reviewed” the fairy tale for Normiedom and the rest is Fake History.

The hollow aluminum planes penetrated steel exoskeletons as if they were flying through sheet-rock — or even cardboard! 
The oxygen-starved fires melted steel?

Voila! Instant powder and dust.
Not every “expert” was buying into the Deep State’s free-fall speed “pancake collapse” theory.

The amusing thing about “experts” — and this observation also includes the honest ones — is that they always go right away for the technical data while completely neglecting to utilize their intuitive intelligence. Personally, I’ve always believed that this mental deficiency is the product of an educational system which — even at its highest levels — is designed to produce specialized idiots who can calculate the heck out of something, yet not see what is right under their noses. Lots of math and science training — not enough study of literature, philosophy, logic, art etc. and — and clearly not enough life “street smarts” or country “horse sense.”

With all due deference to and respect for the brilliant engineers and architects who have calculated the physical impossibility of “the official story,” let us keep our analysis here at a simple level understandable to even the most scientifically-challenged among us — and therefore far more effective at opening eyes  to the hidden truth of this monstrous 21-year old LIE.

Though we appreciate and applaud the intrepid efforts and “prestigious” proclamations of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, their calculations are redundant. Any thinking man (or child!) should be able to see this without using math or science.

THREE SIMPLE QUESTIONS THAT ANYONE CAN UNDERSTAND AND DEMAND ANSWERS TO

*1How can a hollow aluminum tube and its thin wings so easily penetrate a solid steel exoskeleton made up of beams as thick as oak trees?

Donald Trump himself — who knows a thing or two about building skyscrapers — stated on 9-12-2001:

“This was an unbelievably powerful building(s). When I first looked at it, I couldn’t believe it because there was a hole in the steel!. … How could a plane, even a 767, possibly go through the steel? …. I happen to think that they had not only a plane, but had bombs that exploded almost simultaneously.… I just can’t imagine anything going through that wall.”   

Of course they “had bombs” — and now appear to have used TV computer graphics to simulate a plane flying through the steel as if it was a paper bag — when it should have crumpled up like an empty beer can. Think about it rationally.

Trump sensed right away that we were being lied too.
The entire hollow aluminum plane, including the flimsy thin wings, penetrated the steel outside walls as if it were flying through paper. If a solid lead bullet cannot penetrate a bullet-proof vest – then how did a much slower hollow aluminum tube penetrate a wall of thick steel?
1. A solid cannonball (about 500 mph) couldn’t even fully penetrate a small point on a simple brick wall, but hollow aluminum tubes at 300 mph so easily passed through walls of thick commercial grade steel? //
  
2. A plane strikes a flock of birds and sustains so much damage — yet the steel walls of the twin towers were so easily and completely penetrated? // 3. The flimsy wings of an airplane are nearly severed by a hollow pole, yet cleanly penetrated a steel wall on 9/11?

2. How can the top 10% and 20% of the respective towers completely grind down — at free fall speed — the remaining 90% and 80% of the buildings?

The top floors of the towers may have been very heavy — but the more numerous lower floors were much heavier. The top 10/20% crushing the bottom 80/90% would be analogous to dropping a single cinder block on top of a cemented and anchored stack of nine other blocks — and expecting a mass of instant powder and dust. Try that experiment in your backyard and let us know if you can duplicate the “pancake” collapse of 9/11. Come to think of it, why didn’t FEMA “investigators” recreate a small scale tower — like say, 50-feet tall — and fly an equally proportional fuel-laden drone into it — just to see what would happen? Hmmm?

Adding insanity to idiocy, imagine if were to drop a large stone off of the top of the World Trade Center — at the precise moment which the “pancake collapse” initiated. Then try to imagine the stone (encountering only air resistance) and the top of the collapsing building (encountering the resistance of the entire steel reinforced building) reaching the street at about the same time. Nuts!

1. A few top cans of tuna won’t grind down the stack below — even if you were to stand on top of them and jump up and down! //
  
2. Nor will a stack of blocks if you drop blocks on top of them.

Ready .. Set .. Go! — A race between the collapsing upper floors of the Twin Towers and a jumper would be a close one. How can that be?

3.How did a 3rd skyscraper — the 610 feet-tall World Trade Center #7 — which was not even struck by an airplane — also collapsed into its own footprint at free-fall speed?

Unlike the previously mentioned physical impossibilities, we may excuse normies for not thinking this one through. You see, the vast majority of people in America (and the world)STILL DON’T EVEN KNOW that a 3rd massive skyscraper — located 300 feet away from the towers and not even struck by any alleged planes — collapsed into its own footprint at free fall speed that day. With the exception of a single CBS News clip which Anchorman Dan Rather must have slipped up in allowing to be aired, the event was never seen again — except on the Internet.

This one is the kicker, and only a madman (of which plenty walk among us) or a supine coward of the lowest rank (plenty of them too) would even attempt to explain this away with “science.” The Deep State (CIA-Mossad) did 9/11, and their affiliated Fake News, politicians and academics covered it up. “The science is settled!” — as they say. Deal with it!

The collapse of WTC Building 7 was a clean controlled demolition. It is the weakest of all the weak links of the 9/11 fairy tale.
Evil sick duplicitous traitorous swine George Bush shows up at the scene of the mass murder to “comfort” the firemen. 
15 Second Video Clip: “Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories regarding the attacks of September 11.”
 — George Bush at the UN

Arms Transfers to Ukraine. Detailed Overview of Deliveries, Timeline…

As tensions mounted in late 2021 and into 2022 concerning a Russian invasion of Ukraine, many countries announced arms transfers to Ukraine. As the invasion began in late February, this resource page was launched to track developments related to such transfers, which thus far includes pledges and/or deliveries from more than 25 countries plus the European Union. 

Overview of pledged and/or delivered weapons (see timeline below for more details and links)[1]

  • Australia:  M113 armored personnel carriers, Bushmaster protected mobility vehicles, missiles, and weapons – AUD $285 million ($200 million), six M77 155mm howitzers, four 14 M113AS4 Armored Personnel Carriers; drones and 34 armored vehicles (valued $68 million)
  • Belgium:  200 anti-tank weapons and 5,000 automatic rifles/machine guns
  • Canada: 8 armored vehicles, M777 howitzers, 4500 M72 rocket launchers and up to 7500 hand grenades, 20,000 155mm artillery shells, as well as $1 million dollars for the purchase of commercial satellite high resolution and modern imagery​, machine guns, pistols, carbines, 1.5 million rounds of ammunition, sniper rifles, and various related equipment ($7.8 million), plus additional $20 million in military aid (CAD $25 million – details undisclosed)– CAD $118 million total (as of April 22) — and an additional CAD $500 million on May 8 (undefined), 39 armoured combat support vehicles (ACSVs)
  • Croatia:  rifles and machine guns, protective equipment valued at 124 million kuna (€16.5 million)
  • Czech Republic: T-72 tanks and infantry fighting vehicles; attack helicopters (Mi-24); rocket systems; 400 million koruna ($18.23 million) of non-light weapons, including 160 shoulder-fired MANPADS systems (probably 9K32 Strela-2), 20 light machine guns, 132 assault rifles, 70 submachine guns, 108,000 bullets, 1,000 tactical gloves, all worth 17 million crowns ($756,000), and an earlier 188 million koruna ($8.6 million) worth of 4,000 mortars, 30,000 pistols, 7,000 assault rifles, 3,000 machine guns, a number of sniper rifles, and one million bullets. 
  • Denmark: Harpoon anti-ship launcher and missiles, 2,700 anti-tank weapons, 300 Stinger missiles (returned to United States to be made operational), protective vests
  • Estonia: Javelin anti-tank missiles; nine howitzers (with German permission)
  • European Union:  €2 billion for military supplies, €500 million in military aid
  • Finland: 2,500 assault rifles and 150,000 cartridges for them, 1,500 single-shot anti-tank weapons, and combat ration packages
  • France: MILAN anti-tank guided missile systems and CAESAR artillery howitzers, plus “additional defense equipment,” 6 CAESAR howitzers (June)
  • Germany:  50 Cheetah anti-aircraft systems, 56 PbV-501 IFVs, 1,000 anti-tank weapons and 500 Stinger anti-aircraft defense system, plus permission for select other countries to send weapons controlled by Germany, three M270 Mittleres Artillerie Raketen System (MARS) launchers and GMLRS ammunition, 100 tank howitzers, 16 Biber bridge-layer tanks (official page)
  • Greece: portable rocket launchers, ammunition, and Kalashnikov rifles
  • Ireland: 200 units of body armor, medical supplies, fuel, and other non-lethal aid
  • Italy: Cabinet approved transfer of military equipment, pending Parliamentary approval.- reported to include Stinger surface-to-air missiles, anti-tank weapons, heavy machine guns, MG-type light machine guns and counter-IED systems
  • Japan: bulletproof vests, helmets, and other non-lethal military aid
  • Latvia: six 155mm self-propelled Howitzers, four helicopters, Stinger anti-aircraft missiles
  • Lithuania: Stinger anti-aircraft missile systems and ammunition, M113 and M577 armored personnel carriers and ammunition
  • Luxembourg: 100 NLAW (Next Generation Light Anti-Tank Weapon), Jeep Wrangler 4×4 vehicles, 15 military tents, and additional non-lethal equipment
  • Netherlands: 200 Stinger missiles, 3000 combat helmets and 2000 fragmentation vests with accompanying armor plates, one hundred sniper rifles with 30,000 pieces of ammunition, plus other equipment; 400 rocket-propelled grenade launchers (with German permission), heavy weapons, self-propelled howitzers, armoured vehicles
  • North Macedonia: unspecified military equipment, unspecified number of soviet-era tanks
  • Norway: 100 Mistral air defense missiles, 4,000 anti-tank weapons, helmets, bulletproof vests, other protection equipment, 22 M109 155m tracked self-propelled howitzers and related materials, three MLRS long-range rocket artillery (joint donation with UK)
  • Poland: 200+ T-72 tanks, other approved delivery of Piorun (Thunderbolt) short-range, man-portable air defense (MANPAD) systems and munition; Defense Minister expressed readiness to supply several dozen thousand rounds of ammunition and artillery ammunition, air defense systems, light mortars, and reconnaissance drones, three Krab 155m self-propelled howitzer squadrons (worth $700M)
  • Portugal: grenades and ammunition, G3 automatic rifles, and other non-lethal equipment
  • Romania: €3 million of fuel, bulletproof vests, helmets, ammunition, military equipment, and medical treatment
  • Slovakia: S-300 air defense system, eight self-propelled Zuzana 2 howitzers.
  • Slovenia: T-72 tanks (reported), undisclosed amount of Kalashnikov rifles, helmets, and ammunition
  • Spain: 1,370 anti-tank grenade launchers, 700,000 rifle and machine-gun rounds, and light machine guns, 20 tons of medical supplies, defensive, and personal protective equipment composing of helmets, flak jackets, and NBC (nuclear-biological-chemical) protection waistcoats
  • Sweden: 10,000 AT4 anti-tank weapons, helmets, and body shields; anti-tank weapons and machine guns (valued $40 million)
  • Turkey: co-production of Bakar Bayraktar TB2 armed drones​
  • United Kingdom: anti-aircraft capabilities (Stormer), 10,000 short-range and anti-tank missiles (including NLAWs and Javelins), Saxon armored vehicles, Starstreak air defence systems, loitering munitions, radar, heavy lift drones — with aid at £200 million, to rise to as high as £500m as of April 25 (note: on April 8, reports indicated aid already at £350 million)– on May 2, an additional £300 million announced, M270 multiple-launch rocket systems (quantity to be announced), $1.2 billion (air defense systems and other technologies), three MLRS long-range rocket artillery (joint donation with Norway); 50,000 artillery shells, artillery guns, drones, anti-tank weapons, additional MLRS, precision guided M31A1 missiles
  • United States: Howitzers and artillery rounds; laser-guided rocket systems; Switchblade, Puma, and Counter-Unmannered Aerial systems​; about 700 Phoenix Ghost Tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems; counter-artillery radars; 16 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) and HIMARS ammunition; eight Surface-to-air Missile Systems (NASAMS); 1400 Stinger and 8500 Javelin missiles; 20 Mi-17 helicopters; ​anti-armor systems, small arms and various munitions; more than 59 millions rounds of small arms ammunition; body armor; hundreds High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs). Total $13.5 billion in security aid since the Biden Administration began, as of August 24, 2022. Factsheet (August 24)

Select Timeline

2022

August

Image: Norwegian Advanced Surface to Air Missile System. (Photo by Soldatnytt, licensed under CC BY 2.0)

Norwegian Advanced Surface to Air Missile System.jpg

On Wednesday, August 24, the United States announced $2.98 billion in additional security assistance to Ukraine including National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS) and ammunition, 155mm and 120mm Howitzer ammunition, unmanned aerial systems and more (see official press release).

On Friday, August 19, the United States announced $775 million in additional security assistance to Ukraine including more HIMARS, 105mm Howitzers and artillery ammunition, Javelin and other missiles, and Humvees (see official source).

On Tuesday, August 16, Latvia clarified that it had deliver six 155mm self-propelled Howitzers in accordance with a July 28 decision, and had on August 15 announced the delivery of four helicopters – two Mi-17 and two Mi-2 to Ukraine. (see official source)

On Thursday August 11, the United Kingdom pledged to give Ukraine more MLRS and a “significant number” of precision guided M31A1 missiles (see official source).

On Monday August 8, the United States announced $1 billion in additional security assistance to Ukraine including more ammunition for HIMARS and 155mm artillery ammunition (see official press release).

On Monday August 1, the United States announced $550 million in additional aid to Ukraine including additional ammunition (see US Department of Defense).

July

On Friday July 29, Germany announced the donation of 16 Biber bridge-layer tanks to Ukraine on top of the recent howitzer announcement (see media). North Macedonia announced they would send soviet-era tanks of an unknown quantity to Ukraine (see media).

On Wednesday July 27, Germany announced a sale of 100 tank howitzers to Ukraine, reportedly worth 1.7 billion euros (see news).

On Friday, July 22, the United States announced $270 million in additional security assistance for Ukraine (see US Department of Defense newsfactsheet).

On Thursday July 21, the United Kingdom announced they would send 50,000 artillery shells, artillery guns, drones, and more anti-tank weapons to Ukraine numbering the hundreds (see UK government resource). Lithuania announced it would send M113 and M577 armored personnel carriers and ammunition to Ukraine (see media source).

On Wednesday July 20, the United States announced four more additional HIMARS would be sent to Ukraine, totalling 16 HIMARS sent to Ukraine by the United States (see US Department of Defense news).

On Monday July 18, the European Union announced an additional 500 million euros in military aid to Ukraine (see media source).

On Monday July 11, Netherlands Prime Minister stated they would provide “heavy weapons, armored vehicles and self-propelled howitzers” to Ukraine (see news).

On Friday July 8, the United States announced $400 million in aid to Ukraine. This drawdown package included four additional HIMARS, precision artillery rounds, 126 155mm Howitzers, 20 Mi-17 helicopters, and numerous other munitions, systems, and other materials (see Department of Defense factsheetnews, and press release). ​

On Monday July 4, upon a visit to Kyiv, Australia’s Prime Minister announced they would pledge $68 million to Ukraine, which would include drones and 34 armored vehicles (see media source). 

On Friday July 1, the United States announced an additional $820 million to Ukraine. This aid is set to include HIMARS ammunition, two Surface-to-air Missile Systems (NASAMS), four counter-artillery radar systems, as well as 155m artillery ammunition (see US Department of Defense press release).

June

Image: GDLS Armored Combat Support Vehicles (ACSV) (Photo by MilitaryLeak)

GDLS Armored Combat Support Vehicles (ACSV)

On Thursday June 30, Sweden announced they would send additional anti-tank weapons as well as machine guns valued at $49 million (see media source). Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, announced at the NATO summit in Madrid Canada would send thirty-nine armoured combat support vehicles (ACSVs) (see media source).

On Wednesday June 29, the United Kingdom and Norway announced a joint donation of initially three MLRS long-range rocket artillery (see Norwegian government statement).

On Wednesday June 29, the United Kingdom announced an additional $1.2 billion to Ukraine to support defense including air defense systems and other defense equipment and technology (see media source).

On Thursday June 23, US President Joe Biden authorized an additional $450 million drawdown to Ukraine (See U.S. Department of Defense news).

On Monday June 20, Australia announced it would send four 14 M113AS4 Armored Personnel Carriers to Ukraine (see media source).

On Thursday June 16, French President Macron announced France would send six more Caesar long-range self-propelled howitzers to Ukraine (see media source).

On Wednesday June 15, more than 50 countries pledged more military aid to Ukraine at the Ukraine Defense Contact Group according to the U.S. Secretary of Defense (See U.S. Defense Department news). The United States announced a $1 billion security assistance package to include multiple launch rocket system munitions, 18 more 155 mm M777 towed howitzers and the tactical vehicles to tow them, and 36,000 rounds of 155 mm ammunition. (See Defense Department announcement.) Germany’s Minister of Defense announced a transfer of three M270 Mittleres Artillerie Raketen System (MARS) launchers and GMLRS ammunition from Bundeswehr stocks to Ukraine. (See joint statement from United States, Germany, and United Kingdom)

On Wednesday June 8, Norway announced that they have donated 22 M109 155mm tracked self-propelled howitzers. Alongside this, Norway included other relevant materials such as gear, parts, ammunition with the howitzers (See official government press release). Poland announced they will sell Ukraine three Krab 155m self-propelled howitzer squadrons reportedly worth $700M (See English and Polish Media). 

On Monday June 6, the United Kingdom announced that they will send M270 multiple-launch rocket systems to Ukraine. The exact number remains unknown, however, the BBC reports that there will be three of these systems (See BBC).

On Thursday June 2, Slovakia indicated a commercial deal with Ukraine to send eight self-propelled Zuzana 2 howitzers. This announcement was made by the Defense Ministry (See media source).

On Wednesday June 1, the United States Department of Defense authorized a Presidential Drawdown of military assistance worth $700 million, making the total value of US military assistance to Ukraine $5.3 billion since the start of the Biden Administration. Notable weapons in this package include; High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems and ammunition, five counter-artillery radars, two air surveillance radars, four Mi-17 helicopters and more. (See Department of Defense resource). German Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, additionally promised an air defense system as well as a tracking radar system to Ukraine from Germany (See New York Times and German resource).

May

On Tuesday May 31, United States President Biden said in a New York Times op-ed “I’ve decided that we will provide the Ukrainians with more advanced rocket systems and munitions that will enable them to more precisely strike key targets on the battlefield in Ukraine…. We will continue providing Ukraine with advanced weaponry, including Javelin anti-tank missiles, Stinger antiaircraft missiles, powerful artillery and precision rocket systems, radars, unmanned aerial vehicles, Mi-17 helicopters and ammunition,” with indications that the “advanced” weaponry would include multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) that Ukraine had agreed not to use to strike into Russia. (See  New York Times and other media.)    Olaf Scholz, German Chancellor, announced that Germany “will provide Greece with German infantry fighting vehicles,” with the presumption that older Greek military vehicles would be transferred to Ukraine. Soviet-style BMP IFVs are one of the reported Greek weapons that would be transferred to Ukraine. (See media source.)

On Tuesday, May 24, Canada‘s Defense Minister indicated that it will donate 20,000 155mm artillery shells. (See official government resource page and media.)

On Monday, May 23, during a press conference after the second Contact Group meeting, U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said “I’m especially grateful to Denmark, which announced today that it will provide a Harpoon launcher and missiles to help Ukraine defend its coast. I’d also like to thank the Czech Republic for its substantial support, including a recent donation of attack helicopters, tanks and rocket systems.  And today, several countries announced new donations of critically needed artillery systems and ammunition, including ItalyGreeceNorway and Poland.” (See transcript and Defense Dept news.) Media reports indicate the attack helicopters from the Czech Republic were Soviet-designed Mi-24s (see Wall Street Journal and Air Recognition).  The European Union adopted two measures under the European Peace Facility (EPF) to create a “fourth tranche [that] will add €500 million to the resources already mobilised under the EPF for Ukraine, thereby bringing the total amount to €2 billion.” (See EU press release.)

By the Numbers: Keeping Track of the Single Largest Arms Transfer in US History

On Saturday, May 21, United States President Joe Biden sign the $40 billion Ukraine supplemental appropriations act into law. (See White House notice and official legislation.)

Image: Mountain howitzer firing (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

On Thursday, May 19, the United States announced an additional $100 million drawdown for Howitzers and counter-artillery radar. (See Defense Department statement.)   Australia announced an additional  AUD$60.9 million in new support for Ukraine including 14 M113 Armoured Personnel Carriers and a further 20 Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicles. (See Defense Minister Dutton’s website.)

On Monday, May 9, U.S. President Joe Biden signed the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022 into law, giving him abilities to lend equipment to Ukraine (See White House noteremarks, and Defense Department factsheet on all security assistance as of May 10.)

On Sunday, May 8, The Canadian Prime Minister announced that the additional $500 million for further military aid to Ukraine announced “has begun to roll out” (See official government resource page.)

On Friday, May 6, the United States announced another $150 million drawdown for assistance, including 25,000 155 mm artillery rounds, 3 counter-artillery radars, and other spare parts and field equipment. (See official President statement and Pentagon statement.)

On Monday, May 2, United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced  £300 million in new aid including radars, heavy lift drones, and thousands of night vision devices. (See official transcript.)

April

On Thursday, April 28, U.S. President Joe Biden asked Congress for an additional $33 billion for Ukraine-related efforts, including  $5 billion in additional drawdown authority, $6 billion for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, and $4 billion for the State Department’s Foreign Military Financing program. (See White House factsheet.)

On Tuesday, April 26, more than three dozen countries met in at Ramstein air base in Germany to discuss Ukraine, with U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin thanking Germany for committing to send 50 Cheetah anti-aircraft systems and Canada eight armored vehicles. (See U.S. Defense Dept official transcript.) Australia announced they would send six M777 155mm howitzers to Ukraine (see news). 

On Monday, April 25, Poland announced that it had delivered tanks to Ukraine (see media) that later stories indicated was 200+ T-72 tanks, plus previously included infantry fighting vehicles and missiles for MiGs. (See media.) The United Kingdom announced it would send additional anti-aircraft capabilities (See U.S. Defense Dept official transcript and media and additional media)

On Sunday, April 24, the United States Secretary of State declared an emergency need to sell $165 million in ammunition via the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program, bypassing Congressional review. (See official notification.)

On Friday, April 22, Canada announced that it had delivered M777 howitzers and associated ammunition, with commitments since January 2022 of more than $118CAD million (see official release). In a media interview. President Emmanuel Macron confirmed that France provided MILAN anti-tank guided missile systems and CAESAR artillery howitzers. (See media.) Media reported that Slovenia would deliver T-42 tanks to Ukraine in exchange for Germany to give Slovenia Marder and Fuchs tanks. (See media.

On Thursday, April 21, the United States authorized another $800 million in security assistance, including seventy-two (72) 155mm Howitzers and 144,000 artillery rounds. This brings US military assistance to Ukraine to more than $4 bllion, $3.4 billion of which has been committed since the invasion. (See official release.)

On Wednesday, April 20, Norway announced it would donate 100 Mistral air defense missiles (See official story.)

On Wednesday, April 13, the United States authorized an additional $800 million in security assistance to Ukraine. This brings US military assistance to Ukraine to more than $3 billion. (See official press statement and release.) 

On Friday, April 8, Slovakia announced that is has provided Ukraine with its S-300 air defense system after preliminary agreeing to do so if a replacement system was secured. (See media and Prime Minister of Slovakia tweet.) The United Kingdom announced an additional £100 million in aid to include more than 800 NLAW anti-tank missiles, Javelin anti-tank systems, loitering munitions, Starstreak air defence systems, and additional non-lethal aid. (See official news story.)

On Tuesday, April 5, the Czech Republic became the first country to send tanks to Ukraine, including T-72 tanks and armored personnel carriers. (See media.) The United States announced an additional $100 million for anti-armor systems to Ukraine. This additional security assistance under the Biden administration brings the U.S. security commitment to Ukraine to more than $2.4 billion. (See official press statement.) 

On Friday, April 1, the DoD announced it will provide up to $300 million in security assistance to Ukraine, including Laser-guided rocket systems, Switchblade, Puma, and Counter-Unmannered Aerial systems, and more capabilities. (See release.)
Media reported that the United States would facilitate the transfer of Soviet-made tanks to Ukraine, as an intermediary for unnamed countries. Germany also approved the sale of dozens of infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) formerly belonging to East Germany to Ukraine, according to media.

March

On Thursday, March 31, the Norwegian government announced its delivery of 2,000 M72 light anti-armor weapons to Ukraine following an earlier shipment of the same weapons. (See official website.)

On Wednesday, March 30, President Biden informed President Zelenskyy of the United States‘ intent to provide $500 million in direct budgetary aid that media reported the Ukrainian government could use for military purposes. (See official readout). In an interview with NPR, Sen. Bob Casey revealed that “another 2,000 [Javelins] are on the way” to Ukraine along with 800 Stingers; this follows an earlier delivery of 2,600 Javelin and 600 Stinger missiles. 

On Saturday, March 26, the United States announced its intent to provide $100 million in civilian security assistance, including armored vehicles and field gear. (See official press release.)

On Thursday, March 24, Boris Johnson announced the United Kingdom will provide a package of 6,000 missiles, including anti-tank and high explosive weapons, and £25 million in financial backing for the Ukrainian military. (See official press release.Sweden also announced it will send an additional shipment of 5,000 AT4 anti-tank weapons. (See local media.)

On Thursday, March 17, in a joint news conference with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Slovakia Minister of Defense Jaroslav Nad’, the Minister preliminarily agreed to send S-300 strategic air defense systems to Ukraine on the condition Western allies provide Slovakia with a “proper replacement” to avoid a “security gap” within NATO. (See joint news conference video.)

On Wednesday, March 16, following an address by Ukraine’s president to the United States Congress, President Biden promised $800 million in additional weapons, including 800 Stinger anti-aircraft systems; 2,000 Javelin, 1,000 light anti-armor weapons, and 6,000 AT-4 anti-armor systems, as well as restated previously supplied five Mi-17 helicopters and 70 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs). (White House factsheet). Media indicated that the transfers would also include Switchblade drones.

On Monday, March 14, Irish Minister for Defence Simon Coveney approved to provide 10 tonnes of ready-to-eat meals (MRE), 200 units of body armor, medical supplies, fuel, and other non-lethal aid in line with Ireland’s policy of military non-alignment. (See official press release and local media.)

On Saturday, March 12, the United States approved another $200 million in arms transfers, reported to include Javelin antitank missiles and Stinger antiaircraft missiles. (White House notification and media.)

On Wednesday, March 9, Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby said the United States will not send fighter jets to Ukraine.

On Tuesday, March 8, Poland offered to donate its MiG jets to the United States, for it to transfer them to Ukraine. (Poland’s official website and media). Feasibility and timing of this plan unclear, with indications that the Pentagon did not see as feasible (Pentagon statement). Minister of Foreign Affairs of Japan, Hayashi Yoshimasa, signed a grant to provide Ukraine with bulletproof vests, helmets, and other non-lethal military aid. (See official press release.)

On Monday, March 7, U.S. Senator Bob Menendez, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, sent a letter to President Biden encouraging the United States to facilitate European countries transferring fighter aircraft to Ukraine. (A day earlier, U.S. officials indicated their support for Poland to do so, according to media interviews.)

On March 6, Antony Blinken stated that the United States has given “the green light” to Poland to send fighter jets to Ukraine, according to a media interview. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield said that discussions regarding the possibility of the United States providing fighter jets to Poland and other NATO allies are still ongoing, according to media

On Saturday, March 5, Ukraine’s President Zelinsky met with member of the U.S. Congress via Zoom and asked for additional fighter jets and a no-fly zone, according to media.

On March 3, according to media, Defense Minister Kajsa Ollongren said the Netherlands will no longer publicly share specific details about arms deliveries to Ukraine. The United Kingdom’s House of Commons Library published a reportdetailing military assistance to Ukraine from many countries. Canada announced its intent to provide 4500 M72 rocket launchers and up to 7500 hand grenades, as well as $1 million dollars for the purchase of commercial satellite high resolution and modern imagery, according to an official news release. The Czech Republic also authorized the transfer of 20 light machine guns, 132 assault rifles, 70 submachine guns, 108,000 bullets, 1,000 tactical gloves, all worth 17 million crowns ($756,084) (see resolution 160 on the Czech Government website). 

On March 2, Ukraine’s Defense Minister Oleksiy Reznikov posted on Facebook that “New bayraktars have already arrived in Ukraine and are on combat duty. There will be more stingers and javelins.” Spain also announced it will send a shipment of 1,370 anti-tank grenade launchers, 700,000 rifle and machine-gun rounds, and light machine guns directly to Ukraine (see media.)

On March 1, Australia said “it will provide around $70 million in lethal military assistance to support the defence of Ukraine, including missiles and weapons.” (Approx $50 million, see official press release, and related media.) New statements from multiple officials drew into question whether EU countries will be providing fighter jets to Ukraine. (See NATO/Poland statement, and media reporting.) At a House Armed Services Committee hearing in the United States, officials confirmed that Stinger missiles and many other U.S. weapons had been delivered since September (see video, approx 41 minute mark). In early March, Ukraine also received a shipment of Turkish-made Bakar Bayraktar TB2 armed drones according to a Facebook post made by Ukraine’s Minster of Defense. 

February

On February 28, Finland said it would deliver 2,500 assault rifles, 150,000 cartridges for the attack rifles, 1,500 single-shot anti-tank weapons and 70,000 combat ration packages. (Ministry of Defense press release.) Norway decided to donate up to 2,000 M72 anti-tank weapons. (Government press release.) Media reported that the Italian cabinet recommended the transfer of military equipment to Ukraine, pending Parliamentary approval, reported to include Stinger surface-to-air missiles, anti-tank weapons, heavy machine guns, MG-type light machine guns and counter-IED systems. Croatia will send rifles and machine guns, plus protective equipment sufficient for four brigades valued at 124 million kuna (€16.5 million), said Defence Minister Mario Banožić. (Government tweet, see also media.Canada committed another 25 million in undefined military aid ($20 million USD, Canadian government.) Deputy Prime Minister François Bausch also announced Luxembourg will provide Ukraine with lethal and non-lethal equipment including 100 NLAW (Next Generation Light Anti-Tank Weapon), Jeep Wrangler 4×4 vehicles, 15 military tents, as well as logistical and financial support. (See official press release.) The North Macedoniangovernment also announced its decision to donate unspecified military equipment to Ukraine (see media).

On Sunday, February 27, the European Union said it would “purchase and delivery” weapons to Ukraine. EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said this will be done via the European Peace Facility for € 500 million and include “…arms and even fighter jets. We are not talking just about ammunition; we are providing the most important arms to go to war. Minister Kuleba has been asking us that they need the type of fighter jets that the Ukrainian army is able to operate. We know what kind of planes and some Member States have these kinds of planes.”  (EU statements and transcripts.) According to media reportsBelgium‘s Prime Minister Alexander De Croo indicated it would send an additional 3,000 automatic rifles and 200 anti-tank weapons (on top of 2000 machine guns announced a day earlier). According to media, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen announced that Denmark will donate 2,700 anti-tank weapons to Ukraine. It will also return parts for 300 Stinger missiles to the United States for possible future donation to Ukraine (see additional media). Sweden‘s Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson said her country will send 5,000 anti-tank weapons, helmets and body shields, plus 135,000 field rations. (See official government tweet and other media.Norway decided to send 1,500 bulletproof vests, 5,000 helmets and other equipment (which appears to have been delivered February 28, Government press release, media.)The government of Greece delivered portable rocket launchers, ammunition, and Kalashnikov rifles according to local media. (See Minister of Defence tweet). According to local media, Prime Minister of the Czech Republic Petr Fiala announced an additional 400 million koruna ($18.23 million) of “not light weapons” including 160 shoulder-fired MANPADS systems (probably 9K32 Strela-2) with equipment (total price 38.5 million crows), and the rest is unknown (see Prime Minister’s tweet and resolution 137 on the Czech Government website); this follows an earlier shipment of 4,000 mortars, 30,000 pistols, 7,000 assault rifles, 3,000 machine guns, a number of sniper rifles, and one million bullets worth 188 million koruna ($8.6 million). In addition, the Spanish government has sent 20 tons of medical supplies, defensive, and personal protective equipment composing of helmets, flak jackets, and NBC (nuclear-biological-chemical) protection waistcoats to a Polish airport close to the Ukrainian border. (See official Spanish government website and tweet.) In a tweetPortugal said it would provide “military equipment such as vests, helmets, night vision goggles, grenades and ammunition, portable radios, analogue repeaters, and G3 automatic rifles, as well as hospital support” (see also media). In a press statement, Government spokesperson Dan Cărbunaru announced that Romania would send €3 million consisting of fuel, bulletproof vests, helmets, ammunition, military equipment, and medical treatment. 

On Saturday, February 26, Germany indicated it would send lethal military aid to Ukraine. This includes 1,000 anti-tank weapons and 500 Stinger anti-aircraft defense systems; plus permission from Germany for the Netherlands to send 400 rocket-propelled grenade launchers and Estonia nine howitzers. (See official tweet, and media reports.) Separately, it was announced that the Netherlands agreed to send 200 Stinger missiles, and 50 Panzerfaust 3 anti-tank weapons (see media, official letter). In a tweetBelgium‘s Prime Minister said his country would supply 2000 machines guns. According to mediareports, France’s President Emmanuel Macron indicated that his country would “deliver additional defense equipment to the Ukrainian authorities as well as fuel support” without given specific weapon details. Denmark‘s armed forces indicated that trucks had left the day prior to deliver 2000 protective vests and related equipment.

On Friday, February 25, U.S. President Joe Biden authorized $350 million in security assistance for Ukraine. (White House memorandum.) press statement from Secretary of State Anthony Blinken on February 26 indicated “This brings the total security assistance the United States has committed to Ukraine over the past year to more than $1 billion.” A Department of Defense statement indicated it would include “anti-armor, small arms and various munitions, body armor, and related equipment in support of Ukraine’s front-line defenders facing down Russia’s unprovoked attack.” Media later reported this will also include Stinger anti-aricraft missiles.

On Thursday, February 24, Russia launched an invasion of Ukraine, which it called a “special military operation.”

On Wednesday, February 23, a second shipment of Canadian military aid was received in Ukraine.

On Tuesday, February 22, Latvia was scheduled to deliver Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to Ukraine after a Latvian foreign ministry spokesperson informed Reuters the evening of Monday February 21. Media reported that Belgium had thus far refused requests for helmets and other supplies.

On Monday, February 21, Defence Minister Matej Tonin revealed that Slovenia had delivered an undisclosed amount of Kalashnikov rifles, helmets, and ammunition to Ukraine, according to local media.

On February 18, the Republic of Estonia delivered Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine. (Republic of Estonia’s Ministry of Defence) The Netherlands announced a plan to provide “3000 combat helmets and 2000 fragmentation vests with accompanying armor plates, thirty metal detectors and two wire-guided detection robots for (sea) mine detection, two battlefield surveillance radars and five weapon location radars, and one hundred sniper rifles with 30,000 pieces of ammunition.”

On Monday, February 14, Prime Minister Trudeau announced that Canadian officials had authorized $7.8-million worth of arms transfers, described as “lethal equipment and ammunition” to Ukraine. The transfers were to include “machine guns, pistols, carbines, 1.5 million rounds of ammunition, sniper rifles, and various related equipment.” (Canadian Ministry of Defense. See additional reporting.)

On February 12 and 13, Lithuania delivered Stinger anti-aircraft missile systems and ammunition to Ukraine as part of its continuing military assistance. (Ukrainian Ministry of Defence)

Image: Bayraktar TB2 Runway (Photo by Bayhaluk, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

Bayraktar TB2 Runway.jpg

In early February, Turkey and Ukraine agreed to coproduce Turkish-made Bayraktar TB2 drones. Ukrainian Defence Minister Olesii Reznikov informed reporters in Kyiv that Ukrainian pilots would be trained in the coproduction compound. This agreement follows sales of these drones to Ukraine in 2019, which Ukraine has deployed in Donbas in recent months.

On February 1, Poland approved the delivery of Piorun (Thunderbolt) short-range, man-portable air defense (MANPAD) systems and munition; Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki stated that Poland is ready to supply “several dozen thousand rounds of ammunition and artillery ammunition, air defense systems, and also light mortars and reconnaissance drones.” (See media.) Poland has functioned as a logistical hub for countries sending military aid and equipment from sending countries and dispatching them to Ukraine.

January

On January 26, Canada announced it would transfer non-lethal military aid to Ukraine. (Canadian Ministry of Defense)

On January 20, the United States State Department issued a revised factsheet on security assistance to Ukraine; as the United States also directly delivered military assistance to the country. This included some of a $200 million in Department of Defense stocks, a drawdown that was authorized in December 2021. The factsheet detailed that since 2014, the United States had provided $2.7 billion in training and equipment, and particularly highlighted “the 2018 sale of 210 Javelin anti-armor missiles, which has provided Ukraine with a critical anti-armor capability; the 2019 sale of 150 additional Javelins; and the 2020 Mark VI patrol boats sale” (see notifications). The U.S. also permitted U.S.-origin equipment to be transferred from regional allies. 

In January, Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht claimed Germany wants to “de-escalate” the crisis and will not supply weapons to Ukraine, but will instead co-finance 5.3 million euros for a military field hospital. In cooperation with Germany, Estonian Defence Forces were organizing a 13-day training course for Ukrainian military medical instructors provided by the Estonian company Semetron. (Embassy of Estonia in Kyiv)

In mid-January, the United Kingdom supplied 2,000 short-range and anti-tank missiles, Saxon armored vehicles, as well as British specialists to deliver training in Ukraine.

2021

December 

In December 2021, Lithuania sent its first delivery of military aid composed of bulletproof vests and ballistic belts to Ukraine since the beginning of the crisis. 

*

Civil Society 

Select Media Articles

Additional Data

TIV (Trend Indicator Value) of major arms exports to Ukraine (2016-2021), from SIPRI database. See file (overview) and trade register of specific items transferred.

Picture

10 Ways to Change a Liberal’s Mind…

Have you ever talked with a liberal and made a comment that shuts him down completely?  “Trump sure is getting a raw deal with that FBI raid, isn’t he?”  His eyes go glassy, and he starts to look for the exit.  Or he repeats something automatically, like “Trump deserves anything he gets.” 

This “orange man bad” mantra is often called “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”  It effectively shuts down all communication between disagreeing sides and prevents any kind of meaningful dialogue, even between good friends or family members.  Even intelligent people who are suffering greatly from Biden/liberal policies, through loss of jobs, high gas and oil prices, rapid inflation, high taxes, or curbs on religious freedoms, won’t be able to change their minds and consider voting for a conservative or moderate candidate once he is somehow linked to Donald Trump. 

They say, “If Trump is for it, then I am against it” even if that means they pay $5 a gallon for gas, can’t get formula for their babies, or can’t afford to heat their homes this winter. 

Why does this happen?  How do people make up their minds, and why do they stubbornly refuse to change them? 

You would think that people would evaluate important issues logically, like a math equation where 2+2=4, but this is not true with beliefs, especially when politics is involved.

Keith M. Bellizzi, professor of human development and family sciences, from the University of Connecticut, is among many who study cognitive psychology and neuroscience, and his article on the subject is a good start.  He explains that there are survival systems that are hard-wired into our brains that actually cause stubborn adherence to wrong beliefs.

“Belief perseverance” is one such system.  “Being presented with facts — whether via the news, social media or one-on-one conversations — that suggest their current beliefs are wrong causes people to feel threatened.”  They will reject the evidence, and often their original beliefs will become stronger.

“Confirmation bias” is “the natural tendency to seek out information or interpret things in a way that supports your existing beliefs.  Interacting with like-minded people and media reinforces confirmation bias.”  This is why liberals watch MSNBC and conservatives watch Fox. 

The brain itself is hardwired to reinforce existing opinions and beliefs, even if this might cause harm.  When you win an argument, your body releases a rush of pleasurable hormones like dopamine and adrenaline.  In a high-stress or threatening situation, cortisol is released, which depresses your logical mind and triggers the more basic part of your brain, which controls fight or flight.  You “see red,” voices are raised, fists get clenched, and it’s much more difficult to understand what the other side is saying. 

Other sociologists have identified other biases that effect logical vs. emotional thinking.

“Believing people from your tribe” 

Humans developed in tribal cultures, which continue to this day.  You are much less likely to believe an outsider.  Nowadays, a tribe is not just a reference to ethnicity or religion, but also belief systems in global warming or abortion, where members are easily identified by how they look or what they say. 

“The big lie” 

People, by nature, are well intentioned, and they assume that others are as well.  So when they hear a lie, they tend to believe it.  Interestingly, the bigger the lie, the more likely it is to be believed because they assume that no one would lie about something of such importance.  

All of these factors are related to survival going back to the earliest days of mankind.  If you constantly have to be re-evaluating your beliefs, such as “growling tigers are a reason to run,” then you might consider having a chat with such a tiger — and end up being his lunch. 

So how can you reach people with closed minds? 

1. Be from within their tribe.  Start by reinforcing what the two of you have in common — you may have lived in the same city, had similar jobs or similar backgrounds.  

2. Get permission to discuss — “Would you like to tell me about your views on global warming?”  This makes the idea of a discussion non-threatening. 

3. Resolve never to argue or raise your voice.  Don’t threaten or invoke fear.  If things start to become even a little heated, then withdraw — “we can always discuss this later” or “now may not be the time to discuss this.”  Getting into a heated argument is going to activate the liberal’s lizard brain and end logical reasoning.  

4. Start small.  Don’t try to convince the liberal that Donald Trump is the next George Washington.  Go for a smaller issue that doesn’t challenge one of his core beliefs.  “Should Iran have a nuclear weapon?” or “Would it be good for China to control our farmland?” 

5. Pick topics where you are well-versed.  Most of the people you will be talking with know very little factual information — they are used to hearing talking points and then parroting them back to you. 

6. Ask questions.  There is nothing threatening about asking an honest question, especially about something that is important to the liberal.  Make it clear that you are open and willing to listen to his side and willing to change your mind.  There is a brain/hormone thrill associated with converting someone to his side that will entice him to interact.  Your openness models good behavior — if you’re willing to change your mind, then he should be open-minded as well.

7. Ask “why?”  Few can survive three “whys” in a row.  The brainwashed rarely know the logic behind what they parrot.  

8. Focus on common sense and fairness.  “Does it make sense to spend $2 trillion to lower global temperature by 0.0006 degrees?”  “Does it seem fair to make a middle-class worker who never went to college pay for the student loan of a Harvard graduate with a women’s studies degree?” 

9. If you start to see the liberal’s resistance crumbling, share how you used to feel how he did, but you changed your mind when you learned new information. 

10. If you get him to change his mind on one topic, don’t gloat or insist that he admit he was wrong.  Just say, “I’m glad we had a chance to discuss this.  I learned a lot from you.  I hope we can talk again in the future.”  Then come back another time with a different topic that is more important.  

Changing minds is not a quick process.  Patience and self-control are essential.  Unless we can learn how to speak to our fellow Americans in a kind and understanding manner, we will never heal the divide in our nation.