Ways to potentially end a war in Ukraine - HIMAR missile systems to take out artillery

Ways to potentially end a war in Ukraine - HIMAR missile systems to take out artillery

The fastest way to end the war in Ukraine likely is for Ukraine to take out Russian artillery, which it could do with HIMAR missile systems, as well as other long range weapons. Long range weapons are the key to ending the war quickly, as they can outrange the enemy artillery and allow Ukraine to take them out from relative safety. Further the logistic supply trains of the Russians would be easily targeted which are already quite vulnerable, and Russian anti-air defenses and other vehicles. Furthermore, the HIMAR missile utilize cluster munitions, which is largely made up of hundreds of shaped charge warheads over a pound a piece, similar in size to small rocket launcher rounds, which in studies were found to have 30 times higher effectiveness against vehicles and 8 times the effectiveness against infantry than standard singular warheads. The wide area of dispersion, ability to fill in every nook and cranny and anti-armor effectiveness allows them to potentially take out tanks, and they would make short work of dug in infantry in trenches and armored vehicle formations as well. When just four HIMAR missile systems were sent to ukraine, they managed to reduce Russian artillery fire by three quarters, or 75%, cutting their artillery fire in half and then cutting it in half again, and managed to inflict the single deadliest blow to their air force in decades by attacking an air field while the aircraft were on the ground, hundreds of miles away. It's not hard to imagine what could be done if Ukraine had thousands, or even 10's of thousands of these missiles, which were specifically designed to defeat Russian vehicles and defenses, in particular with each warhead able to penetrate more than 2.5 inches of Russian armor even at high angles (although with modern software it can easily get through 8 inches by coming straight down on the target like a javelin), which will defeat the top armor of most older soviet tanks. Armor, infantry, logistic supply trains, anti-air defenses and artillery would be easy to destroy. The U.S. at one point had nearly 600,000 HIMAR missile systems and the plan was to thin out Russian forces before any ground invasion, and while many were destroyed due to international agreements Russia themselves never followed, our substantial stockpiles of them and launching systems would allow for 10's of thousands of these, and many cruise missiles to be sent to Ukraine. Ukranian forces have had trouble advancing during the counter offensive due to artillery shelling them when they try to clear landmine fields. It will be impossible for Ukraine to make real substantial advancements through Russian-held territory without removing these minefields, which can only be done if they are not being relentlessly bombed by Russian artillery. Artillery is responsible for 70-85% of causalities on both sides, even vehicles, and makes up the bulk of the destruction of this war, including the shelling and destruction of numerous Ukrainian cities. 

The reduction of civilian casualties as well as Removal of Russian forces relies heavily upon defeating Russian artillery, which is the bulk of the Russian's army firepower and key to them holding ground and advancing in Ukraine. Ukraine's tanks, infantry, aircraft and artillery is superior than Russia's, but Russia simply has such an overwhelming volume of artillery that it can beat Ukraine. Sending large volumes of artillery to Ukraine can offset this somewhat, but artillery duels are risky and dangerous and cost lives to perform. What Ukraine needs, more than anything, is anti-artillery, counter battery weapons, to allow the rest of their military to advance, which can only be achieved via long range weapons which outrange artillery. Artillery is the longest range mass produced weapon on the battlefield, which is why it's so hard to defeat. If the enemy can kill you before you get close, what can challenge it? Only even longer range weapons can defeat artillery, which means long range weapon systems. The Fact president Joe Biden and many democrats have blocked this highly specific and important type of weapon in large volumes is astounding to me. I urge everyone involved to release these weapons to Ukraine in the 10's of thousands, enough to take out Russian's few thousand artillery pieces, so that the tide of the war can shift in Ukraine's favor, and the war can eventually be over. 

There is no much point to sending 17 tanks or 50 APCs to Ukraine that will be promptly destroyed by Russian artillery in under a month. These sorts of things will result in Ukraine losing their men's lives to achieve tiny victories or taking back slivers of territory from Russia, while wasting resources from the west. As we can see by how the current six month counter offensive has played out, all of this equipment is useless without a way for Ukraine to gain artillery superiority. The only way for Ukraine to win is to take out Russian artillery, and to do so in an effective and live-saving way requires long range weapons that can be fired from a safe distance. Ukraine pays the price in western hesitancy with blood, and any "escalation" people may fear from Russia certainly cannot be worse than what Russia has already done. What will Russia do, murder civilians, attack the west, try to destroy the west economically and withhold fuel or food or try to destroy our dollar? Perhaps they will blow up pipelines, destroy undersea NATO cables, and threaten our allies if they join or remain in NATO? In the end, the west must be willing to stand up to Russia, to understand western countries have nukes too, and not allow these transgressions to continue, both for basic morality and humanity, and to prevent them from going further in to Europe and the western world. Like after the fall of Afghanistan, we do not want to trigger a cascade of subsequent attacks signaling to the world they can get away with this. The price for such crimes must be so high that it deters nations from even attempting them. The only deterrence to conventional invasions, are conventional weapons. And more importantly, a willingness to use them. If the rest of the world believes were are too weak or too soft to use military power, they will brutally and ruthlessly attack us during our period of hesitation and convince them now is the time to act. We need a win to signal to the world that such transgressions are not allowed and will be severely punished, just as much as to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, in Ukraine. 

More in depth 

I have been hesitant to give my opinion on ending the war in Ukraine or the issue in general given the complexity of the situation and my direct lack of involvement. It would be prudent to avoid making major assumptions about a conflict from a distance, and I hesitate to act as if I have all the answers to all the problems in Ukraine. However given the frequency of people who insist they have the right answers that are obviously wrong and the various Ukraine grifters which have emerged over the years, some of them literally financed by Russia, I've decided to provide my input. The simplest and fastest way to end the war in Ukraine is by taking out Russian artillery. Without Russian artillery, the Russian military is largely ineffectual. The Russian military often been described as an "Artillery army with tanks and human wave charges", and given their recent performance in Ukraine this would seem accurate. Russia has always depended heavily on artillery barrages, be it in WWI, WWII, in Chechnya or any conflict it's been in. Calling it the "King of battle", the Russians put an inordinate amount of emphasis on artillery, and use it in the same way the United States used carpet bombing during WWII, only with even less regard for civilian lives. Russian artillery bombardments killed more civilians than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs in notable shellings of cities during WWII, and unlike the U.S. they did not drop leaflets and try to warn civilians ahead of time. Despite modern JDAM's making precision bombs dropped from the air a reality, going from a 1 mile radius down to just 6-30 feet (2-10 meters) on average, Russia has instead continued it's trend of shelling in to oblivion any area it deems enemy territory. It is also inaccurate even by artillery standards, with Ukraine inflicting higher casualties on the Russians, despite Ukraine using approximately 1/3rd to 1/10th the amount of rounds as the Russians, and using the same type of artillery cannons. It's estimated Russia may have burnt through as much as 12 million of it's prior 17 million soviet stockpile of artillery ammunition, and that's just to gain slivers of territory in Ukraine, of which much of which it promptly lost. The key to stopping Russia in Ukraine is to take out their artillery; without it, their military would crumble. 70-85% of casualties on both sides are due to artillery, Russian artillery is it's only saving grace, and it's key to both preventing Ukrainian advances as well as advancing their own. The Russians also have enormous volumes of artillery from their soviet days, including artillery Ukraine was forced to give them, which only furthers this problem. Russian treaties have forced countries to give up artillery or long range missile systems that could counter them, resulting in an even greater advantage for Russia in this domain. A form of hybrid political warfare. 

Some would argue Ukraine should cede territory to Russia, although this a horrible idea for many reasons. Other than the immoral injustice of Ukraine having to surrender people who are being wholescale slaughtered to the Russians, the Russians open admission that they will not stop until Ukraine is demilitarized, Denazified, and "De-ukranized", implying a removal of over 1/3rd of the Ukranian people in a genocide (a stated objective by Russian media and Putin), it would encourage Russia to continue to gain victories in Ukraine. It needs to be clear to the Russians that Russia cannot win and has been soundly defeated, that it has lost over 300,000 men and half a million injured, for nothing, that it gained nothing and the Russians simply lost in a humiliating defeat. Russia must not be able to stroke it's ego and pride, or else the leaders can go back to their people and say the inordinate price was worth it. If the entire war was for nothing in the minds of the Russian people, than Russia cannot sell it defended Russia or achieved it's stated goals, which, while shifting and changing, would be impossible to deny if Russia was kicked out of Ukraine completely. As long as Russia has an inch of Ukrainian territory, it can sell to it's people the idea of victory, and will never truly stop it's campaign in Ukraine. 

Secondly, Crimea, the Donbass regions and others were surrendered by Ukraine after international opinion decided Ukraine MUST surrender this territory to Russia, and Russia not only invaded multiple times afterwards, but had any easier time doing so. Crimea was a shaping operation, to establish a foothold in Ukraine to launch another invasion. Russia has violated every single peace agreement and ceasefire Ukraine has agreed to, and has violated international law and committed heinous warcrimes from torturing prisoners to attacking civilians, to flooding areas to attacking nuclear reactors, and shelled entire cities in to oblivion. There is no reason to believe Russia would simply not try again, more emboldened and better rested with another ceasefire, as it did after Crimea and it's Donbas invasions more than 8 years prior. Finally, we see what happens to territory Ukraine cedes to Russia. Mariupol, despite surrendering to Russia, was bombed in to oblivion and nearly completely annihilated with 95% of the residents gone and over 95% of the buildings destroyed. Even if the territory was ceded, Russia is set on Deukranizing Ukraine, that is to remove all the Ukrainians. Given the castration and torture of Ukrainian prisoners, the mass rape and murder of woman, the Bucha massacre and kill lists targeting gun club members, bloggers, school teachers and other civilians directly, and the selling in to slavery Ukrainians to Chechnyan terrorists, Russia will not be kind to the people in the captured territories who are currently held hostage and have trouble escaping. The only thing that keeps Russia from murdering all of them is the fear of reprisal from Ukraine who may very well take this territory back one day. If it is handed to Russia, even for a few years, the civilians will likely all be wiped out in Brutal fashion, judging by what Russia has already done. 

We know this from Russia has already done to surrendered areas in Ukraine, the kidnapping and brainwashing and torture of 10's of thousands of Ukrainian children, which is considered so bad there now is an international arrest warrant out for Putin. We also know what the Russians have done in Chechenia by shelling entire cities such as Grozney, and in Georgia and Moldova. There isn't a way to let Russia think it has won that doesn't result in the genocide of millions of people. The only way to defeat Russia, is to defeat them militarily. To do that, Russian artillery must be removed, which both destroys entire cities and turns them in to rubble, and prevents Ukrainian advance. Ukrainian forces are relatively safe when in trenches or underground, but Ukraine loses thousands of men every month. However when they come above ground they have no protection, and artillery casualties may increase by over a 100 fold. When out in the open and stuck in half mile deep landmine fields, Ukranian forces simply cannot advance. The key to victory is taking out Russian artillery. To stop the slaughter of civilians, it is imperative that the west help Ukraine take out their most powerful and deadly weapon, which is the only reason why Russian forces have advanced at all.  

Additional options (covered trenches, drones, and body armor)

As said before, the key problem with the war has been artillery, which is responsible for 70-85% of casualties on both sides. One way to mitigate the advantages to artillery could be better defenses or armor, to allow troops to have a higher chance to survive an attack. This could take the form in better designs of trenches, which Ukraine has already implemented, or simply more reinforced trenches. One thing most infantry trenches lack is a roof, which means if shells do land in the trench or near it, troops are likely going to die. While air-bursting shells produce a lot of casualties, they don't often result in severe injury or death being so far away. But if a full sized artillery shell detonates inside of a trench, the impact is often devastating. While it may take on average 100-200 shells for the Russians to kill one Ukrainians, it takes about 500-1000 to actually land inside the trenches. But when it does, it results in many deaths per shell, as they are extremely large and powerful. It's so powerful that at 10 meters, it's rated to get through much tank armor, or 30mm resistant armor, as fired from the A-10 warthog. STANAG Level V rating requires stopping 30mm rounds or 155mm artillery shrapnel at 10 meters. Artillery often destroys enemy tanks through sheer shock force and through penetrating the weaker parts of the armor such as from the side or rear. If this lands within 30 feet of infantry, it practically guarantees their death. One way to prevent deaths from artillery and large injury figures, with ukraine being low on medical supplies especially after Russia used missiles to blow up civilian hospitals and create civilian casualties to overwhelm them, is simply to provide a roof. A very simple half pipe could be placed over a trench which would allow 5-10 feet of dirt to be placed on top, with pipes being found all over society and buried deep underground. Corrugated concrete, plastic or sheet metal could be use, and would allow the roof of a trench to withstand at least one direct hit from artillery and stop virtually all air-bursting shrapnel, greatly reducing civilian casualties. 

Early on in the war Ukraine attempted to do something like this, but had much of it's construction vehicles get destroyed as they weren't armored and essentially ad hoc units pressed in to service out of desperation. Armored construction vehicles as well as building supplies could be a great help to Ukraine, giving tanks with construction equipment added so these same vehicles could be multipurpose and not overly specific. As tanks and other vehicles are waiting for an offensive, they could be used to reinforce defensive positions. Furthermore the west could likely produce much better roofs for trenches, or even easily submerged full pipes outright, which would make them stronger and easier to deploy. Trenching equipment, trucks which can transport many half pipes and cranes to install them would speed up the process and allow enough to be built under Russian fire to reinforce these positions. The west should likely develop these resources themselves for their own purposes and start building reinforced trenches in the west as well. The best way to build these is over many years while not under Russian artillery fire, so it behooves us to start now. 

Hawaii wildfires - Malice of Government officials, or what exactly happened?

 Hawaii wildfires - Malice of Government officials, or what exactly happened?

It's disturbing to think that innocent people may have died due to failures of the Hawaiian government to take care of them, even worse due to potential malice or deranged beliefs outweighing the values of human life. However, this appears to potentially be the case and it's harder to overlook the deranged incompetence of the Hawaiian government, particularly a number of key government officials in Maoui. In a fire that has now killed over 100 people, destroyed over 2200 homes and is perhaps the U.S.'s deadliest in decades, Hawaii officials refused to air the sirens and give warnings for people who barely escaped with their lives [1][2][3], and many did not, with reports of people only aware the fire was approaching mere minutes in advance by having seen it. With little to no warning, people were forced out of their homes in moments, and many were not so lucky and literally burned alive through a failure to escape. When asked about this, these officials doubled down, defending their decision not to warn them with sirens, and said that these people would have died either way. At the same time, the officials refused to allow for water to put out the fires in people's homes, and even cut the water off in some circumstances, defending this again in multiple press conferences by saying that water is precious and not to be wasted. [4][5][6] What deranged ideology could value water more than human life, isn't water storage entirely meant to keep people alive? One official even claimed to be worried about "water equity", a socialist buzzword about sharing things equally. Another official delayed releasing water for more than 5 hours as wildfires raged. The Maui chief says he doesn’t regret not activating sirens during wildfire, claiming ‘We would not have saved those people’. These reports comes from both left and right-leaning sources, with CNN claiming to have had insider knowledge exclusively that water was turned off, and the new york post referencing statements by other politicians. On top of this, the government is now talking about acquiring the burned lands that were destroyed rather than giving it back to the people that were killed, in some form of opportunistic land grab, which begs the question who stands to profit off of this, and why kind of sick people would allow this to occur? It's hard to imagine how people could have such a callous disregard for life to begin with, and double down in disturbing fashion for their delusional and frankly insane decisions, so is it much of a stretch to say they perhaps wanted this?

The are numerous reports of people who barely escaped with their lives. In a disturbing trend across democrat states, with no firebreaks or controlled burns, massive wildfires seem to be breaking out just like in California, and instead of blaming it on govern meant incompetence and a criminally negligent lack of responsibility, instead they shift the blame to anything else, such as climate change or other erroneous ideas (ignoring that wildfires were under control for more than 50 years), instead of takin any personal responsibility. They have even double and trippled down on many of their statements. Very, very simple measures such as controlled burns to get rid of brush and flammable plants and destroying certain lines of plant life and digging trenches to prevent the fire from spread uncontrollably have been implemented for decades, if not centuries to control fire, and only recently due to eco policies have been removed or scaled back. According to a report by CNN, the Hawaiian authorities ranked fire threats consistently as low and ignored repeated warnings. Incredibly simple, and easy measures to prevent these fires were completely removed, and then no warning was given and water supplies were removed. I have no idea exactly what happened and don't claim to have unlimited knowledge, although I know people who personally were lucky to escape with their lives from the island and are in a state of utter shock and disbelief that they received no warning from authorities. There is a simple question to be asked; what the hell exactly happened? 

There was, indeed malice involved with all of this as they were warned of the signs and refused and now seem to be making a land grab for private property to make in to state property. I personally have no idea if this was in any way on purpose, but the brazen incompetence of the government to ensure basic fire safety or implement these protocols, or even to warn people in advance and shut off their water, AND publicly defend these moves is astonishing. Then more astonishing to talk about acquiring the land for public use, instead of giving it back to the people who lost it. It's difficult to know what is going on and why, but it leaves one begging the question of what the hell just happened, and if it's not exactly what it seems to look like; Government incompetence and malice. 



EDIT: In an almost unbelievable update to the Story, there were apparently government roadblocks to fleeing, and only the people who fled the areas survived and smashed through the barricades, with survivors telling of their account. I am at a loss for words. "Maui residents who disobeyed barricade survived fires: AP" [7][8] 

The implications of the RICO case against Donald Trump

 The implications of the RICO case against Donald Trump

The left will stop at nothing to bombard Donald trump with as many weaponized legal cases as possible; with the most obvious attempts failing, they're floundering, trying to use newly modified state laws and state prosecutors who have egregiously let guilty people go while prosecuting obviously innocent people. Just like cases such as with Kyle Rittenhouse or the McCloskey's, there has been a growing and worrying effort to circumvent the written law and use as subjectively interpreted statutes as possible to target people the left doesn't like, facts be damned. The weaponization of the legal system against their political opponents and in favor of up to and including murderers is nothing particularly new, such as a Kathy Hochul appointed prosecutor letting someone who tried to assassinate her chief political opponent running for governor with a knife live on television out the next day (and the republican governor candidate only lost by 2%), or for someone who ran over a Republican 18 year old out the next day in New York, and the attacks on people such as Kyle Rittenhouse and the like, however these types of egregious cases have finally made it to the upper echelons of Republican politicians, now including Donald Trump. The Rico case has not only sought to prosecute Trump and his family, but most absurd his lawyers and anyone who has tried to defend him publicly, claiming that by mere words alone, largely on twitter, that they are a part of some kind of conspiracy to bring legal challenges to the vote, which is not itself even a crime. These state charges were brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, an elected Democrat who has been investigating Trump since 2021. They are aimed at not only Donald Trump but in an egregious 1st amendment violation, people who merely gave him legal advice such as Mark Meadows, and his lawyers who should be additionally protected as lawyers a well as from merely providing legal advice to Trump. 

Clearly enraged by Trump's challenging of the election, such as something Al Gore did after Bush, or the democrats and Hillary did with Trump in his first election claiming that Russians "hacked" the election, actual news headlines, they've decided to prosecute him over literal words, a not only ridiculous infringement of freedom of speech, but a baseless argument for a case. But regardless of how flimsy or absurd any of the charges are against Trump and how obviously politically motivated it is, there is a chance these charges may succeed. It only requires a jury and a judge to sign off on it, and if they can find enough jurors and a judge who hates trump enough, and many see him as a nazi white supremacist fascist second coming of Hitler, it wouldn't be impossible to prosecute him even if such a statute is easily challenged in the supreme court or obviously illegal in their own state courts. It actually would be quite easy enough to find 11 democrats in Georgia who hate Trump enough to see him thrown in prison no matter the charge. We've even had public statements by prior jurors saying as much themselves in other cases, and the current Judge and prosecutor in the case both worked together and were appointed by Democrats. And the reason Georgia was likely chosen over all over states, is that the governor is incapable of pardoning Trump and a review board would need a minimum of 5 years to review the case against him or any of his people, and the RICO statute requires a mandatory 5 years in prison. It also doesn't require that Trump break any laws, but rather than they can find a way to tie the supposed and unconvicted crimes of other people to Trump by insisting his tweets constitute part of a conspiracy, and then impart the mandatory 5 year unpardonable state sentence against Trump, despite his supposed federal crimes. 

Even if the Democrats fail to prosecute him, they are likely to throw him in prison, gaining a political victory by smearing him as guilty, and humiliating him by forcing him to go jail and that would entail, including being put in with a general crowd that may quickly attack him and finger printing him. The media storm that will ensue and the damage it will do to him in the polls, combined with the chunk of flesh they will get from him, all planned out a single day in advance of the Republican debate, will be enough to do it's damage. Even if he fails to be arrested or indicted, even if the charges are dropped quickly, even if the Supreme court intervenes, the damage to Trump's political reputation will be done and the left will have a field day patting themselves on the back and celebrating explosively about how horrific they are. They'll need rotor cuff surgery for how much they'll be patting themselves on the back for destroying this country and violating every thing this country stands for when it comes to freedom and democracy. The left and many moderates will presume guilt merely by his arrest, in a grotesque display of political power. There is little chance they would stop at Trump, and by going after his lawyers are already establishing the precedent that other Republicans will be targeted merely for helping not just Trump, but anyone Republican they don't like. 

Trump may refuse to surrender himself, but even this could be worse, showing Trump is somehow derelict and violating the law and be used as an attempt to go after him in congress or federal and prevent him from running for the presidency, even though it's a state law and should not apply federally to him in another state, they will try to go after him anyways. There is a chance that federal troops will be sent in to states to try and capture Trump, and a chance there will be people fighting back. This could be the start of some kind of civil war and the degredation of our entire political system, itself. What happens when a showdown between state police or civilians stand off with the federal police? Or when Georgia state police attack Floridian one's? They're looking, the left is looking for an excuse to cause this. With how many cities burned down due to left-wing militia groups, and how many people have been killed but prosecutors dropped the cases, how easy it would be to get people to fight in Georgia? You may even see angry Trump supporters get arrested or do crimes in anger or out of desperation, resulting in a crack down on them for their naturally angry reactions to Trump's arrest, despite them ignoring the left wing violence entirely. Or perhaps sacrificing these left-wing actors if push come to shove. 

So what are the charges people are charged with? The majority of them are Trump's lawyers, in a claim they are part of a conspiracy not only for being lawyers, but providing any legal advice to him at all. These individuals are directly named in a RICO case that presumes that "trying to overturn the 2020 election" is somehow itself a crime. Numerous challenges and allegation of fraud and cheating have occurred in this country, be with Al Gore vs. Bush, democrats against Trump in 2016 by claiming Russia hacked the election, or Stacey Abrams in Georgia itself. None of this had criminal charges brought against them, nor can they as it is not illegal to merely have a different opinion. Even more insane than that, people who merely gave Trump legal advice are being indicted, which is not itself a crime and never was. Jenna Ellis was indicted simply for being Trump's lawyer, with little to no actual accusations brought forward. Giuliani is being charged simply for having given Trump legal advice, while Mark Meadows wasn't even a Trump attorney and was just a member of his administration. However virtually all of the lawyers defending him have a first amendment right to provide legal advice, and none of this is a crime in any sensible way. The RICO charge presupposes guilt and a crime and therefore criminals other, otherwise non criminal acts, which itself is already dubious.  The theory of the indictment is that the speech of the president and the falsehoods of the president were part of a general effort to "steal" the election. This in and of itself makes absolutely no sense, but nonetheless freedom of speech does not stop being legal. 

Because a case of this type has never been tried, it would be easy to dismiss it solely on these grounds, but it's also difficult to have case precedence that would get it automatically dismissed. Obviously something like this is not even a crime, so it becomes impossible to defend against. How does one prove they are innocent of things which are not even crimes, by being the lawyer to someone who challenged the 2020 election, and couldn't this make nearly half the country criminals? Would it even matter? The best way to solve this is a supreme court intervention, however by it being explicitly state charges, although trying to do federal charges, it makes it much more difficult to stop simply by being so absurd. If Trump simply resists, it may make him an actual criminal, but if he doesn't they will be able to use the case against him and hang it over his head his entire election. It's unbelievable and horrific that this may be the clearest sign of political weaponization we have ever seen. 

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. It was the time that tried men's souls.

 It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. It was the time that tried men's souls. 

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. It was a time of profound intelligence and strength, and ignorance and weakness. It was a time of profound bravery and courage, and profound cowardice and shame. It was a time of almost infinite, unfathomable knowledge, available at everyone's fingertips. Yet it was a time of profound censorship and ignorance. Nearly unlimited information, soured by lies, trivial matters, and gossip. All the libraries in the world, all the information humanity had acquired, thrust upon us, and yet, rejected by many, who simply dug deeper in to their refuge, seeking solace in their own ignorance. The truth, where it was permitted, was drowned in a deluge of misinformation, lies and emptiness, devoid of any meaning. The vapid, substanceless nature of it's rot, infesting every social media company and forum with it's viciously cruel yet painfully saccharine coating. A time of great moral crusades to do evil, to cancel others, to hurt and censor, in the name of social justice, which it was anything but. To expose children to horrifying acts. To expose us all to the horrors of the world, to gore and violence and crime, despite the now unlimited access to it's beauty. To dig up the dark underbelly and ignore all that was good in the world, to take refuge in cynicism and ignorance. The deep dark bliss of hating all and never having to commit to anything, pretending one was above it all, both somehow in control of everything and yet totally helpless. To be the eternal victim, of unlimited strength to bully others. A time when abusers pretended to be victims, monsters pretended to be saints, and a time when we were never more connected around the world, and yet never more lonely. We were all anonymous, and yet had no privacy, our information public to all. Our privacy a precious asset, that we freely gave away. 

Despite being the best time in human history, with nearly unlimited food, water, and resources available by comparison to humanity's early days out in the great plains or hiding in caves, it was a time of great repression and suppression, of people, of society and the truth. A time of the greatest pleasures, and the worst of pains. It was the best of times, and it was the worst of times. How odd the paradox we lived in. The year was, 2023. How profoundly things had changed in the last century, and perhaps even more profound, how profound it was that they had stayed the same. It seemed almost inevitable that war would happen, in such peaceful times. Like crabs in a bucket, misery wanted company. This was the curse of our generation. The profound depression that was our lives, in the best time it had ever been to be alive. That what we had created had planted the seeds to destroy itself, or created the conditions by where those who never truly had to suffer did not know what real suffering was, and thus by mistake had recreated it. The more we had, the less we seemed we could enjoy it. We would have to learn, from those unhappy times, those desperate times, when very civilizations stood to be destroyed by war or a bad winter, ironically, how to be happy. It was a tremendous irony that our own lack of contentness with how good we had it, was destroying us. 

Democrats and the Moral panics; It actually wasn't the right-wing trying to ban video games or engaged in most moral panics in the 90's

 Democrats and the Moral panics

Much ado has been made of the moral panics of the 80's and 90's, most of them exaggerated. They generally were not as large or widespread as many believe, and the fact they exist as a comparison to a more reasonable position an ordinary person would hold by itself is proof of this. Moral panics are not always a bad thing and can easily lead to good results, however in some cases they clearly went overboard even when good intentions were present. They took many forms and had many different humorous and often publicly debated outcomes. What is particularly startling and has been concerning to me as of late, however, is the revisionist history surrounding these moral panics, that seem to have penetrated the public consciousness so well most people actually feel as if they remember pivotal events that never occurred. For example, a common sentiment is that either nearly everyone in society partook in them back in the day, despite few believing in it at the time aside from Fringe cults, or that certain groups are given blame that has almost no association with them, such as an entire Church or entire political wings. None is so dramatic in this association than the supposed "Christian Right-Wing", which apparently wanted to do everything from ban video games, Dungeons and Dragons, Hollywood movies, any form of Sex, or Guns, or contradictingly wanted to legalize all guns, partook in weird sex cults, and wanted to harm our children with vile depictions of violence. Most people, even the Conservatives themselves, often times make the claim that the Conservatives of the 90's, frequently referred to as Neocons, wanted to "ban everything", or at least everything they didn't approve of. 

However, these particular issues are falsely blamed on the right-wing, who objectively in congress and in states voted against their censure or banning, while the Democrats supported them, and generally left-wing parties around the world. Kamala Harris for example lost the famous supreme court case revolving around laws that tried to place restrictions on violent video games in California, and served as as landmark supreme court case, a case she lost while serving as Attorney general of California and acted upon California's wishes. The entire state of California voted for these laws, a predominately democrat state with predominately democrat legislators, and yet many believe it was Republicans who wanted to ban video games. If congressional records are checked it becomes clear Republicans overwhelmingly voted against banning violent video games or media with guns such as in hollywood movies, while the Democrats voted in favor of it. Many will claim that Fox news amplified messages to ban video games during the 1993-1994 hearings to regulate violent video games, however they would not exist until 1996. In fact many claim to have specifically heard right-wing politicians or church leaders claiming they wanted to ban video games, however most while "Definitely certain" on these memories, cannot recall a single particular detail about them, or which individual was even involved, they only feel they "know" that this "certainly" happened. The 1993-1994 hearings were lead by Senator Lieberman (Al Gore's Vice presidential pick for the upcoming election), and Herb Kohl (Another democrat who was the richest man to ever serve in the senate and a proponent of big business), and resulted in very little actual government action, despite attempts to do so by the democrats at the time, including Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton (Bill Clinton who was the president with Al Gore as his vice president, the two most powerful democrats in office at the time), Hillary clinton who would go on in the early 2000's to try to ban guns and video games with Liebermen, again. In almost every subsequent attempt to regulate video games to date, it almost always has been by the left, even worldwide, with the same hearings often being tied to other English speaking countries such as Canada or the UK where international laws were attempted to be created but also failed. 

Yet if asked, almost every person will claim that it was the right-wing who wanted to ban video games and everything else, including from the right-wing. In fact, many claim to have hyper-specific memories of these events, that they can never recall and have no details of, that they aggressively insist are true. Why? For the most part, these were political concepts that were retroactively engineered and emplaced in to the heads of the general public, who unknowingly and passively absorbed ideas that would suit a political narrative by many in the media. Without any kind of counterbalance or contradiction, often because the ideas were subtly implied, and the fact the media is only 7% Republican, it quickly became "fact" in the public mind, despite being so easily disprovable. Many even formed fake memories of themselves witnessing rightwing figures calling for the ban, despite no major event like this ever occurring. The confusion of the events and vague recollections was mixed with false information, a phenomena common in eyewitnesses of crimes or UFO's, who claim they are certain they remember something that is only jarred out of their memory by seeing a photo or video of the event directly. Investigators are careful not to implant ideas in to victims heads when they are being interviewed as, by the mere power of suggestion, these people can invent these scenarios in their head, and truly believe they are real, despite provably never having taken place (such as proven by video cameras). People may remember that their victimizers were larger in number (I.E. one attacker becomes four), had different skin and hair colors, had different ages, and were even different genders, going so far as to plug movie characters in to these positions with the same faces and attire, or even believing aliens abducted them instead of kidnappers. Memory associations are formed that even victims of crime who's testimony could lead to the arrest of people, simply cannot shake. While this is more frequent in people during traumatic events to rewrite memories in this way, it can occur to anyone and everyone, and I believe disturbingly millions of people have been mislead in this way, perhaps deliberately, to sell a particular political narrative. The implications of this are staggering, but the mass formation of false memories is both intriguing, and important to pinpoint and explain far larger problems facing our society today. Combatting public myths is important to change peoples minds politically, and the implications of political decisions being made for an entire country based solely on myths that could prove disastrous could be staggering. 

Violent Video games

There are a few landmark supreme court decisions and congressional decisions that deal explicitly with video games, usually overlapping with crime bills and attempts to regulate hollywood as well, however these virtually all were proposed predominately by and voted in favor of by Democrats, and opposed by Republicans. 

Some will then go on to claim, that, while Republican politicians in office may have voted overwhelmingly against banning video games, 

Satanic Panic

Mandela effect and memory manipulation

A primary purpose of this article is to discuss directly the effects of memory manipulation and mass formation of false beliefs or even mass pyschosis, however the precursor is necessary to concretely prove that everyone imagined Fox news hosts or Conservatives wanting to ban video games and other things. [...] What makes the Mendela effect so compelling for my argument and particular views and relevant to the discussion, is not merely that many people assumed that Mendela was dead, but that political figures milked his death and claimed to have been at their funeral in numerous 

So what happened when they were exposed as the obvious liars they were? They doubled down. Not a single one lost election. And so in the public consciousness, millions, if not perhaps even billions were lead to believe an obvious lie to save face, and the memories of millions were distorted in live action merely to serve a political narrative. If such false memories could be instilled in to the minds of millions with such rapid ease, what other ideas could these people implant in to the heads of the populace, ingrained in to the public consciousness, that could just as easily manipulate them? I contend these are not the only and last times these events have happened, in fact I can think of dozens of examples too long to list, that serve as pillars or cornerstones of people's views, that are completely fabricated. 

Eyewitness testimony 

Some various myths

WMD's in iraq, millions killed in afghanistan, Rosa parks was a plant and staged, parties switching, Clarifying public statements George Bush legalizing stem cell research, George bush and hydroxychlorquine 

Biden's connections to the Russians

Biden's connections to the Russians 

In his first week in office, Biden removed most trade and oil sanctions off of Qatar, Iran, and Russia, removed the sanctions on completing the Nordstream oil pipeline, started selling our strategic oil reserves to China and Russia, forced American companies to buy Russian oil (going up to 10% of our supply at one point) and shut down the U.S.'s own domestic and allied oil pipelines, including a partnership with Canada in the keystone pipeline. As a consequence of this, gas prices soared, from a 1.30 to up to 5-7 dollars in some cases, and nearly everything in U.S. life became more expensive, as energy and in particular oil is required to transport virtually all goods in vehicles, as well as heat or cool them potentially. Russia made a tremendous profit, and nearly a year later, invaded Ukraine. This push towards reliance on Russian oil and gas, including in the U.S. but also overseas, made the EU vulnerable to Russian sanctions and was designed to put leverage on them to bend to Russia's will, which could have been alleviated in part had the U.S. sent our strategic oil reserve to Europe instead of to China or Russia, let alone right before a major war. Roughly 45% of Europe's gas and oil comes from Russia, and it is close to 100% in some countries, meaning they would likely freeze in the winter or suffer massive civilian losses should they choose to continue sanctioning Russia or helping Ukraine. 

This decisions are inexplicable, and Republican attempts to ban sending our strategic oil reserves to China and Russia were blocked by not only Biden, but the entire democrat party, who almost unanimously voted to keep sending it overseas even after a war had broken out. Further, Biden blocked attempts to stop buying Russian oil even while selling our reserves, and even tried to increase reliance on oil from Venezuela and Qatar, both Russian allies, as well as a failed attempt at Saudi Arabia who is not explicitly a Russian ally, but nonetheless is not sending large volumes of oil to Europe. The mere removal of oil from these international sources instead of producing it ourselves means Europe will be without their oil, which is closer in proximity and therefore easier to provide in large volumes over pipelines. He withdrew American troops from Ukraine on February 12th, twelve days before Russia would invade on February 24th despite the intelligence communities warning of an impending war, allowed for an oil pipeline to bypass Ukraine entirely to not be dependent on Ukraine to send oil to Europe, and blocked equipment from going to Ukraine while in office, both in 2014 during the Crimean invasion and again in 2022, when he was in office both times. Despite the political unpopularity of this, he continued, even after angering his own voting base and foreign countries. 

A simple question, is, why? What possible motive could Biden have other than an attempt to help out the Russians? It is well known he has financial ties to Russia, and an ideological view in favor of the Russians, but was he willing to sabotage his own and other countries for their benefit? At the same time, when the war in Ukraine broke out, he blocked long range missile systems including the HIMARS system, aircraft, tanks, and IFV's from going to Ukraine, which were and are seen as crucial for winning the war, and simultaneously blocked further aid from being sent, once again for no reason against the will of over 90% of the american public, if we account for congress's voting approval. Bipartisan approval like this for any bill is rare, and it is shocking to see the president illegally block aid for no clearly explainable reason. Months after the war had started, which was predicted to be lost in under three days given how dire the circumstances were, Biden finally relented, sending watered down HIMARS systems to Ukraine without long range capabilities, a clear slap in the face to the Ukranians. To show you the importance of these systems, with just four HIMARS systems delivered from the UK, Ukraine managed to cut Russian artillery bombardment down to just 1/4 the level, or from X number of shells a day to X. This doesn't just mean defeating the Russians in battle, of which immediately after this the Ukrainians were capable of doing a counter offensive. It means saving lives, as Russia has shelled entire cities to rubble, killing 10's of thousands of people in the war. Every day artillery keeps shelling Ukraine, more civilians die, more Ukranian soldiers die, and Ukraine gets closer to losing a war with an adversary who openly states via Pravda news, a state owned news agency of Russia (better known as a propaganda outlet), their goal is to "De-ukranize Ukraine", or to remove 1/3rd of the Ukrainian population. A genocide not seen on this scale from the Russians since the similiar Holomodor in Ukraine, in the 1930's, which killed nearly 10 million people. 

Understanding the gravity of the situation and what is on the table, with numerous mass graves being found of largely civilians in areas the Russians captured but were later liberated, such as the Bucha massacre, why would Biden delay for nearly 8-10 months sending hardly anything other than a tiny amount of inconsequential weapons to Ukraine to defend themselves? Sending these weapons to Ukraine cost the U.S. tax payers nothing as they are already paid for, and largely in unused stockpiles, that's only existing purpose would to be used in case of a Russian invasion to thin out Russian forces (which they're being used for, now), and all of congress and the international community is behind supporting them being sent to Ukraine. So why be the sole individual to block it, and then give no explanation and refuse to take questions from the media? Considering his financial ties to Russia and corruption in Ukraine, outed by Ukrainian President Zelenskey himself, largely seen as a hero in this war, it's hard to believe this is some kind of mistake. I hardly believe in laser-guided coincidences as it is, that manage to fail with such spectacular precision, however leaks of the Biden family's financial transactions both through court documents and his labtop, and leaked phone calls, have revealed much of Biden's financial connections to Russia and Russians who were illegally operating in Ukraine, that he helped to support. Further, his prior actions in Afghanistan show an eerily similiar trend, where he helps out the Russian-backed Taliban (of which Russia stores all their gold and supplied all their weapons), again, against all of his military and intelligence advisors advice, and with no obvious reason given, once again committing several illegal acts by doing so, many of which have now been successfully disputed in court. Sadly while the Biden administration may suffer lawsuits, Biden himself will likely never see time in prison, at least not any time soon for these actions, but we can understand what has happened and the damage it has caused. 

Biden's connections to the Russians 

Biden has a long standing ideological support for the Russians. He gave numerous speeches in congress praising and supporting them, and said they were "not out to eat our lunch", the same with China, intending to indicate that they were not a threat. In 1992, Biden wrote an article called "How I learned to love the New World Order", where he praises China and Russia, and demands a larger influence of them in the United Nations, a shrinking of the U.S. military weapons procurement and budget, and calls them a "Maverick" of weapons trafficking, suggesting it's a good thing they are arming America's enemy and that we should shrink from the world stage and let China and Russia handle things. He is also a socialist who has called for nationalizing America's oil supply, like Russia has done, among other similiar actions, with a considerable overlap in beliefs. 

While these are open statements that can be easily fact checked and proven, what has been less well known is his own personal financial connections to the Russians. Granted, ideological favoritism towards Russia and against Ukraine is likely a bigger influence on his views, but financial connections prove illicit and licit deals with the Russians,