While Hunter Biden is busy scrubbing his image on social media… Justin Bieber just dropped a nuke that changes everything. In a raw Instagram confession last night, Bieber revealed he’s been living with HIV — [...]
The post Justin Bieber Reveals He is ‘Living With HIV’ After Being ‘Violated’ By Hunter Biden in 2009 appeared first on The People's Voice.
Erika Frantzve-Kirk thought she could pull it off. Fresh widow, pockets stuffed with Turning Point USA millions, eyes locked on lawless Chicago like a hawk circling the playground. She was fixated on building a mega-orphanage. State-of-the-art, [...]
The post TPUSA Insider: Erika Kirk Recruited to Traffic Children to Kushner’s New Elite ‘Pedo Island’ appeared first on The People's Voice.
Homer’s Odyssey tells the tale of Odysseus returning to his home after the Trojan War. For a variety of reasons, the trip is not an easy one. It takes him a full ten years to return home.
But the journey from Troy to Ithaca, Odysseus’ home island, should not have been too difficult and certainly not a ten-year trip. For this reason, some researchers have claimed that Odysseus actually traveled outside of the Mediterranean. There is even the suggestion that he traveled to Ireland.
In the Odyssey, one of the places Odysseus visits is an island called Ogygia. This was the home of the nymph Calypso, who offers Odysseus immortality if he agrees to marry her. She refuses to let him leave otherwise. The gods intervene and force Calypso to release him. Hence, after seven years on the island, Odysseus builds a raft and sails away.
The location of Ogygia has been the subject of considerable speculation. According to Homer’s account, the island is a place of beautiful meadows, fountains, woods, and various types of birds. However, none of this is particularly helpful. All sorts of islands could fit this description.
In ancient times, various suggestions were made as to where Ogygia might actually be located. More recently, some scholars have argued that Ogygia is identical to Ireland. If this identification is correct, this would mean that Odysseus spent seven years in Ireland.
The most notable scholar to have come to this conclusion was Roderick O’Flaherty. In 1685, he used the name ‘Ogygia’ as a synonym for Ireland in the title of one of his books. It was called: Ogygia: Or a Chronological Account of Irish Events.
One of the key pieces of evidence used to support the identification of Ireland as Ogygia is a passage written by Plutarch, a historian of the first century CE. He wrote about Homer’s account of Ogygia in conjunction to other additional information he provided. According to Plutarch, Ogygia was situated to the west of Britain, which is where Ireland is in fact located.
Additionally, Plutarch tells us that Ogygia was five thousand stadia away from the ‘great continent’ which surrounded the ‘great sea.’ Several scholars have suggested that this ‘great continent’ actually refers to America. Examples include Wilhelm von Christ, an eighteenth-century German scholar, and Johannes Kepler, a sixteenth-century German scholar.
If the ‘great continent’ mentioned by Plutarch really was America, then that would mean that Ogygia was actually an island somewhere between Britain and America. Since Plutarch says that Ogygia was five thousand stadia from the great continent but only several days distant from Britain, this indicates that it was much closer to Britain than to America. Therefore, Ireland would seem to be a good match.
While Ireland does match Plutarch’s basic description, there are certain issues with this identification. For one thing, Ireland is not five thousand stadia from America. This distance would be the equivalent of a little over nine hundred kilometers. Nevertheless, the distance between Ireland and America is about three thousand kilometers.
Hence, the distance specified by Plutarch means that Ireland is in fact not Ogygia, if America was indeed the ‘great continent’ to which he referred. Clearly, however, there is no other option for the great continent that would fit the passage.
Another problem is that Plutarch states that it takes five days of sailing to travel between Britain and Ogygia. This would indicate an island much further west than Ireland because it would barely take two days of sailing to reach Ireland from the furthest part of the western side of Britain.
In reality, there is no island which is exactly five days’ sailing away from Britain and also five thousand stadia away from America. The measurements simply do not correspond to any real location.
Perhaps, then, some researchers could use this as evidence that the measurements must be incorrect, meaning that Ireland could still be the intended location. Alternatively, it could of course also mean that Plutarch was not really describing an actual location at all.
Greek fire was the mysterious weapon used by the Byzantines to destroy enemies and prospective invaders, keeping the Empire strong and awe-inspiring.
The Byzantine liquid fire that protected the Empire was a terror-inspiring incendiary weapon that protected the Empire for centuries. Widely known as Greek Fire, this mighty weapon enabled the Byzantine Empire to survive and maintain its power through many attacks from various enemies.
The weapon could be compared to the modern day flame-thrower. To the enemy in Byzantine times, it looked like a machine spewing destructive fire from hell. However, its exact origin remains unclear, and the recipe for this formidable weapon is still unknown, puzzling scientists and historians.
Records suggest Greek fire contained a mix of petroleum, quicklime, and other unknown ingredients. This potent combination is believed to have made it one of the most flammable and dangerous substances of its time. What was truly amazing about the Byzantine liquid fire weapon was that it continued to burn on water and was practically impossible to put out with medieval means.
It helped the Empire maintain sovereignty over the mass land it occupied, spanning all of Southern Europe, North Africa, and Asia Minor. The weapon’s impact on the course of history is undeniable. It played a key role in the defense of Constantinople and the preservation of the Byzantine Empire.
Fire as a weapon had been used for centuries but never in such a sophisticated and destructive means as the Greek fire (or Υγρόν πυρ – Hygron pyr, as it was referred to in Greek). It was the Crusaders who referred to it as Greek fire or “liquid fire,” “Roman fire,” or “sea fire.” It was a significant weapon that never ceased to terrify the enemy.
This innovative weapon would fire massive flames in a continuous jet, burning a trail of destruction in its path that was nearly impossible to extinguish. When it came to naval warfare, it was a weapon that was impossible for the enemy to defend their ships from. Yet, the exact recipe for the liquid fire substances the Byzantines used remains a mystery to this day.
The Greek fire cannon-like machine was created in the seventh century. It most likely was the invention of Kallinikos of Heliopolis, a Jewish architect who fled from Syria to Constantinople. It was between 674 and 678 when the Byzantine Empire was attacked by the Islamic fleet of the Umayyad caliphate that had already taken over parts of Syria.
Concerned about an Islamic attack against Constantinople, Kallinikos experimented with a variety of materials until he discovered a mix for an incendiary weapon. Kallinikos sent the formula to the Byzantine emperor, and authorities developed a siphon that operated somewhat like a syringe, propelling the fiery concoction toward enemy ships.
Emperor Constantine IV reluctantly ordered the use of Greek fire to destroy the Umayyad fleet. However, the Byzantine weapon was very successful. According to historian Kelly DeVries and his book Medieval Military Technology, it was the first reported use of an incendiary weapon in battle.
Some historians believe the reason the recipe for liquid fire remains unknown is because Byzantine emperors wanted to keep it a state secret, never to fall into the hands of the enemy. The vast Empire was surrounded by numerous enemies coveting its lands. Liquid fire was a potent deterrent to any army that would think of invading.
Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus warned his son Romanos II to not reveal the recipe “and not to prepare this fire but for Christians, and only in the imperial city.”
Anna Komnene, daughter of Emperor Alexios I Komnenos (r. 1081-1118) and a historian, wrote about the recipe for Greek fire:
This fire is made by the following arts: From the pine and certain such evergreen trees, inflammable resin is collected. This is rubbed with sulfur and put into tubes of reed, and is blown by men using it with violent and continuous breath. Then in this manner it meets the fire on the tip and catches light and falls like a fiery whirlwind on the faces of the enemies.
It was not that straight-forward, of course. Otherwise, it would be easy for the enemy to recreate the fiery weapon. It seems indeed that the Byzantines intended to keep the process of creating the liquid fire top secret, as no friend or enemy ever managed to gain insight into this so as to construct their own similar weapon.
In his book, Devries explains that Greek fire can refer to three different weapons: firstly, a fiery liquid pumped out of a nozzle; secondly, a liquid weapon that was filled in small grenades; and thirdly, a solid incendiary probably based on gunpowder.
The third is impossible to have been used in Byzantium. Its reported use started in the fourteenth century in Western Europe. However, there are Byzantine era depictions of men carrying hand-held tubes spitting fire that look even more like modern flame-throwers.
In fact, Greek fire was rarely used except primarily in naval battles, as the apparatus was complicated and required technically equipped handlers. Furthermore, it was dangerous to have an incendiary mechanism on a wooden ship.
In 727, Emperor Leo sent a fleet to burn that of Hellas and Cyclades, who had been revolting against him. In 941, a Rus naval raid from Kiev across the Black Sea was stopped, and their fleet was annihilated by the Byzantines.
Reportedly, in the eleventh century, Viking Ingvar the Far Travelled encountered ships equipped with the weapon, which he described as “a brass (or bronze) tube and from it flew much fire against one ship, and it burned up in a short time so that all of it became white ashes…”
However, by the end of the twelfth century and the Angeloi emperors, the Empire started to decline, losing more and more land to the rising Ottoman Empire. As Byzantium began to fade, so did the use of Greek fire until it became but a simple chapter in the great history of the Byzantine Empire.
This article was originally published by Truthout on June 08, 2026. It is shared here under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license.
What happens to higher education when institutions dedicated to critical thought increasingly align themselves with the logics of war, surveillance, and national security? Unless we mount an organized resistance, we may viscerally experience the answer to this question all too soon.
We are already watching this transformation play out in both the U.S. and Canada as universities face growing pressure to align their missions, research agendas, and pedagogical practices with the values, priorities, and imperatives of a society increasingly organized around the logic of war.
Militarized policies, values, identities, and modes of governance no longer merely creep into U.S. society. Under the Trump administration, they increasingly define it. Militarization now extends far beyond the battlefield, reshaping everyday life, public institutions, and the very meaning of citizenship. War is celebrated as a moral imperative, often wrapped in the language of religious righteousness and white Christian nationalism. Due process gives way to abductions and arbitrary detention, dissent is met with threats and repression, soldiers occupy U.S. cities, and political violence is normalized through a steady stream of incendiary rhetoric and state-sponsored spectacles that glorify force, exclusion, and domination. Democratic ideals are displaced by a culture of fear, manufactured insecurity, and the belief that the nation is besieged by enemies both within and beyond its borders — largely immigrants and people of color.
In this militarized landscape, critical thought is derided, informed judgment is replaced by ideological conformity, and institutions charged with nurturing democratic agency increasingly come under attack. This fusion of militarism, toxic masculinity, religious fundamentalism, and white nationalist politics functions as a powerful form of public pedagogy, producing the authoritarian values, identities, and modes of agency that have historically provided the cultural foundations for fascist politics.
The late U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of the dangers posed by what he called the “military-industrial-academic complex.” In an earlier draft of his famous 1961 farewell address on the military-industrial complex, Eisenhower included the word “academic,” recognizing that universities could become deeply entangled with military power, corporate interests, and state security agendas in ways that threatened their intellectual independence and democratic mission.
This warning extends to countries that increasingly live in the shadow of the U.S.’s expanding warfare state and its militarized culture. For instance, against an increasingly militarized global order, the Canadian government has unveiled an expansive “Defence Industrial Strategy” backed by 81.8 billion Canadian dollars (around 60 billion in U.S. dollars) in new defense spending in Budget 2025, including 6.6 billion Canadian dollars devoted specifically to expanding the country’s defense-industrial infrastructure. The strategy marks the largest long-term expansion of Canada’s military economy since the Second World War.
What once appeared to be limited partnerships between North American universities and defense industries has evolved into a far broader transformation of higher education itself. As Canada dramatically expands military spending through its Defence Industrial Strategy, universities are increasingly being drawn into the orbit of defense priorities. Federal initiatives encourage partnerships between universities, defense contractors, and government agencies in fields such as artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, quantum computing, autonomous systems, and advanced surveillance technologies. Research funding is increasingly directed toward projects framed around national security, defense innovation, and military competitiveness. As these priorities gain influence, higher education is being reshaped by the social logics of militarization, technological control, and permanent security, altering not only what knowledge is produced but also the purposes to which it is put, raising urgent questions about the future of the university as a democratic public sphere.
Militarized knowledge production blurs the line between education and warfare, transforming universities into laboratories for the development of technologies whose ultimate purpose is often surveillance, social control, and lethal violence.
The growing use of drones and AI-driven warfare systems is not simply a military development. It signals a broader transformation in how research and knowledge are produced, funded, and valued. As universities deepen their involvement in military research, fields ranging from artificial intelligence and data analytics to robotics and cybersecurity are increasingly organized around the imperatives of surveillance, security, and warfare. AI technologies are already being deployed by state agencies to monitor migrants, journalists, activists, and political dissidents, while drones have revolutionized warfare by making it cheaper, more remote, and less accountable. Under such conditions, knowledge is not viewed primarily as a public good serving democratic life. Instead, it is increasingly organized around military imperatives of prediction, control, targeting, and domination. The result is a form of militarized knowledge production that blurs the line between education and warfare, transforming universities into laboratories for the development of technologies whose ultimate purpose is often surveillance, social control, and lethal violence.
Michael S. Sherry rightly argues that in an age in which state power is increasingly organized through militarized values and security logics, military culture now shapes not only state policy but “broad areas of national life.” As David Theo Goldberg argues, militarization no longer operates only through armies and weapons systems. It increasingly shapes culture, technology, modes of governance, and everyday life. As Goldberg observes:
The military is not just a fighting machine…. It serves and socializes. It hands down to society, as big brother might, its more or less perfected goods, from gunpowder to guns, computing to information management … In short, while militarily produced instruments might be retooled to other, broader social purposes, the military shapes pretty much the entire range of social production from commodities to culture, social goods to social theory.
The implications for higher education are profound. Militarization does not simply reshape culture, technology, and governance. It also reorganizes the production of knowledge itself, aligning university research with the imperatives of surveillance, security, and warfare while legitimating authoritarian forms of power. The rapid expansion of artificial intelligence research tied to military and surveillance applications deepens these dangers. Universities are increasingly helping to develop technologies used for predictive policing, automated warfare, mass surveillance, and forms of digital authoritarianism that blur the line between security and repression. Such developments are routinely justified in the language of innovation, efficiency, and national security, yet they raise profound ethical questions about the role of higher education in designing technologies that deepen inequality, expand state violence, erode civil liberties, and facilitate the killing of civilians, including children, in conflicts largely removed from public scrutiny.
The militarization of the university is not simply a matter of research contracts or funding priorities. It is pedagogical, cultural, and deeply political.
The militarization of the university is not simply a matter of research contracts or funding priorities. It is pedagogical, cultural, and deeply political. Universities do more than train workers; they shape civic identities, ethical sensibilities, and the capacity for democratic agency itself. When higher education embraces military partnerships and military-driven research agendas, it legitimates a worldview in which security eclipses justice, technological efficiency displaces ethical reflection, and dissent is recast as a threat rather than a democratic necessity.
As militarization becomes woven into the fabric of political culture, universities increasingly reorganize knowledge, research priorities, and technological innovation around the assumptions of permanent conflict, geopolitical competition, and security management. In doing so, higher education normalizes the belief that militarized knowledge and military solutions should govern everyday life. Yet militarization does not merely reshape research priorities and institutional culture. It also reorganizes historical memory, civic identity, and the very terms through which democracy is understood.
Militarization also bears heavily on the production of knowledge itself. As Fintan O’Toole observes, contemporary authoritarian movements do more than expand military power; they seek to reshape historical memory and civic consciousness. Shameful histories are recast as heroic achievements, while assaults on democracy are reimagined as acts of patriotism. The Confederate rebellion is transformed from a defense of slavery into a noble cause, much as the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol is increasingly celebrated by its defenders as a patriotic uprising rather than an assault on democratic institutions. Equally troubling are efforts to remake the military itself through demands that soldiers be trained for loyalty to political leaders rather than to constitutional principles. Here, power seeks not only to command institutions but also to militarize knowledge, memory, and civic identity. Universities have a crucial responsibility to resist such distortions by defending historical truth, critical inquiry, and the capacity to distinguish education from propaganda.
As Kevin Baker notes, military solutions increasingly displace diplomacy, democratic institutions, and other civic responses to social problems. Within a culture saturated by militarism, aggression is celebrated as prevention, repression is justified in the name of security, and military force is invoked to discipline dissent and erode democratic values. Under such conditions, education is organized less around the imperatives of democratic culture than around the demands of the arms industry, surveillance systems, technological acceleration, and the national security state.
These developments become even more troubling when they intersect with the ongoing marketization of higher education. At its best, higher education functions as a democratic public sphere, a place where students learn to think critically, question authority, engage history, and imagine alternative democratic futures. Yet under the pressures of neoliberalism, universities have increasingly abandoned this mission. Education is now often reduced to job training, students are treated as consumers, faculty are deskilled and casualized, and learning is defined largely in instrumental terms. Questions about how education might nurture civic courage, ethical imagination, social responsibility, and democratic agency are increasingly sidelined in a market-driven university culture.
Yet the assault on higher education is not only economic. It is also ideological and political. In recent years, a growing chorus of liberal and conservative critics has claimed that universities have lost their way, charging that the humanities and critical scholarship have corrupted higher education through ideology and activism. Under the seductive language of “reform,” “balance,” “civility,” “institutional trust,” and “neutrality,” these critics present themselves as defenders of academic integrity while advancing a profoundly reactionary project. In some cases, liberal critics go so far as to treat “social justice” as a threat to scholarship rather than asking how power, exclusion, race, gender, class, empire, and inequality have always shaped what counts as knowledge. Their calls for neutrality, which function as a cover for depoliticization, do not protect intellectual freedom; they align with a broader assault on critical thought, historical memory, and democratic culture. They are aghast at the notion put forward by Thomas Chatterton Williams that “For humanities departments [and higher education in general] to continue to matter, they must challenge the modern world rather than accommodate it.” In doing so, they obscure the far more dangerous attacks on higher education coming from the right: censorship, book bans, assaults on DEI programs, the repression of student protest, and efforts to align universities with corporate, state, and military interests.
Critical scholarship is condemned as ideological, while militarized research, donor influence, state-directed threats of defunding, and forms of ideological indoctrination are celebrated as common sense. The real danger is not that universities have become too political, but that they are being stripped of their democratic mission and transformed into institutions that normalize conformity, surveillance, militarization, and authoritarian power. Higher education is not under attack because it has been ruined by the left. On the contrary, it is under assault by the Trump administration and a broader network of far right forces precisely because it keeps alive a dangerous truth: education is not merely about credentials, careers, or conformity to the status quo. At its best, it cultivates the capacity for critical judgment, informed dissent, compassion, and democratic agency. What authoritarian movements fear most is not ideological indoctrination but an educated public capable of questioning power, holding authority accountable, and imagining a more just future.
Militarization deepens anti-democratic tendencies. Research is increasingly tied to military applications, geopolitical competition, and outside funding rather than to the public good. Universities adopt the language of security, risk management, efficiency, and competitiveness while corporate and military values increasingly shape institutional priorities. As a Simons Foundation policy briefing warns, militarization has increasingly become a “default response” to political instability and global insecurity, reinforcing a culture in which social problems are framed through the logics of surveillance, strategic competition, and military preparedness rather than diplomacy, public investment, and democratic cooperation. As Professor Catherine Lutz notes, such actions run the risk of eroding legal and moral boundaries. In such a climate, higher education loses its civic character and becomes subordinated to the interests of the warfare state and defense industries.
As universities become increasingly tied to military and security logics, they risk abandoning their civic purpose in favor of a pedagogy of permanent emergency, one that privileges surveillance, strategic competition, and technological domination over critical inquiry, civic imagination, ethical responsibility, and social solidarity. What disappears in this militarized vision of higher education is the conviction that universities should cultivate informed citizens capable of holding power accountable rather than simply servicing the imperatives of the national security state.
Equally troubling, militarization reshapes the culture of the university itself. Militarized institutions reward conformity, secrecy, technocratic thinking, and instrumental rationality. Ethical questions about violence, disposability, colonialism, and state power are pushed aside in favor of managerial efficiency and national competitiveness. Students protesting Israel’s war in Gaza, settler colonialism, genocide, sexual violence, or war crimes are too often met not with dialogue but with surveillance, administrative repression, and policing.
The dominance of war-like values in both higher education and the wider civic culture prepares “civil society itself for the production of violence.”
In such instances, the university ceases to function as a space for critical engagement and becomes instead an extension of a broader authoritarian culture. As scholar John Gills notes, the dominance of war-like values in both higher education and the wider civic culture prepares “civil society itself for the production of violence.” In this way, universities risk becoming agents of militarized socialization rather than sites of democratic education. Such developments raise not only political and educational concerns but also urgent ethical questions about the kinds of institutions that universities are becoming and the values they choose to endorse.
The militarization of higher education raises a profound ethical question: What happens when universities enter into partnerships with military institutions while remaining silent about documented human rights abuses associated with those same institutions? Such silence is never politically neutral. It suggests that violations of human rights can be overlooked, rationalized, or normalized when carried out in the name of security, defense, or national interest.
This issue extends beyond universities themselves and raises broader questions about the responsibilities of democratic governments. As Canada, among other countries, deepens military cooperation with allies and expands investments in defense industries, it cannot exempt those relationships from ethical scrutiny. If credible allegations of war crimes, torture, collective punishment, or sexual violence are ignored in the name of strategic alliances or national security, democratic principles are hollowed out from within. Universities, precisely because they are charged with fostering critical inquiry and ethical judgment, have a responsibility to challenge such silences rather than reproduce them.
These ethical concerns become especially urgent when universities maintain relationships with institutions implicated in serious human rights abuses. The issue is particularly troubling in light of allegations regarding the use of sexual violence against Palestinians. Writing in The New York Times, Nicholas Kristof noted that while there is no evidence that Israeli leaders explicitly order rape, United Nations investigators have reported that sexual violence has become one of Israel’s “standard operating procedures” in the mistreatment of Palestinians. Other human rights organizations have reached similarly disturbing conclusions.
Such allegations also raise broader concerns about how security regimes can be used not only against occupied populations but also against those who challenge state policies. Reuters reported that organizers of a flotilla attempting to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza alleged that some activists detained by Israeli authorities experienced physical abuse and that at least 15 reported sexual assaults, including allegations of rape. Zeteo provided shocking and wrenching video testimonies from some of the activists, largely ignored by Western media. Whatever the final findings regarding these allegations, they underscore the need for independent scrutiny of security institutions and the dangers of granting them unquestioned legitimacy in the name of national defense. When accusations of abuse are met with silence rather than investigation, the boundaries between security, impunity, and state-sanctioned violence become increasingly blurred.
If universities claim to uphold principles of human rights, social responsibility, and ethical inquiry, they cannot selectively ignore such evidence when it implicates states or institutions with which they maintain research, military, or security partnerships. To do so risks transforming universities from spaces of critical inquiry into institutions that legitimate power while remaining silent about its abuses. At stake is more than the question of particular research contracts. It is the moral integrity of higher education itself.
These concerns are not confined to particular institutions or isolated abuses. They are symptomatic of a broader culture in which militarized values increasingly shape public life, political discourse, and social priorities. From sporting events and military recruitment in schools to popular films, social media spectacles, gun culture, and state-sponsored propaganda, aggression, domination, and war are normalized as features of everyday life.
Nowhere is this more visible than in the influence of Trump’s Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, who celebrates “maximum lethality, not tepid legality” and wraps militarism in the language of white Christian nationalism and religious righteousness. As Jasper Craven observes, Hegseth champions a form of “military manliness” stripped of any ethical center. Such a worldview elevates domination as a virtue, defines violence as a moral ideal, and transforms, in Craven’s words, “the Pentagon into the staging ground for an ideological religious crusade.” As these values circulate through culture and public institutions, they increasingly shape higher education itself, influencing not only what universities teach but also the forms of knowledge they produce, fund, and legitimate.
Universities cannot claim to defend democracy while simultaneously aligning themselves with industries and state policies organized for state violence, war, and imperial aggression.
At the same time, vast intellectual, scientific, and financial resources are being diverted from urgent public needs such as climate justice, public health, democratic education, and social welfare toward the expansion of military technologies and security infrastructures. In the process, the arms industry reaps enormous profits while universities increasingly risk becoming laboratories for aggression rather than institutions dedicated to civic responsibility, ethical imagination, and the common good.
Defenders of militarized partnerships insist that universities must remain pragmatic and “neutral” in securing funding and advancing national interests. But neutrality in such cases is largely a myth. Universities cannot claim to defend democracy while simultaneously aligning themselves with industries and state policies organized for state violence, war, and imperial aggression. Higher education has no legitimate ethical mandate to function as a research arm of militarized power.
The issue is not whether universities are political, but what kind of politics they embody and in whose interests they function. In an age marked by rising authoritarianism, widening inequality, climate catastrophe, and endless wars, universities cannot escape matters of power and values, and they must decide whether they will serve democracy or militarized power. Nor can educators retreat into the call for neutrality. At stake here is more than institutional policy. It is the fate of the university as a democratic institution. Few writers understood these dangers more clearly than Toni Morrison, who warned: “If the university does not take seriously and rigorously its role as a guardian of wider civic freedoms, as interrogator of more and more complex ethical problems, as servant and preserver of deeper democratic practices, then some other regime or menage of regimes will do it for us, in spite of us, and without us.”
Higher education may be one of the few public spheres left where knowledge, values, and learning can nurture radical hope, civic responsibility, informed agency, critical thinking, and substantive democracy. The struggle against the militarization of Canadian universities is therefore not merely a fight over funding priorities. It is a struggle over whether education will serve democracy or become an extension of the warfare state. Activists from groups like World Beyond War Canada and the Canadian Federation of Students are right to insist that genuine security comes not from militarism and permanent war, but from investing in education, housing, public health, and the social good.
Universities must refuse their transformation into laboratories for war, surveillance, and technological domination. At stake is whether higher education will further accommodate militarized and authoritarian power or become a crucial site of resistance, critical consciousness, and democratic possibility, one that refuses to confuse security with fear, civic responsibility with obedience, and education with the demands of war and domination. In an age when militarism increasingly shapes culture, politics, and everyday life, universities must remain among the few institutions willing to defend critical inquiry, civic responsibility, and democratic freedom against the expanding reach of the warfare state.
VTM
A nova ligação, denominada Madrid-Braga, pretende facilitar a mobilidade entre Portugal e Espanha, ao mesmo tempo que impulsiona o turismo e oferece uma alternativa de transporte mais económica e sustentável.
Com esta nova linha, os passageiros de Vila Real passam a dispor de uma ligação direta à capital espanhola, incluindo acesso ao principal aeroporto de Espanha, permitindo maior flexibilidade para viagens internacionais. A rota inclui ainda paragens em Zamora e Bragança, reforçando a conectividade entre as regiões do Minho, Trás-os-Montes e Castela e Leão.
Segundo a FlixBus, a nova ligação permitirá reduzir tempos de deslocação entre vários destinos. A viagem entre Bragança e Zamora poderá ser realizada em menos de uma hora e meia, enquanto a ligação entre Bragança e Madrid ficará abaixo das cinco horas.
A operadora destaca ainda o potencial turístico da nova rota. Dados do Turismo de Portugal indicam que o mercado espanhol representou, em 2025, 18,3% dos hóspedes estrangeiros na região Norte, correspondendo a mais de 780 mil visitantes. A empresa acredita que a nova ligação contribuirá para reforçar os fluxos turísticos e económicos entre os dois países.
Para Tiago Cavaco Alves, diretor de operações da FlixBus em Portugal, esta nova linha representa “um reforço da conectividade entre o Minho, Trás-os-Montes e Madrid, incluindo o Aeroporto Madrid-Barajas”, respondendo à procura crescente por soluções de mobilidade acessíveis, cómodas e sustentáveis.
Os bilhetes já estão disponíveis para compra através dos canais habituais da empresa, com preços a partir de 18,49 euros para a ligação entre Vila Real e Madrid.
A rota Madrid-Braga funcionará diariamente, com duas viagens por dia, uma em cada sentido. O primeiro serviço parte do Aeroporto de Madrid às 00h15, enquanto o segundo tem origem no Centro Coordenador de Transportes de Braga às 22h45.
Entre as novas ligações disponibilizadas pela operadora destacam-se os percursos Braga–Madrid, Vila Real–Madrid e Bragança–Madrid.
The post Nova ligação da FlixBus aproxima Vila Real da capital espanhola appeared first on A Voz de Trás-os-Montes.
© FRANCISCO PINTO/LUSA
Hollywood director Steven Spielberg has ignited outrage after claiming his upcoming UFO blockbuster Disclosure Day could fundamentally alter how Christians view God and religion itself. During a recent interview promoting the film, Spielberg openly questioned [...]
The post Spielberg Rolls Out Hollywood’s Next Psy-Op — Says ‘Disclosure Day’ Will Destroy Christian Faith Worldwide appeared first on The People's Voice.
Among the greatest rhetorical theorists stood Hermogenes of Tarsus, an Ancient Greek sophist and rhetorician who lived during the second century AD and developed a sophisticated theory of style that categorized speech according to seven major rhetorical qualities or styles of speech. These included Clarity (saphēneia), Grandeur (megethos), Beauty (kallos or omorphia), Rapidity (gorgotēs), Ethos, Sincerity, and Force (deinotēs).
Although many people mistakenly associate these rhetorical categories with the rhetorician Demosthenes, the systematic classification belongs to Hermogenes himself. Together, these categories formed a complete philosophy of expression. Hermogenes did not view rhetoric as ornamental alone. Instead, he treated speech as a living art capable of shaping thought, emotion, and public action.
Ancient Greek rhetoric shaped political life, education, philosophy, and literature for centuries. Public speech held enormous importance in the Greek world because success in courts, assemblies, and intellectual debates depended upon persuasive expression. As rhetoric evolved, Greek thinkers attempted to classify the qualities that made speech effective, elegant, and emotionally powerful.
Hermogenes of Tarsus gained fame at a very young age. He was a rhetorical prodigy whose abilities astonished teachers and audiences alike, and he later composed several influential rhetorical treatises, especially On Types of Style. This work became one of the most significant manuals of rhetoric in late antiquity and Byzantium. Byzantine scholars such as George of Trebizond studied Hermogenes extensively, and introduced his theories in the West during the Renaissance.
Unlike simpler rhetorical systems, Hermogenes established a highly nuanced approach. He understood that persuasive speech requires flexibility rather than rigid formulas. Differing situations demand different styles, tones, and emotional effects. For this reason, his seven categories of styles of speech function less as isolated techniques and more as interconnected dimensions of expression.
Hermogenes considered clarity the foundation of all effective speech. Without clarity, audiences are unable to follow arguments or comprehend meaning. A speaker may possess intelligence and passion, yet confusion eradicates persuasion. Clarity therefore requires precise vocabulary, logical structure, and direct expression. Sentences should communicate ideas without unnecessary obscurity.
Nevertheless, Hermogenes did not reduce clarity to simplicity alone. Clear speech can still remain elegant and intellectually sophisticated. The goal involves illumination rather than oversimplification.
Greek philosophers also highly valued clarity. The philosopher Plato often criticized sophists who concealed weak arguments beneath decorative language. Similarly, Aristotle emphasized intelligibility as an essential feature of rhetoric. Hermogenes continued this tradition while developing a more refined stylistic analysis.
Grandeur introduces elevation, dignity, and majesty into speech. This style suits heroic themes, political crises, moral exhortation, and public ceremonies. A grand style expands language through emotional intensity, powerful imagery, and elevated rhythm. Speakers using grandeur aim to inspire awe and admiration. Demosthenes often exemplified this quality in his speeches against Philip of Macedon. His rhetoric combined patriotic urgency with emotional force.
However, Hermogenes warned against excess. Grandeur must remain controlled. Otherwise, speech becomes inflated and artificial. True grandeur emerges from harmony between content and expression. Noble themes require compatible, equally noble language, yet authentic emotion must guide rhetorical elevation.
Beauty in rhetoric concerns elegance, harmony, and aesthetic pleasure. Hermogenes believed that beautiful speech delights audiences through rhythm, imagery, and balanced structure. This quality resembles artistic composition in poetry, sculpture, or music. Beautiful speech flows smoothly and creates emotional resonance through sound and proportion.
Greek culture deeply associated beauty with order and harmony. Philosophers often linked external beauty with inner balance. Hermogenes applies this principle directly to language. A beautiful style does not merely persuade intellectually. It also captivates emotionally and aesthetically.
Writers achieve beauty through careful word choice, graceful transitions, and balanced phrasing. Metaphors, cadence, and musicality all contribute to this effect. Nonetheless, Hermogenes again emphasizes moderation. Excessive ornament weakens rhetorical effectiveness. Beauty must support meaning rather than overwhelm it.
Rapidity injects speech with energy, movement, and urgency. Hermogenes used the term gorgotēs to describe swift and dynamic expression that propels audiences forward. This style relies upon shorter clauses, quick transitions, and vigorous pacing. Rapid speech creates excitement and emotional momentum.
Orators often utilized this technique during moments of tension or conflict. Fast-moving rhetoric can produce feelings of urgency, danger, or passionate conviction. At the same time, rapidity demands careful control. If speech moves too quickly, audiences lose comprehension. Therefore, speakers must balance speed with clarity.
Hermogenes admired speakers who could accelerate rhythm without sacrificing coherence. Rapidity also reflects psychological intensity. Passionate conviction naturally produces energetic language and movement.
Ethos concerns character and moral presence within speech. Aristotle had already emphasized ethos as one of the three pillars of persuasion. Hermogenes expanded this concept stylistically. A speaker’s language reveals personality, values, and emotional disposition. Audiences trust speakers who appear honorable, wise, and sincere.
Ethos therefore demands moral credibility and emotional authenticity. Differing rhetorical situations also require varying forms of ethos. A judge, philosopher, general, or grieving citizen each projects distinct moral qualities through speech.
Hermogenes understood that persuasion depends heavily upon the audience’s perception of character. Even brilliant arguments fail when listeners distrust the speaker. Thus, rhetorical success involves ethical presence as much as intellectual ability.
Sincerity is another trait that creates emotional truthfulness and human immediacy. Hermogenes recognized that audiences respond deeply to speech that feels genuine. A sincere speaker avoids excessive theatricality or artificial ornament. Instead, sincerity emerges through direct emotional connection and honest expression. This style often appears in personal appeals, lamentations, or moral reflections. Sincere rhetoric results in intimacy between the speaker and audience.
Greek tragedy frequently employed this quality during scenes of grief or confession. Philosophers also valued sincerity because truth required alignment between speech and inner conviction. Hermogenes therefore treated sincerity as a rhetorical strength rather than weakness. Genuine emotion can persuade more powerfully than technical brilliance alone. Nonetheless, sincerity still requires artistic control. Raw emotion without structure can become chaotic or ineffective.
Force represents the culmination of rhetorical power. Hermogenes viewed deinotēs as the ability to overwhelm audiences through intensity, authority, and commanding presence. This style combines emotional energy, intellectual precision, and persuasive momentum. Forceful rhetoric strikes listeners with irresistible impact. Demosthenes often embodied this quality during political speeches. His words carried urgency, moral conviction, and strategic precision simultaneously.
Force differs from mere aggression. True rhetorical force arises from mastery over every dimension of speech. Clarity, grandeur, rhythm, sincerity, and ethos all contribute to it. Hermogenes considered this quality extremely challenging to achieve, and only highly skilled speakers could combine all rhetorical elements harmoniously. Force therefore represented the highest form of rhetorical excellence.
Hermogenes never intended these categories to function separately. Great rhetoric combines multiple styles according to circumstance. A political speech may require grandeur during patriotic appeals, clarity during argumentation, sincerity during emotional moments, and force during conclusions. This flexibility explains the lasting influence of Hermogenes. His system recognized the complexity of human communication.
Hermogenes of Tarsus shaped rhetorical education for more than a thousand years. Byzantine scholarship practically treated his works as sacred manuals of eloquence. Renaissance humanists later read his theories and incorporated them into European education. His influence extended beyond rhetoric into theology, literature, and philosophy. Christian preachers especially valued his understanding of emotional and ethical persuasion.
Even today, modern communication still reflects principles Hermogenes identified centuries ago in his seven styles of speeches. Political speeches, courtroom arguments, literature, and public debates all rely upon clarity, emotional force, sincerity, and character.
U.S. President Donald Trump says the Iranians shot down the AH-64 Apache that crashed near the Strait of Hormuz overnight and vowed to retaliate. As we noted earlier today, the crew was safely rescued by a drone boat, an unprecedented action, which you can read more about here.
“I have just been informed by our Great Military that last night the Iranians shot down one of our highly sophisticated Apache Helicopters while patrolling over the Strait of Hormuz,” Trump stated on Truth Social. “There were two pilots involved, both are safe and uninjured. Nevertheless, the United States must, of necessity, respond to this attack.”
Trump says that Iranian forces shot down the Army AH-64 Apache attack helicopter that went down over Hormuz yesterday.
— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) June 9, 2026
He says that the US "must, of necessity, respond to this attack" pic.twitter.com/divKHkhgZm
Trump did not elaborate on how the Apache was shot down.
It’s worth noting that Iran’s small boats are known to be man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) threats and also small FPV drones and loitering munitions, which Iran also possesses, have become a real threat to helicopters.
A U.S. official told Axios an investigation “determined that an Iranian drone hit the helicopter, causing it to crash. The U.S. official said the investigation had not determined whether that was intentional.”
— Barak Ravid (@BarakRavid) June 9, 2026
Trump did not say exactly how the U.S. will respond, but given past history of tensions in the region, an attack on Iranian facilities that could have been involved in the shoot-down would not be surprising. We have seen similar responses when Iran has fired at ships in the past.
Whether this will finally break the shaky ceasefire is an open question. Last week, Trump told reporters that he would consider resuming the war if Iran caused U.S. troop deaths.
“Yeah, if they killed U.S. troops, I think I would do that very quickly,” he said.
We have reached out to the White House and U.S. Central Command for additional details. CENTCOM declined comment.
UPDATE: 1:57 PM EDT –
Iranian official media has yet to explicitly confirm or deny involvement in the downing of the Apache. In a post on X addressing Trump’s claim, the Fars News Agency offered a veiled threat from Mohammad Ghalibaf, speaker of the Iranian parliament.
“We prefer the language of diplomacy, but we speak other languages far more fluently,” Ghalibaf said on his own X account, repeated here by Fars. “Break your commitments, and we’ll switch to what we speak best. You ride the horse you saddled.”
— خبرگزاری فارس (@FarsNews_Agency) June 9, 2026
عهد خود را بشکنید، تا به همان زبانی برگردیم که از همه بهتر بلدیم. https://t.co/JeROqni9mJ
IRIB just repeated CNN’s report that the helicopter gunship was taken down by a Shahed drone.
— IRIB (Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting) (@iribnews_irib) June 9, 2026
Press TV, meanwhile, took a rather cheeky approach.
“US President Donald Trump says Iran shot down ‘one of our highly sophisticated Apache helicopters while patrolling over the Strait of Hormuz,'” the outlet stated on X. “So much for the Iranian military having been ‘obliterated!'”
US President Donald Trump says Iran shot down "one of our highly sophisticated Apache helicopters while patrolling over the Strait of Hormuz."
— Press TV
So much for the Iranian military having been "obliterated"!
Follow https://t.co/B3zXG73Jym pic.twitter.com/AHhkNao1du
UPDATE: 4:20 PM EDT –
In a call with The Wall Street Journal, Trump tried to downplay the Apache downing, saying that it “wasn’t a big deal” and stressing that “the pilot is fine.”
Earlier today, Trump sought to play down the incident. In a phone call with the WSJ, Trump said that it “wasn’t a big deal,” stressing that “the pilot is fine.” He said he had the details on the incident and that “it was much different than you think.” https://t.co/arzskUbdSt
— Vera Bergengruen (@VeraMBergen) June 9, 2026
Exiting a classified congressional briefing, CENTCOM commander Adm. Brad Cooper offered a short answer to reporter questions about how the U.S. will respond to Iran downing the Apache.
“We’ll see,” he said, according to NOTUS reporter Joe Gould in a post on X.
Reporters asked Centcom’s Adm. Brad Cooper, exiting a classified congressional briefing, what the “response” would be to the downed U.S. helicopter.
— Joe Gould (@reporterjoe) June 9, 2026
“We’ll see.” pic.twitter.com/w4MwOTr9px
UPDATE: 5:25 PM EDT –
In a post on X, CENTCOM announced its “forces began launching self-defense strikes against Iran at 5 p.m. ET today at the Commander in Chief’s direction, in response to yesterday’s downing of a U.S. Army Apache helicopter. The mission is a proportional response to unjustified Iranian aggression.”
We have reached out to the command for more details.
U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) forces began launching self-defense strikes against Iran at 5 p.m. ET today at the Commander in Chief’s direction, in response to yesterday’s downing of a U.S. Army Apache helicopter. The mission is a proportional response to unjustified Iranian…
— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) June 9, 2026
CENTCOM’s post follows reports from the official Iranian Mehr news agency about the sounds of explosions.
In a post on Telegram, the official Iranian Mehr news outlet is reporting that there have been “sounds of explosions heard in the Sirik port area.
According to Mehr, “the exact nature of these sounds is not yet clear, and none of the official military or law enforcement agencies have commented on the cause of these sounds so far.”
“Investigations to obtain accurate information about the nature of these explosions are ongoing,” Mehr added.
Explosions reported in Sirik, an Iranian port city on the Strait of Hormuz- Iranian state media pic.twitter.com/HOJ4vAk1cT
— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) June 9, 2026
UPDATE: 5:42 PM EDT –
ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl was on the phone with Trump as CENTCOM announced the retaliatory strikes against Iran.
“I think it’s very important to respond,” Karl said Trump told him. “They shot down a helicopter, and we are responding as we speak…I believe the response should be very strong, very powerful, and that’s what this one is.”
I was on the phone with Trump as CENTCOM announced US retaliatory strikes against Iran. Here's what he said:
— Jonathan Karl (@jonkarl) June 9, 2026
"I think it's very important to respond. They shot down a helicopter, and we are responding as we speak."
He added: "This is a response to what they did they did with…
UPDATE: 6:19 PM EDT –
Tasnim is reporting that the U.S. strikes appear to be over for now.
“The wave of American attacks in the south has subsided, and after the hostile actions in Qeshm, Sirik, Jask and Mount Mubarake Jask, the situation is now reported to be calm,” the outlet claimed on Telegram. It also published a video it says shows “a suicide drone in the sky of Iraq.”
— Visioner (@visionergeo) June 9, 2026
This is a developing story.
Contact the author: howard@twz.com
The post AH-64 Apache Shot Down By Iran, U.S. Will Retaliate: Trump (Updated) appeared first on The War Zone.
A U.S. Navy uncrewed surface vessel (USV) found and rescued the crew of a U.S. Army Apache that went down overnight near the Strait of Hormuz, in the Gulf of Oman. This is the first known use of a drone boat executing a personnel recovery action as part of a military search and rescue operation, and it’s likely a glimpse of what’s to come. The cause of the incident is otherwise under investigation.
Navy Capt. Tim Hawkins, a U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) spokesman, has confirmed the use of the Navy USV in the rescue effort to TWZ. This had already been hinted at by the mention of Task Force 59, the Navy’s main drone force in the Middle East, in an official CENTCOM statement. What specific type of drone boat was utilized in this case is not yet known. Task Force 59 operates a variety of USVs, including speedboat-like types. The Task Force has been experimenting with all types of new uncrewed naval technologies and this rescue is clearly a major win for the forward-looking unit.
“At 7:33 p.m. ET on June 8, two crew members from a U.S. Army AH-64 Apache were rescued by American forces after their helicopter went down near the coast of Oman while patrolling regional waters,” per CENTCOM’s statement. “The Soldiers were safely rescued within approximately two hours and are in stable condition. The cause of the incident is under investigation.”
“Rescue efforts were led by U.S. Naval Forces Central Command and the 82nd Airborne Division, with support from U.S. Air Force and Navy units including U.S. 5th Fleet’s Task Force 59,” the statement added.
The New York Times was first to report that an Apache had gone down near the Strait of Hormuz. President Donald Trump had also confirmed the crew was safe while speaking to reporters earlier this morning.
“We are going to issue a report tomorrow, but the pilots are fine,” Trump said after returning to Washington from the NBA Finals in New York.
A US Army Apache helicopter went down near the Strait of Hormuz and it wasn’t clear if the aircraft suffered mechanical troubles or had been shot down by Iran, the New York Times reported.
— Annmarie Hordern (@annmarie) June 9, 2026
Asked about the episode by @jendlouhyhc, Trump said the pilots were fine and that a report…
As we have reported in the past, Army AH-64s have been part of an effort by the U.S. military to enforce the ongoing blockade of Iran and to protect commercial shipping. Last month, Apaches and U.S. Navy MH-60 Seahawk helicopters destroyed six small Iranian boats that were threatening commercial ships in and around the Strait of Hormuz, according to Navy Adm. Brad Cooper, head of CENTCOM. Apaches had already been conducting missions targeting Iranian naval assets in and around the Strait of Hormuz before the announcement of the ceasefire in April. All of this has shown that armed helicopters remain important assets in maritime operations, especially for defending against swarms of small boats.
As TWZ regularly highlights, search and rescue operations present inherent complexities and risks, especially when conducted in or near hostile territory. The F-15E rescue effort in Iran put a particular spotlight on the immense risks that combat search and rescue (CSAR) forces take, with helicopters and C-130 variants sent into areas where even a high-end fighter aircraft didn’t survive.
Open-water recoveries can present distinct additional challenges. There is always the possibility of the loss of additional assets and personnel in the process, no matter where a CSAR mission occurs.
The use of a Navy drone boat in the rescue overnight highlights a new dimension for maritime CSAR going forward. These uncrewed assets can be more readily pre-positioned in a distributed manner. For example, in the broad expanse of the Pacific, USVs could be forward-deployed at multiple points along certain flight paths for this exact purpose. USVs could offer other distinct advantages in certain scenarios where they might be able to get into areas where traditional assets cannot and without risking additional personnel. These realities extend well beyond the maritime domain, and we are only likely to see uncrewed platforms of all kinds increasingly taking part in rescue efforts, especially in denied areas. The U.S. military is coming to terms with just how vulnerable their CSAR assets are and the ranges that would be needed to access highly defended areas, especially during a peer fight. Using drones to execute personnel recovery is being viewed as one part of a larger set of solutions to this pressing problem.
With the Apache going down near the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. military has now lost at least seven crewed fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters since the start of the latest operations against Iran in February. In addition, several aircraft have been damaged in the air and on the ground, including by Iranian fire. The TWZ graphic below offers a visual tally of damaged and destroyed aircraft as of April 10.
Despite the loss of the Apache, the use of a USV in the rescue effort is a major development and a sign of things to come.
UPDATE: 12:56 PM EDT –
President Donald Trump said the Apache was shot down by Iran and that the U.S. will retaliate.
“I have just been informed by our Great Military that last night the Iranians shot down one of our highly sophisticated Apache Helicopters while patrolling over the Strait of Hormuz,” the president said on his Truth Social network. “There were two pilots involved, both are safe and uninjured. Nevertheless, the United States must, of necessity, respond to this attack.”
Trump says that Iranian forces shot down the Army AH-64 Apache attack helicopter that went down over Hormuz yesterday.
— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) June 9, 2026
He says that the US "must, of necessity, respond to this attack" pic.twitter.com/divKHkhgZm
UPDATE: 1:53 PM EDT –
You can read more about Trump’s shoot-down statement and what could happen next in our story here.
Contact the author: howard@twz.com
The post AH-64 Apache Crew Rescued By Drone Boat After Going Down Near Strait Of Hormuz (Updated) appeared first on The War Zone.
The U.S. Air Force has confirmed that the VC-25B “Bridge” aircraft is now wearing its new (and controversial) red, white, and blue livery as it undergoes final preparations for its official delivery.
Aviation photographer Travis Ghormley shared the first picture of the modified Boeing 747-8i with its new paint scheme yesterday. It was taken the day before in Waco, Texas. The aircraft had been undergoing modification and flight testing at L3Harris’ facility in Greenville, also in Texas, as part of the conversion into its new role, since at least April, before subsequently moving to Waco to be painted. The jet, gifted to the Trump administration by the government of Qatar last year, is set to serve as an interim Air Force One aircraft ahead of the much-delayed arrival of two fully outfitted VC-25Bs from Boeing.
“The VC-25B Bridge aircraft has been painted and is going through final modifications,” an Air Force spokesperson told TWZ today when asked for more information about the aircraft’s current status. “I don’t have any additional details I can provide on delivery dates at this time.”
A press release the Air Force put out on May 1 said that the “VC-25B Bridge aircraft has officially completed modification and flight testing” and was “being painted.” We have confirmed that the completed modifications referred to here were on the contractor side, but the U.S. government still has additional modifications to make to the jet.
Ghormley’s picture does clearly show the jet wearing the same red, white, and blue scheme that has already been appearing on various Air Force and other U.S. government VVIP jets. The livery also includes a large American flag, depicted blowing in the wind, painted on both sides of the tail and “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” written on both sides of the fuselage. The paint job is virtually identical to what President Donald Trump had previously chosen for the future VC-25B Air Force Ones during his first term. President Joe Biden had previously reversed that decision, bringing back plans to paint the VC-25Bs in the iconic scheme that dates back to President John F. Kennedy’s administration.
The Bridge aircraft’s current location is also unclear. Video posted on social media yesterday, seen below, purported to be of the jet departing for its new home at Andrews Air Force Base just outside of Washington, D.C. This is where the two current VC-25A Air Force One jets, as well as a host of other Air Force VVIP aircraft, are based.
Full blown operation to get this thing out without us seeing. Fueled, loaded crew, and preflighted in the hangar. Flipped CRANE01 to face me at the south end and beam me with landing lights. Entire airport blacked out, crew and grounds crew all wearing NOD’s.
— jadams (@jadamzs) June 7, 2026
You can barely see… https://t.co/kaNB5FCdJ5 pic.twitter.com/JprSF5ykXW
Online flight tracking data does show that another U.S. military Boeing 747-8i flew from Waco, Texas, to Andrews on June 7, using the callsign Crane 01. However, this callsign has been associated with an ex-Lufthansa 747 the Air Force has also acquired for use as a trainer in support of future Air Force One operations. This aircraft, which may now carry the serial number 25-3200, has been tracked multiple times flying between facilities in Texas and Andrews in recent months. There does not appear to be tracking data for the VC-25B Bridge jet, which may also now have the serial number 25-3300, but it could have made the trip without broadcasting on ADS-B.
Past reports have indicated that the Bridge aircraft could make its public debut on July 4, which this year is also wrapped up in additional celebrations of the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States. President Trump’s birthday (June 14) is also this weekend.
Otherwise, TWZ has previously laid out significant questions about the general feasibility of actually using the VC-25B Bridge aircraft in the Air Force One role, given the kinds of modifications that should be required for this demanding mission. Potential operational security concerns have been raised about using the gifted jet as a presidential aircraft, as well.
“L3Harris, known for its executive communications systems and services, was selected to undertake a complex modification of the bridge aircraft. L3Harris not only delivers secure, reliable and resilient communications for VC-25A and the executive airlift fleet but has extensive experience with self-protection and customization of VIP aircraft,” the Air Force wrote in the May 1 press release. “The accelerated timeline was further made possible by a mission-focused partnership with Boeing, who provided the necessary engineering data to support the required structural modifications.”
“Additionally, elite specialists from multiple government agencies developed advanced protocols to detect and-if necessary-neutralize potential technical hazards on previously owned aircraft,” it added. “Their rigorous approach on the Bridge aircraft has literally ‘written the book’ and set the benchmark for integrating used airframes into the secure military inventory.”
“Safety and security were at the forefront of this program. We deliberately minimized interior aesthetic modifications to focus on modifications for safety, security and mission execution. We assessed which requirements were necessary for an interim capability. We had greater flexibility in developing our mission requirements,” the Air Force also told TWZ directly at that time. “After safety and security, we focused on the mission communications systems.”
“We have made deliberate decisions such as the reduction of the number of airstairs, less chiller space, and exclusion of the Golden Eagle mission [to fly the remains of former presidents] to minimize structural modifications, while prioritizing modifications focused on safety, security and secure communications,” the service added.
Getting a new Air Force One aircraft of some kind into service on an accelerated timetable has long appeared to be a major goal for President Trump. The fully-equipped VC-25Bs from Boeing are years behind schedule. Last year, the Air Force announced that there had been some improvement on that front, but that it still did not expect to have the first of the two jets in hand until mid-2028, which would be just months before Trump is set to leave office.
What we do know for sure is that the VC-25B Bridge aircraft is now wearing Trump’s preferred red, white, and blue paint scheme ahead of its official rollout later this summer.
Contact the author: joe@twz.com
The post VC-25B Air Force One “Bridge” Aircraft Now Wears Trump’s Preferred Red, White, and Blue Paint Job appeared first on The War Zone.
VTM
A candidatura da Casa de Mateus destacou-se entre uma lista inicial de 328 patrimónios nacionais, avançando agora para uma fase decisiva: a votação pública, que determinará os patrimónios que seguem para as etapas finais da iniciativa.
Representando um dos mais emblemáticos conjuntos patrimoniais de Portugal, a Casa de Mateus assume esta distinção como um reconhecimento do seu valor histórico, arquitetónico, cultural e turístico, bem como do trabalho contínuo desenvolvido na preservação e valorização deste património.
A votação pública teve início a 29 de maio e decorre até à realização da Meia-Final Regional do Norte, agendada para o dia 13 de junho, em Monção, numa emissão em direto da TVI.
O número oficial de votação atribuído à Casa de Mateus é o 761 207 019 (1€ + IVA (23%))
Os apoiantes poderão votar através de chamada telefónica para este número ou através da aplicação TVI Pass.
Caso a candidatura seja apurada para a Final Regional, a votação reabrirá automaticamente, mantendo o mesmo número de votação.
A participação do público é fundamental para destacar e promover um património que representa séculos de história, identidade e cultura portuguesa. Cada voto contribui para dar maior visibilidade a um dos mais reconhecidos monumentos nacionais e para reforçar a sua projeção junto do público nacional e internacional.
The post Casa de Mateus entre os finalistas das 7 Maravilhas de Portugal appeared first on A Voz de Trás-os-Montes.
A Lithuanian court has convicted a man who ran a cyclist off the road and attacked him for wearing a shirt with Ukrainian symbols, according to LRT. Judges treated his hatred of people who support Ukraine as an aggravating circumstance. The verdict is now final, and the court found the assault was deliberate, not an accident.
On the evening of 27 March 2025, the man drove up to the cyclist on a road in Lithuania's Širvintos district. He repeatedly ordered the cyclist to take off the shirt bearing Ukrainian symbols. When the cyclist refused, the driver passed him, then swung the front of his car toward the roadside and blocked his path. The cyclist braked hard and fell with his bicycle. He suffered injuries, and the bicycle was damaged.
When the cyclist got back up, the man ran over to him. He again demanded that the cyclist remove the shirt, grabbed it, and tried to pull it off. The cyclist reached for his phone to call for help. The man struck him and knocked the phone onto the asphalt, breaking it, the court found.
The Vilnius Regional District Court found the 1987-born man guilty of damaging another's property and causing minor bodily harm. Evidence from the investigation showed the violence was not random, the court said. It stemmed from the man's hatred of the victim as someone publicly backing Ukraine against Russia's invasion. The court treated that motive, hostility toward a group for supporting Ukraine, as an aggravating circumstance.
The court handed the man a non-custodial penalty of one year and three months' restriction of liberty. During that time, he must work or register as a jobseeker. He must also complete a program aimed at changing violent behavior. On top of that, he owes the victim for material and non-material harm, and he must repay Lithuania's State Patient Fund for the cost of treating the injuries.
A Vilnius District Prosecutor's Office prosecutor, Edvinas Navickas, led the pre-trial investigation and the prosecution. Vilnius County police officers gathered the evidence. The court issued its verdict on 12 May, and it has since taken effect, the prosecutor's office reported. Lithuania, a NATO member bordering Russia, has been one of Ukraine's strongest backers since 2022, sending weapons and welcoming Ukrainian refugees.
Lithuania has prosecuted this hatred before, convicting a man who smashed a displaced family's car.
Millions of Ukrainians live outside their country because Russia's invasion made home unsafe. Some 5.9 million are abroad as of 2026. Most settle in the European Union, where Poland and Germany host the largest communities. That visibility and open support for Ukraine sometimes draw hostility. Other reported attacks on Ukrainians abroad don't have a clear anti-Ukrainian motive.
In Poland, isolated cases include a Ukrainian beaten over his accent and a woman detained for telling two Ukrainian women to go back to Ukraine, while a separate knife attack on a Ukrainian selling his car in Wrocław has not been tied to nationality.
In Germany, an attacker killed a teenage athlete, a man went after children for speaking Ukrainian, and others assaulted teenagers while chanting pro-Russian slogans; one Berlin assault and a Murnau double killing both pointed to anti-Ukrainian motives, and a Russian was jailed for life over the latter.
The violence is not confined to those two countries: other attacks on Ukrainians have occurred in other places. Earlier, a Ukrainian was stabbed to death in Ireland in an attack police have not linked to his nationality, and a Ukrainian woman was murdered in the United States by a man who cited a delusional reason.
Cyprus and France signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) on Monday that strengthens defense cooperation between the two nations and allows for the conditional deployment of French troops on the island nation.
The agreement was signed in Nicosia by Defense Minister Vasilis Palmas and his French counterpart, Catherine Vautrin, on the sidelines of the informal meeting of EU defense ministers, hosted by Cyprus.
Vautrin described Cyprus as a key strategic partner for France and an essential hub for French military operations in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East. “Cyprus is an essential support point for the conduct of our military operations in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Near East,” she said.
She noted that the ports of Larnaca and Limassol host around thirty French naval visits annually, with twenty-one already recorded since the beginning of this year. The French Minister highlighted the extensive cooperation between the two countries’ armed forces, pointing to joint naval exercises, including Argonaut and Eunomia, aimed at strengthening maritime security, freedom of navigation, and crisis response capabilities.
According to Vautrin, cooperation has also expanded in recent years to include land and air operations, military mobility, air defense, operational readiness, and logistical support.
Cyprus President Nikos Christodoulides announced the agreement’s entry into force on his official social media accounts, stating that the signing and implementation of the SOFA contribute to the shared European objective of strengthening the European Union’s strategic autonomy.
Όταν ο Γάλλος Προέδρος Emmanuel Macron επισκέφθηκε την Κύπρο στις 23 Απριλίου 2026, είχαμε αναφερθεί δημόσια, κατά τη διάρκεια της διάσκεψης τύπου, στην πολυεπίπεδη στρατηγική μας συνεργασία, ειδικότερα στους τομείς της Άμυνας και της Ασφάλειας. Μέσα σε αυτό το πλαίσιο, είχα… pic.twitter.com/E3Gk5IZgX8
— NikosChristodoulides (@Christodulides) June 8, 2026
Under the SOFA, which was discussed during French President Emmanuel Macron’s visit to Nicosia on April 23 and subsequently negotiated between the two sides, the military assets of France may be deployed in southern Cyprus under certain conditions. The agreement also provides a legal framework for the presence of French military forces in Cyprus in support of various activities in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East.
Furthermore, the SOFA, whose entry into force was announced by Christodoulides, grants France access to military bases and infrastructure in Cyprus. The agreement is reported to also include provisions on military technology sharing, joint exercises, and strategic dialogue between France and Cyprus.
Ogni volta che usiamo lo smartphone, usiamo un congegno prodotto con sostanze estratte dalle viscere della Terra: tungsteno, stagno, tantalio e oro. Questi minerali sono essenziali per i circuiti stampati, gli schermi e le batterie. Senza di loro, la comunicazione moderna cessa di esistere.
Non solo. Titanio, tantalio e tungsteno sono elementi fondamentali per i moderni sistemi d’arma, quelli ad alte prestazioni; e capacità di combattimento uniche e letali. Ma la loro estrazione ha un costo che va ben oltre il prezzo all’ingrosso, pur in continua crescita. Lo sfruttamento minerario sta distruggendo gli ecosistemi che per secoli hanno tenuto lontani gli agenti patogeni, spesso letali, dalle popolazioni umane.
Nella zona orientale della Repubblica Democratica del Congo, l’estrazione del coltan —la colombite-tantalite— ha spinto i lavoratori a inoltrarsi nelle foreste che ospitano colonie di pipistrelli, sospetti serbatoi naturali del virus Ebola. L’epidemia di Ebola del 2018-2020 si è sviluppata in regioni dove i campi minerari confinano con la frontiera forestale.
Nel Borneo malese, lo sgombero dei terreni per l’estrazione mineraria e la coltivazione della palma è stato direttamente collegato a una ondata di malaria. L’estrazione illegale dell’oro nel territorio brasiliano degli Yanomami ha creato migliaia di pozze stagnanti contaminate da mercurio, perfetti siti di riproduzione delle zanzare. Tra il 2021 e il 2023, i casi di malaria tra gli indigeni sono più che raddoppiati, mentre la Dengue si è diffusa in zone prima sicure.
Negli ultimi trent’anni, tanto i media quanto la politica hanno guardato esclusivamente al cielo. Attraverso i mercati del carbonio, l’umanità si è illusa di poter contenere il riscaldamento globale scambiandosi i crediti di emissione in atmosfera. I dati osservati dimostrano come la mitigazione finanziaria del clima sia in gran parte fallita. Terre emerse e oceani soffrono in silenzio.
Sebbene ridurre i gas serra sia indispensabile, la focalizzazione sulle emissioni ha condotto l’umanità in un vicolo cieco. Abbiamo trascurato le minacce tangibili e immediate poste dall’uso sconsiderato del territorio, dal degrado del suolo e dalla gestione irresponsabile dell’acqua. I crediti finanziari di carbonio non possono ripiantare una foresta rasa al suolo da un giorno all’altro. Non possono ripristinare la barriera ecologica tra una colonia di pipistrelli portatrice di nuovi virus e una comunità mineraria che vive ai margini della foresta. I crediti del carbonio atmosferico non condizionano il bulldozer che spianerà il prossimo ettaro di giungla.
La prossima epidemia di Ebola non sarà causata solo dall’aumento delle temperature, ma sarà innescata da una ruspa che abbatte gli alberi per scavare una miniera, indispensabile a rifornire le fabbriche. E soddisfare una domanda che tutti noi alimentiamo. Riconoscere il legame tra consumi ed epidemie è il primo passo verso politiche che proteggano gli ecosistemi e la salute umana attraverso una reale cura della terra e dell’acqua. Pensare di farlo contabilizzando i crediti su un registro da partita doppia è del tutto illusorio.
Possiamo vivere senza smartphone, laptop e veicoli elettrici? Molto difficile. Siamo di fronte a uno scomodo paradosso. Le stesse tecnologie che utilizziamo per organizzare le proteste sul clima, condividere i dati sulla salute pubblica e coordinare i soccorsi in caso di calamità sono il prodotto finale di processi che distruggono gli ecosistemi e innescano le epidemie.
Possiamo vivere senza armarci fino ai denti? Molto più facile ma, apparentemente, impossibile. Abbandonare la tecnologia è del tutto utopico, ma possiamo esigere responsabilità. Pratiche minerarie sostenibili, rigorosi requisiti di riforestazione, trasparenza della catena di approvvigionamento e investimenti reali nella gestione del territorio devono tramutarsi in standard non negoziabili, non capitoli opzionali sepolti nei rapporti sulla responsabilità aziendale.
Nel terzo millennio la storia della Terra ha inaugurato una epoca di emergenza continuata. Terrore, pandemia, guerra, recessione chiudono la porta alla mitigazione climatica e ogni finestra di cura ambientale. Ciò che serve è un ritorno alla normalità. Solo con la normalità della pace possiamo gestire l’ambiente in modo consapevole. Rispettare le normative sull’uso del territorio che preservano le riserve ecologiche. Sfruttare le miniere in maniera trasparente. Disciplinare il bene comune dell’acqua pulita come una infrastruttura di prevenzione delle malattie piuttosto che come una merce o un’arma letale.
L'articolo Non solo gas serra: il pianeta soffre anche per spreco d’acqua e degrado del suolo. E noi ci ammaliamo proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.
A morte de uma cadela e o diagnóstico de novos casos de cinomose entre cães comunitários acenderam um alerta no campus da Universidade Federal de Goiás (UFG), em Goiânia. A situação mobilizou estudantes e voluntários que atuam na proteção dos animais que circulam pela instituição.
Segundo relatos de voluntários, três cães receberam diagnóstico confirmado da doença e permanecem em tratamento. Outros quatro animais apresentaram sintomas compatíveis com a infecção viral, considerada altamente contagiosa entre cães.
Parte dos animais recebeu atendimento em clínica veterinária particular, enquanto outro permaneceu sob cuidados de uma voluntária dentro do campus. As despesas com medicamentos, consultas e exames foram custeadas por meio de campanhas de arrecadação organizadas por estudantes.
Integrantes do grupo responsável pelos cães comunitários afirmaram que a falta de um programa permanente de controle sanitário pode ter favorecido a disseminação da cinomose. Eles defendem a ampliação das ações de vacinação e acompanhamento dos animais que vivem na universidade.
Em nota, a Universidade Federal de Goiás informou que acompanha os casos e destacou que a cinomose possui caráter sazonal no campus, com ocorrências registradas em diferentes anos. A instituição ressaltou que a chegada frequente de novos animais dificulta o controle completo da doença.
O Hospital Veterinário da UFG informou que realizou avaliações clínicas, testes diagnósticos e orientações técnicas para os casos suspeitos. A unidade explicou que não interna animais com cinomose devido a protocolos de biossegurança destinados à proteção de outros pacientes.
De acordo com a UFG, a maior parte dos cães comunitários recebe vacinação e acompanhamento por meio de ações conjuntas entre o Hospital Veterinário, a Secretaria de Promoção da Segurança e Direitos Humanos e grupos de voluntários. A instituição também reforçou que a cinomose não representa risco de transmissão para seres humanos
The post Cinomose entre cães comunitários acende alerta no campus da UFG em Goiânia appeared first on Diário da Manhã - O Jornal do leitor Inteligente.
Residents living near massive AI data centers across America and the globe are reporting an eerie phenomenon that many are calling “the Trumpets of the Apocalypse.” From rural Texas to the outskirts of Dublin, from [...]
The post Mysterious ‘Doomsday Trumpets’ Heard Near AI Data Centers Worldwide appeared first on The People's Voice.
Login
