Quote:The V-280 Valor comes in for a roll-on landing during its first public flight demonstration at Bell's Amarillo, Texas, production facility. (Jen Judson/Staff)
UPDATE - This story has been updated to clarify how the legacy fleet will be replaced with Future Vertical Lift aircraft.
WASHINGTON — Textron’s Bell has won the U.S. Army’s competition to build the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft, the service’s largest helicopter procurement decision in 40 years.
The deal for the next-generation helicopter is worth up to $1.3 billion and is set to replace roughly 2,000 Black Hawk utility helicopters. FLRAA will not serve as a one-for-one replacement for existing aircraft, but it will take over the roles of the Black Hawk, long the workhorse of the Army for getting troops to and around the battlefield around 2030.
Ultimately, the Army’s Future Vertical Lift pursuits will also replace around 1,200 Apache attack helicopters among other legacy aircraft through the pursuit of FLRAA, the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft and Air-Launched Effects working in advanced teaming formations.
The service wants FLRAA to be capable of traveling roughly 2,440 nautical miles (or 2,810 miles) without refueling, but also to be agile enough to maneuver troops into dangerous hot spots.
The engineering and manufacturing development and low-rate production phase could be worth roughly $7 billion. If the “full complement” of aircraft are purchased across the entire life of the fleet, the program could be worth in the range of $70 billion to include potential foreign military sales, the Army’s program executive officer for aviation, Maj. Gen. Rob Barrie, said during a Dec. 5 media roundtable.
Complicating the Army’s vertical lift modernization efforts, the Army is planning to develop and field FARA nearly along the same timeline to perform the scout mission. That duty was left vacant when the Army decided to retire its Kiowa Warrior helicopters in 2013. Since then, the Army has filled that gap with teams of Apache helicopters and Shadow unmanned aircraft systems.
The contract represents a milestone for the service as the Army hasn’t procured two major helicopters since the 1980s and multiple efforts to buy other helicopters over the last several decades ended in failure. For instance, the service canceled the Boeing-Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche helicopter program in 2004 after spending roughly $7 billion on its development.
The FLRAA competition pitted two aircraft head to head: Bell’s V-280 Valor, a tiltrotor aircraft, and Sikorsky and Boeing’s Defiant X, which features coaxial rotor blades. Both aircraft were designed to fit into the same footprint as a Black Hawk.
“This is our largest and most complex competitive procurement we have executed in the Army in the ... history of Army aviation,” Barrie told Defense News earlier this year. “That system is going to be with us a long time; it goes without saying that we want to make sure everything is done correctly and in a disciplined manner.”
In a Dec. 5 statement, Scott Donnelly, Textron’s chief executive, said the company is “honored that the U.S. Army has selected the Bell V-280 Valor as its next-generation assault aircraft. We intend to honor that trust by building a truly remarkable and transformational weapon system to meet the Army’s mission requirements.”
The decision, which was expected earlier this year, was initially one of the most anticipated Army awards in 2022. While service acquisition chief Doug Bush told Defense News in October the award would come in weeks, he also noted an announcement would be “conditions-based.”
Major procurement programs are often protested, putting pressure on the military to ensure awards are “protest-proof.”
Bush said the source-selection board for this effort needed to take a very careful and deliberate approach.
“There’s a process that the source-selection board goes through to not just make the source selection but then, importantly, to kind of audit themselves and have others audit them to make sure it was done the right way,” he said. “It does take a while, but we want to make absolutely sure that we do this the right way and that we get what’s best for the Army.”
In a statement sent out after the Army announced the award to Bell, Sikorsky and Boeing said they “remain confident DEFIANT X is the transformational aircraft the U.S. Army requires to accomplish its complex missions today and well into the future. We will evaluate our next steps after reviewing feedback from the Army.”
Both FLRAA demonstrator aircraft spent several years logging test flights. They first flew in what the Army called a Joint Multi-Role, or JMR, technology demonstration, followed by two phases of a competitive development and risk-reduction effort.
While Valor’s first flight was right on schedule in December 2017, Sikorsky and Boeing ran into several issues leading up to their expected first flight, delaying it by more than a year.
First, in early August 2017, Sikorsky’s Raider aircraft, essentially a smaller version of Defiant the company built and flew, crashed at its test flight facility in West Palm Beach, Florida. That left Sikorsky with one Raider aircraft to continue in its internal test program for refining its X2 coaxial helicopter technology for both the FLRAA program and the Army’s Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft effort.
Then the company struggled to build Defiant’s rotor blades due to manufacturing issues, causing a delay.
The team had hoped to fly by the end of 2018, but while running the powertrain systems test bed, engineers discovered a series of issues that caused them to hit pause on testing. Defiant eventually flew for the first time in March 2019.
Once the JMR demonstration phase came to a close, the Army kept Valor and Defiant flying through another two phases of a competitive demonstration and risk-reduction effort, wrapping that up last year.
Before Bell retired its Valor flight demonstrator in June 2021, the V-280 flew more than 214 hours and showed off low-speed agility and long-range cruise capabilities, and reached a maximum 305-knot cruising speed.
Five Army experimental test pilots have flown the V-280 in 15 sorties, according to the company statement. Bell used feedback from Army pilots, mechanics and infantry squads to inform design plans.
Defiant flew a total of 63.9 hours, traveled as fast as 247 knots and demonstrated maneuverability at tree-top height at speeds greater than 200 knots, according to Sikorsky. The aircraft also tested greater than 60-degree banked turns, demonstrated confined area-landing operations and lifted a 5,300-pound Guided Multiple Launcher Rocket Storage Pod externally. The aircraft was also flown by multiple U.S. Army experimental test pilots.
FLRAA prototypes from Bell are due to the service by 2025. The initial contract obligation is $232 million, with a ceiling of $1.3 billion if options beyond the initial contract are exercised.
The initial phase allows the Army to continue preliminary design and then get to the design, development and delivery of virtual prototypes, according to Barrie.
FLRAA is expected to enter the fleet in 2030, around the same time as the Army’s Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft is planned for fielding. Bell and Lockheed Martin are competing to build the FARA.
The service plans to field FARA along with FLRAA around 2030. The two teams building prototypes are aiming to fly them by the end of 2023. Each team’s aircraft are almost entirely complete, and they are waiting for the Army’s new engine to be delivered under the Improved Turbine Engine Program. The ITEP engines went into the testing process ahead of delivering earlier this year after a delay due to the pandemic.
The Army recently said it would postpone delivering the ITEP engines for the aircraft from the end of 2022 to the spring of 2023 because of additional supply chain and technical issues.

I started digging into Manhattan DA democrite Alvin Bragg, his wife Jamila Ponton (I'm not sure who is worse) and stumbled down a parapolitical abyss. Below is a compilation of cookie crumbs, in which things will get messy.


Alvin and Jamila Bragg are longtime members of this Abyssinian Baptist Church congregation. ABC has a long history of political and activist involvement.  Lots of money. Lots of power. The history and politics of that church spans over 200 years and is incredibly complex! More recently, people like Raphael Warnock, Maxine Waters, Alvin Bragg and his wife, Hillary Clinton, and others have either been members or given guest sermons there. Alvin’s chief of staff also a member of the congregation. In 1989, Calvin O. Butts became senior pastor, serving until his death in 2022.

Quote:The Abyssinian Baptist Church is a Baptist megachurch located at 132 West 138th Street between Adam Clayton Powell Jr. Boulevard and Lenox Avenue in the Harlem neighborhood of Manhattan, New York City; it is affiliated with the National Baptist Convention, USA and American Baptist Churches USA.

The Abyssinian Baptist Church congregation traces its history to 1809, when seamen from the Ethiopian Empire (then known as Abyssinia) helped lead a protest against racially segregated church seating. Thomas Paul was an early minister. During the 20th century, prominent ministers of the church included Adam Clayton Powell Sr., Adam Clayton Powell Jr., and Samuel DeWitt Proctor. The church has served as an influential place for African-American spirituality, politics and community.

The congregation began after an incident in 1808, when visiting Ethiopian seamen and allied free African-American parishioners left the First Baptist Church in protest over being restricted to racially segregated seating. They named their new congregation the Abyssinian Baptist Church after the historic name of Ethiopia.

By 1930, the church had 13,000 members, making it the largest African-American church in New York City, and the largest Baptist congregation in the world. Powell handed the reins of the church to his son Adam Clayton Powell Jr. in 1937. Powell became the first black Congressman from New York City, and served 14 terms in the United States House of Representatives. Powell's "charisma, power, and notoriety", as well as his "spellbinding" preaching were the driving force behind the church's significant influence in the African American community at the time.

Quote:Democrat Senate Candidate Raphael Warnock Refuses To Answer Questions About Past Child Abuse Investigation (Nov 2020)

“I’m reminded of Senator Loeffler’s opponent, true story, 25 years ago he was a pastor at a church in New York that invited Fidel Castro to speak … they cheered him wildly … think about that, now 25 years later one of the pastors from that church wants to be the U.S. Senator from Georgia,” Rubio said.

“We do have a choice between socialism and the American dream … Marco is exactly right: Raphael Warnock celebrated Fidel Castro in his church. He has a Marxist ideology,” Loeffler continued.

In addition to praising a communist dictator, Warnock also repeatedly criticized and called police officers “gangsters and thugs” during sermons in 2015.

Quote:The (Very) Earthly Pursuits of Rev. Calvin O. Butts III - The Abyssinian Baptist Church, spiritual home of Rev. Calvin O. Butts III. Butts is the founder of Abyssinian Development Corporation (ADC), in 1989, the church’s nonprofit development arm.

The ballroom was closed in 1979. It was boarded up and lay fallow until the Abyssinian Development Corporation took over the property in 1991. Founded by the politically powerful Reverend Calvin O. Butts III, the longtime lead pastor of the 205-year-old Abyssinian Baptist Church on West 138th Street, ADC is Abyssinian’s nonprofit community-redevelopment arm. In the early days after ADC took over the Renaissance’s mortgage, Butts talked about restoring the ballroom and bringing back a gleaming entertainment venue to the very heart of Harlem.

Quote:The nonprofit development corporation, formed in 1989 with a single employee and a $50,000 grant, has grown into an organization that owns or has developed some $500 million worth of property in Harlem, expanded to 125 employees and played a critical behind-the-scenes role in the transformation of the neighborhood.
Powerful Harlem Church Is Also a Powerful Harlem Developer (NY Times, Aug. 17, 2008)

Quote:Resurrected Harlem, Rev. Calvin Butts Seeks Salvation

“We are responsible for big change,” Butts said from his office, a shrine to Harlem history, at Abyssinian Baptist Church on West 138th Street. In the center, a painting by Louis Delsarte depicts Butts in his roles as church leader, community advocate and president of Long Island’s SUNY Old Westbury. The painting was presented to Butts by Bill and Hillary Clinton, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, actress Cicely Tyson and American Express CEO Kenneth Chenault at a white-tie gala in November 2008 to celebrate the 200th anniversary of Abyssinian church.

Quote:Louis Delsarte, a Muralist of the Black Experience, Dies at 75 (May 15, 2020)

Mr. Delsarte first found fame in the 1960s as a muralist on the bohemian downtown New York art scene. He painted the walls psychedelic inside the Electric Circus, the East Village nightclub frequented by Andy Warhol and the Velvet Underground. Mr. Delsarte’s circle of artists included Robert Mapplethorpe, with whom he studied at Pratt Institute, and Mr. Mapplethorpe’s roommate and lover, Patti Smith, who mentioned Mr. Delsarte in her 2010 memoir, “Just Kids.”

Attached Files

Thumbnail(s)
       

Quote:Censorship Masquerades and Disinformation Control
By ANDREW LOWENTHAL on March 19th, 2023
   
Twitter Files #19 have dropped. I am happy to have assisted Matt Taibbi and team to put that release together, along with release #18.
The Files show widespread censorship masquerading as “anti-disinformation” and intense collusion between government agencies, NGOs, academia, Big Tech, media, philanthropy, the intelligence community, and more.
Tinfoil hat stuff? The Twitter Files show it is real.
They uncover a level of corruption that is hard to grasp, much of it among the ‘anti-disinformation’ and digital rights fields where I have worked for almost 20 years. 
To say this is disappointing would be an incredible understatement. A 180 on what I understood to be our values.
Twitter Files #18 and #19 focus on the Virality Project, an “anti-vaccine misinformation” effort led by Stanford and bringing together elite academia, NGOs, government, and experts in AI and social media monitoring, with six of the biggest social media companies on the planet. They went far beyond their “misinformation” remit. Twitter Files show the Virality Project pushed platforms to censor “stories of true vaccine side effects.”
Partnered in the effort were Facebook/Instagram, Google/YouTube, TikTok, Pinterest, Medium, and Twitter.
Reporting side effects of the now-pulled Johnson & Johnson vaccine would have been labelled “misinformation” under Virality Project decrees. Had Kerryn Phelps (the first female president of the Australian Medical Association) taken to Twitter to describe her and her wife’s vaccine injuries, these too would have been labelled misinformation. German Health Minister Karl Lauterbach would have also been censored last week for admitting that as a result of the vaccines “there are severe disabilities, and some of them will be permanent.” (Video)
Rather than listening out for safety signals to protect the public, leaders in the “anti-disinformation” field ran cover to protect Big Pharma, smearing and censoring critics. The moral depravity is astounding and quite possibly criminal.
The Virality Project however is just part of a broader cultural shift that reverses long standing liberal/left commitments to free expression and allows censorship in the name of protection and safety. However in suppressing “stories of true vaccine side effects” the Virality Project put people in danger. Rather than keeping people safe they exposed us to the depredations of Big Pharma.
The centrality of censorship ideology to the digital rights field is illustrated in former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern opening RightsCon 2022, the sector’s biggest civil society event. EngageMedia co-organised RightsCon in 2015 when I was Executive Director. Ardern claims that “weapons of war” and “disinformation” are one and the same. 
RightsCon 2022 also heavily promoted US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken. Blinken oversees the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, one of the most egregious US government promoters of “anti-disinformation” as censorship. (See Twitter Files #17)
Western leaders who advocate for censorship in the name of “disinformation” severely undermine those fighting authoritarian regimes around the world. Those regimes frequently evoke the threat of “fake news” to justify their crackdowns.
Is disinformation an actual problem? Yes, though it is overstated and the “anti-disinformation” field is making it worse, not better. It is also contributing to increasing polarisation.
I encourage you to read both releases in full and hold what you have been told about Elon Musk just for a moment. Musk is neither hero nor demon. The Twitter Files however are a critical catalyst to challenge the new censorship regime we now live under and reinvigorate the movement for free expression. 
(Note that I am a paid consultant for Matt Taibbi and have no relation whatsoever to Musk).
If you can walk and chew gum you’ll know that uncovering liberal/left corruption doesn’t imply support for the reactionary right. 
Free speech and expression protect us from the most powerful actors on the planet; corporations, the State, and a growing plethora of international bodies. Ultimately we need radically decentralised social media that is more immune to their capture. Our safety depends on it.
Many have come before me, however far too few have been willing to challenge this ethical fall from grace. The good news is that it’s not too late.
This article originally appeared in the Brownstone Institute. 

New UFO docu releasing April 18th.

Quote:UFO Documentary ‘Accidental Truth’ Makes Strongest Case Yet for Crash Retrievals, Vehicles of Non-Human Origin

It seems that every few months, those of us who follow the UFO topic are promised an exciting new documentary guaranteed to blow our collective minds. Although this ‘phenomenon’ isn’t unique to the present wave of UFO-centric films, TV shows, and podcasts, as nearly every UFO documentary I can remember dating back to the 1980s and 1990s worked to position itself as the definitive, seminal work on the subject, it has definitely increased in frequency since 2017.

Some have arguably gotten close to the mark, with filmmaker James Fox’s The Phenomenon standing out as a largely comprehensive account of a topic that has fascinated folks since at least the 1940s. In other cases, like J.J. Abrams’s multi-part Showtime series UFO, these documentaries can often feel like a retread of old news repackaged once again for an audience that, in many cases, is more versed in the material than the filmmakers themselves. Still, even that series has its high points and would not be wasted on someone who is new to the topic and wants to dive in with both feet.

So, at the risk of repeating a mistake made far too many times in the review of a new UFO documentary, I am pleased to say that the film Accidental Truth: UFO Revelations, which will be released on Tuesday, April 18th, may actually be one I would recommend to veterans and newbies alike.

First, there is enough generalized subject review here for someone new to the world of UFOs, more than enough to snicker at for the skeptics among us who find the whole thing silly but somehow can’t stop watching for fear they may actually end up missing the big reveal (or they just hate seeing someone else having a good time), and a whole lot of meat when it comes to the big enchilada that nearly all of us who find the topic to be a legitimate mystery worth investigating secretly wonder about: does the U.S. Government have crashed UFOs and maybe even bodies, and are the pilots of these vehicles something other than human?

The film’s presentation is also first-rate. Acclaimed actor Mathew Modine offers a narration that is both smart and haunting, keeping the viewer locked in as if the most important piece of information is about to be revealed at any moment. And, thankfully, more often than not, it pays off by doing exactly that.

Another key component that makes Accidental Truth highly watchable is the fact that the director interviewed nearly all of the film’s subjects himself. So, aside from the occasional piece of footage taken from other interviews and documentaries, the entire film has a fresh, consistent style to it that doesn’t make you feel like you are being jerked from place to place, as so many of these clip-heavy films do.

So, for those of you who actually want to find out what it is that we do (and don’t) really know about crash retrievals, alien bodies, and the concept of non-human intelligence, who wonder if those in power are lying about it or if this whole thing is all just modern mythology gone amok (or you need another good laugh at our expense), this is the documentary for you.

Either way, here is a summary of the three main segments in the film and my reactions to each.

Accidental Truth Part 1: From the 1940s to 2017

In the first of three loose “acts” in the Accidental Truth play, director Ron James does his best to bring the viewers up to date on the overall history of the UFO topic, at least since the 1940s, then up through the increasingly controversial revelations made in the New York Times in 2017. As someone who has followed this subject for some time, I found the bulk of this section as a review, with very little of what I would classify as new material. Still, it was thoroughly enjoyable, presented in a crisp, no-nonsense way, moved at a smooth pace, and did its best to summarize seven-plus decades of UFO history into about 30 minutes of screen time.



I also think this section will be particularly enjoyable for folks who have come to the UFO topic as a direct result of the 2017 revelations and the accompanying three videos, all of which have proven just as controversial and divisive as the original NYT story. Think of this part of the documentary as the summary given before a new season of a TV show, recapping what has happened in the first few seasons just so you are primed for what you are about to get in the new season. And, in this case, what you are about to get is the main course of the film and the meaning behind its name, “Accidental Truth: UFO Revelations.”

Accidental Truth Part 2: Crash Retrievals

While many UFO historians will point to pilot Ken Arnold’s sighting of a formation of high-speed objects near Mount Rainier, Washington, USA, on June 24th, 1947, as the genesis of the modern UFO wave, it is another incident from that same summer that has seemingly captivated the UFO curious since it was first talked about in an episode of the TV show In Search Of way back in 1980. That is the alleged crash of a UFO on a ranch near Roswell, New Mexico, including an official announcement by the Army of the vehicle’s retrieval followed almost immediately by a retraction, leading to nearly seven decades of more questions than answers.

In Accidental Truth, James does his best to cover the history of crash retrievals dating to an alleged crashed alien ship and bodies near Cape Girardeau, Missouri, USA, way back in 1941, which was six years before Roswell, then brings the subject all the way up to the present day. In many ways, it is a perfect introduction for the purported U.S. congressional UAP hearings that may or may not take place soon and may or may not involve “whistle-blowers” who will tell congress about legacy programs within the military-industrial complex that not only have debris from UFO crashes but may have intact craft and even alien bodies.

It is this part of the movie, its second act, where the director makes the strongest case I have seen for the reality of crash retrievals. Of course, like all such claims, it is purely anecdotal, with no physical proof offered. Still, the “same old UFO crash stories” are bolstered in this film with comments made by folks such as Chris Mellon, Lue Elizondo, Dr. Gary Nolan, and others who have positioned themselves in the public eye as those who know more than we do, based primarily on their access to classified materials the public simply has not seen or the direct testimony from people they know and trust who say they have worked in the crash retrieval programs.

In many cases, these “accidental truths” are muttered by folks like Elizondo or Nolan as halfhearted, off-mic afterthoughts that the film’s director captures and presents as direct hints that folks like Mellon, Nolan, et al., really do want to tell us outright that there is a reality to all this, and a truth we will all be learning about sooner rather than later. But they still can’t. At least, not yet, anyway.

Skeptics will point out–and rightfully so–that these are claims from folks who “supposedly” know more than the public and the idea that they are privy to things like high-quality images, advanced sensor data, and possibly even high-definition videos of unknown objects performing insane maneuvers that seem beyond the abilities of our most advanced aircraft is still an unproven one. Those same skeptics would further argue that if these supposed pieces of dispositive evidence exist and prove once and for all that UFOs are real and really do fly in incredible ways, that it isn’t something we can just take Mellon and Elizondo’s word for, but it is something we would need to see for ourselves, military classifications be damned!

While I am still firmly in this camp as one who believes we can’t just take Mellon or anyone else’s word for it that evidence exists pointing to a non-human intelligence behind at least some UFO cases, this documentary does its best to show exactly that; UFOs are real, and a non-human intelligence is at the proverbial wheel. And it is done in as compelling and concise a way as I have ever seen.

Accidental Truth Part 3: “They”

In the final act of his documentary film, titled simply “They,” James makes his best pitch for the idea that UFOs, at least some of the more incredible ones, are indeed vehicles of non-human origin.

In this final segment, he digs deep into his wealth of knowledge on the subject garnered during his years as the Director of Public Relations for the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) and the founder of MUFON Television, then caps it all off with the pending congressional hearings where the truth behind crash retrievals and crafts with non-human occupants may finally come to light. Again, his case is bolstered by some “accidental truths” muttered by his interview subjects that seem to show they know and have talked to folks who are indeed about to tell congress about their direct knowledge and experience working on what Dr. Eric Davis once famously termed “Off-world vehicles not made by human hands.”

Once again, James’ film doesn’t necessarily present any hard proof of these claims. Instead, Accidental Truth notes how people who seem to have very little to gain and quite a bit to lose are now saying that they know, for a fact, that people who claim to have worked on crashed UFOs made by a non-human intelligence will give testimony to congress detailing that work.

Of course, it may all turn out to be hearsay and rumor. Or even if it is real, we may never even learn who testified about this type of knowledge to congress or what their testimony entailed. But whatever is about to happen in the halls of congress, James does a great job building anticipation for the idea that these types of discussions will be had very soon. And suppose there are indeed legacy crash retrieval programs hidden within the ultra-secret recesses of government or tucked away within some of the world’s largest defense contractors. In that case, the truth about those programs may soon become known, accidentally or not.

Christopher Plain is a novelist, comedian, and Head Science Writer at The Debrief. Follow and connect with him on Twitter, learn about his books at plainfiction.com, or email him directly at christopher@thedebrief.org.

Quote:The promotion materials for the film show a cast list of Congressman Tim Burchett, Ralph Blumenthal, Lue Elizondo, Dr. Michio Kaku, Dr. Garry Nolan, Col. John Alexander, Christopher Mellon, Richard Dolan, Dave MacDonald, Nick Pope, Paul Hynek, Don Schmitt, Mike Bara, Katie Griboski (Paige), Melinda Leslie, Elizabeth April, Cheryll Jones, Danny Sheehan, Jimmy Church, Richard Lang, James Fox, and director Ron James himself.

This fighter is a common sense approach to air warfare.. Easy to maintain, does not need an improved airport to land upon or take off and it is not a gold plated masterpiece of kickbacks like most of the projects the USA tries to field.

This is a mini Documentary about North Korea and shows certain things about the country I was unaware. I did not detect this as being a propaganda hit piece.

https://www.worldtribune.com/biological-...ournament/

Quote:by WorldTribune Staff / 247 Real News[i] April 3, 2023 [/i]
Breanna Gill was announced by the WPGA Tour of Australasia as the winner of the Australian Women’s Classic Bonville.
Breanna Gill
“Showing nerves of steel, Breanna Gill triumphed in a playoff for her first professional win at the #AusWomensClassic!” the WPGA Tour tweeted Sunday.
Breanna Gill is a biological male.
Former Fox News host Megyn Kelly blasted the WPGA for their tweet and for their article praising the biological male’s “victory.”
“This is a biological man, a fact not even mentioned in much of the major press coverage celebrating ‘her’ win over the actual women in this tournament,” Kelly said. “It’s a fraud, it’s immoral, and it HAS TO STOP.”
The backlash to Gill’s “victory” became so intense that the WPGA Tour turned off all replies to the tweet it posted celebrating his winning the women’s event.
Outkick’s Amber Harding noted: “None of the news coverage of the Australian Women’s Classic mentions that Gill is transgender. This is particularly concerning. It’s as if the presence of biological men in women’s sports has become so normalized it’s not even worth mentioning. And when actual women fight back, we get silence from the mainstream media. We get zero accountability from the leagues and from the transgender athletes themselves.

A Senior Visiting Fellow to The German Marshall Fund of the United States assesses the drivers of Von der Leyen’s tough China speech, Macron’s plans for a "re-risking" pact with Xi Jinping & the behind-the-scenes push to overhaul global export controls policy. Beijing's tactics paying off? This seems huge, if true: French officials close to Macron have indicated that he is considering offering Xi a deal along the lines of this: France will resist US pressure to decouple from China if Beijing invests diplomatic capital in bringing about peace in Ukraine."

Quote:Watching China in Europe - April 2023

Welcome to Watching China in Europe, a monthly update from GMF’s Indo-Pacific Program. Now more than ever, the transatlantic partners need clarity and cohesion when it comes to China policy. In this monthly newsletter, Noah Barkin, a senior visiting fellow at GMF and managing editor at Rhodium Group, provides his personal observations and analysis on the most pressing China-related developments and activities throughout Europe.

Europe was powered for decades by a Franco-German engine. But lately, the bloc seems to move forward despite, not because of, Berlin and Paris. This has been the case with the war in Ukraine, where eastern European countries have done much of the leading, with a helping hand from the United States, while the Germans tie themselves into knots over weapons deliveries, and the French lament the death of strategic autonomy in real time. It has also been true for China policy. The German government is deeply divided on relations with Beijing, has yet to unveil its new China strategy, and is struggling to deliver on its promise to nudge Europe toward a more united stance. France, meanwhile, seems primarily concerned with distancing itself from Washington. Ahead of President Emmanuel Macron’s visit to Beijing this week, a French official told me: “We have no intention of joining a US campaign to isolate China. We want to create a shared future with them.”

Enter European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, whose China speech last Thursday was a bold attempt to fill the leadership gap on one of Europe’s most acute foreign policy challenges. Like the 2019 strategy paper from her predecessor Jean-Claude Juncker, which labeled China a “systemic rival”, von der Leyen’s speech was designed to cut through the thickening fog around Europe’s China policy and chart a clear path forward. Herding 27 member states will not be easy. Support from Berlin and Paris will be crucial but is far from guaranteed.

Von der Leyen has put forward an agenda that will define the China debate in Europe this year and force capitals to respond. As a former German defense minister whom Macron nominated for the Commission presidency and whose father once ran the state that Volkswagen calls home, she is uniquely placed to sell a tougher line to key European capitals. No national leader could ever give a China speech as frank as the one she gave. “One thing is clear. She is taking risks, leaning out the window, showing real leadership,” a senior EU diplomat said of the speech. Another senior EU official put it this way: “This speech was badly needed. What frightens me is the follow-up. She will need to get the big member states on board. If she does, then the smaller states will follow. But I would not underestimate the challenge.”

Losing Sight

The speech contained two main messages. The first is that Europe needs to stop deluding itself about China’s trajectory under President Xi Jinping. In unusually stark language for a leading European figure, von der Leyen spoke of Xi’s ambitions to turn China into “the world’s most powerful nation”, his support for Russian President Vladimir Putin in spite of his “atrocious and illegal” invasion of Ukraine, and Beijing’s readiness to weaponize its economic ties with other countries to “ensure that China gets what it wants”.

In recent months, von der Leyen’s team grew worried that leading European politicians and senior EU figures in Brussels were losing sight of the lessons from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Some appear to have convinced themselves that deeper engagement with China is the proper response. But if you are traveling to Beijing to try to convince Xi to use his influence on Putin, why muddy the waters by bringing a business delegation along or choosing to speak at a business forum? It has begun to look unseemly. At the same time, Chinese diplomats in Europe have been pressing for a revival of the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI), receiving positive signals from some European officials. “There was concern that if we didn’t point member states in a certain direction, there was a risk that we would be heading in the wrong direction,” one European Commission official told me. 

The second message from the speech is that Europe needs to get serious about the risks arising from its close economic relationship with China, particularly when it comes to the transfer of advanced technologies. The “de-risking” approach laid out by von der Leyen is an attempt to bridge what has begun to look like a widening transatlantic gap on technology engagement with China while charting a course distinct from Washington’s. “We’re sick of copy-pasting what the Americans are doing,” one EU official told me. The challenge the Commission faces is simple: powers to control exports and investments remain in the hands of the member states. Without their buy-in, Brussels can do little to overhaul policy. The hope is that capitals such as Berlin and Paris come around to the view that a more proactive and coordinated European approach is needed to avoid a repeat of the recent case in which the Netherlands, under pressure from Washington, introduced export controls on semiconductor manufacturing equipment. Those controls are just the beginning: New US controls on quantum computing are in the pipeline, as are restrictions on US outbound investments in China.

After Wassenaar

Paralysis in the Wassenaar Arrangement, the multilateral export control regime that counts Russia as a member, is another reason why the Europeans may be forced to reconsider their approach. Last week in Washington two meetings took place that could ultimately pave the way for important changes in the way the United States, Europe, and their allies coordinate controls on critical technologies to China. The first was a Multilateral Action on Sensitive Technologies (MAST) meeting hosted by the State Department, a Trump-era forum that met for the first time since Joe Biden took office. The second was an informal gathering of a newly created G7 working group on export controls. Among the discussion points, I was told, was a reconfiguration of the international system on export controls away from Wassenaar and toward a plurilateral grouping of like-minded countries. “Some countries are more enthusiastic than others,” one European official told me.

The absence of European Commission representatives at these meetings is a sign that EU member states remain wary of giving Brussels a bigger role on export controls. Resistance to an outbound investment regime, which von der Leyen also backed in her speech, is likely to be just as fierce. In the chancellery in Berlin, officials are uneasy with terms such as “economic security” and “de-risking” in relation to China. Still, they are finding it hard to avoid them. Japanese officials gave their German counterparts an earful during German-Japanese government consultations in mid-March. “It was China, China, and more China,” one diplomat told me. “It was a real eye-opener for those in the German government who have not been paying attention.” Von der Leyen and her team have understood that only by developing a European approach to economic security can the EU hope to sit down with close allies such as the United States and Japan and have a conversation at eye level. If European capitals keep their heads lodged firmly in the sand, by contrast, they will be forced to react on the fly to policy developments in Washington. If that is the path they choose, they shouldn’t go running to Brussels for help when the going gets tough.

Le Re-Risking

It is against this backdrop that Macron and von der Leyen are traveling to Beijing this week. The French president invited the head of the EU’s executive body to send a message of European unity akin to the one sent back in 2019, when he invited her predecessor, Juncker, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel to Paris for a meeting with Xi. But after von der Leyen’s address last week, the challenge of singing from the same song sheet has grown. She dismissed in her speech the idea that Xi could be counted on to play a constructive role in the Ukraine conflict and pushed for a de-risking of Europe’s economic relationship with China.

Paris sees it differently. French officials close to Macron have indicated in recent weeks that he is considering offering Xi a deal along the lines of this: France will resist US pressure to decouple from China if Beijing invests diplomatic capital in bringing about peace in Ukraine. To drive home the point, I was told that a large Airbus investment in China could be announced during Macron’s visit. This looks a lot like re-risking à la française. “Don’t mistake this for a good cop, bad cop act,” one German observer said of Macron and von der Leyen. “That would presume coordination on the messaging.”

Packed Spring

The Beijing trip will be the first test of whether von der Leyen’s economic security agenda can succeed, but it will be followed by a series of other meetings in the run-up to the summer that are likely to reveal much more. G7 leaders will meet in May in Hiroshima, with economic security high on the agenda. This will be followed by an EU-US Trade and Technology Council meeting at the end of that month in Sweden. The big test, however, is likely to come at a European Council meeting in June, when the Commission is expected to present the initial elements of an economic security strategy to member states. Building on this discussion, von der Leyen’s cabinet will work with the White House on an agenda for an EU-US summit that is tentatively scheduled for October. An EU-China summit will have to wait until after that, Commission officials say, despite a push from European Council President Charles Michel to hold it this spring.

In Germany, the China calendar is also about to get busy, with the country’s first National Security Strategy—“a sea of platitudes” in the words of one diplomat—likely to be published in late April or early May. German-Chinese government consultations may follow in late May or early June, and the government’s China strategy is likely to be presented in the months thereafter. I will also be keeping an eye on Chinese shipping giant COSCO’s pending acquisition of a stake in a terminal at the Hamburg port, which I am told is being held up in the German economy ministry and looks unlikely to be approved anytime soon. As early as July, the chancellery and German ministries will decide whether to phase Chinese suppliers out of the 5G network. I have been told by government officials that the mood in Berlin has shifted against Huawei. I will believe it when I see it.

Noah Barkin
Senior Visiting Fellow, Indo-Pacific Program
The German Marshall Fund of the United States

Some are Subtractive in nature. This is where a subject is missing or removed. Some are Additive in nature. This is where a subject is added to a situation when it previously was not there. Some are Substitutive in nature. This is where a subject is replaced with another subject. And some glitches are Rendering issues. This is where something is but is not the way it should be in a physical world, not the way it is intended to be. If you have, please tell me what happend, who was there, where it occurred, and how you felt about it. What let you know it was a glitch and not just a memory error in your mind.

Explanation: Casualty Lists: 1 KIA and yet his ghost lives on... Hear his moans and groans here!



Sydney Morning Herald What does an ex-soldier’s war crime charge mean for whistleblowers? Story by Amber Schultz • Sunday

Quote:McBride is facing a jury trial over the leaking of a cache of documents to the ABC shortly after his discharge from the ADF, which formed the basis of its 2017 “Afghan Files” investigation. The subsequent Brereton Report found credible evidence of war crimes committed by Australian special forces, with 39 murders, executions and allegations of torture.

McBride faces five charges relating to the unauthorised disclosure of information, theft of Commonwealth property and breaching the Defence Act, and could face up to 50 years in prison.

Quote:McBride was forced to drop his application for protection under whistleblower laws after the government moved to quash the testimony of two of his key experts on public-interest immunity laws.

Quote:McBride’s lawyer Mark Davis also said he saw no joy in seeing Schulz arrested.

“What occurred in Afghanistan was a result of the deliberate policy of commanders and the Canberra military bureaucracy to be blind to the actions of their soldiers in the field. It was an unparalleled dereliction of duty or avoidance of responsibility,” he said.

“[Schulz and McBride] are both facing prison. Where are the ministers facing prison [and] where are the generals facing prison? Both McBride and this man could feel that the responsibilities should lay at their feet.”

Quote:Father, into your hands I commend my spirit
Father, into your hands
Why have you forsaken me?
In your eyes forsaken me
In your thoughts forsaken me
In your heart forsaken me, oh
Trust in my self-righteous suicide
I cry when angels deserve to die

Quote:Personal life

Dreyfus lives in Malvern with his Chilean-born wife Deborah (née Chemke). The couple have three children, Joe, Tom and Laura.[36][37][38][39]

Dreyfus is a keen swimmer, cyclist and runner and is a frequent participant in open water swims and fun runs within his electorate.[40][41]

Dreyfus speaks fluent Spanish[39] and has stated that, had he not become a lawyer, he would have liked to become a park ranger in the Alpine National Park.[42]

He is a supporter of the St Kilda Football Club.[43]

Quote:Mira lo que me has hecho hacer, maldita idiota(feminine)

Mira lo que me has hecho hacer, maldito idiota(masculine)