Jack Maxey's latest post on Gettr:

https://gettr.com/post/p11jqa151df

https://katholisches.info/2022/03/22/kritischer-medienkonsum-statt-betreutes-denken/

Nothing really new to us Anons, but good redpill material for normies. Translation of the article follows:

March 23, 2022

Critical media consumption instead of supervised thinking Joe Biden, Donald Trump, a laptop and Ukraine

Things are not always what they seem or what interested circles want them to seem. More

than ever, in a turbulent time like the present, critical thinking is required, also and especially from Catholics, also from priests. It becomes alarming when a counterpart repeats almost verbatim what was heard on the television news the night before, but remains inaccessible to other arguments that were not heard there. Supervised thinking, as done by mainstream media, may be convenient, but it is not an acceptable form of information gathering. In order to sharpen vigilance, this should be demonstrated by a concrete example with a current reference, because it also has to do with Ukraine, where violence is currently reigning. That it has come to this, has indirectly probably also to do with the example. In contrast to the mainstream, however, no opinion is to be given here,

but the need is to be awakened to question, to examine for oneself and perhaps also to recognize and admit to oneself that and how manipulation is taking place, that one has

perhaps been manipulated oneself, in order to be immune to it in the future.

The shock of Trump's election victory that changed much.

In November 2016, Donald Trump was unexpectedly elected U.S. president, something the establishment had not expected, neither the Republican nor the Democratic establishment. The establishment in the transatlantic satellite states is also linked to this establishment and is constantly forced to adapt. The fight against this election victory began the very day after the election. It

happened on two levels. Trump had already been discredited on a broad front throughout

the pre-election and election campaign with the intention of making him appear unelectable, even "impossible," in the eyes of the public. In the U.S., however, this strategy did not work. In Europe, on the other hand, it did, as polls showed. This is proof that opinion control is more firmly established and more densely developed in Europe. This fact should already be reason enough to become alert and to subject the media landscape and one's own media consumption to a critical review. Above all, the question of the credibility scale arises. In order to understand why a mainstream medium presents consumers with what and how, one must know who owns the medium or who controls it and what interests are connected with it.

After Trump's election victory, the strategy changed: On one level, the new president

was directly attacked in order to hinder his ability to act and to boycott his term in office;

on the other level, structural interventions were intended to prevent an election victory like Trump's from happening again. The latter is done primarily through censorship of the

Internet. After Barack Obama's election in 2008, the Internet was celebrated as an

instrument that would finally make real "grassroots democracy" a reality. At least that's what the mainstream told the people. After Donald Trump's election victory, the blame was placed on the Internet, which was "dangerous" and "subversive" because it was without control. Since then, increasingly radical censorship measures have been established to force social networks in particular under the same establishment control to which the classic mainstream media are already subject. The censorship is arbitrary and is directed in each case against political opponents and undesirable opinions, whether in the 2020 US election campaign, whether on Corona … Censorship can be applied at will.

>>15929250

(cont.)

Trump's statements on Biden's Ukraine connection.

Trump's obstruction of office came primarily from special investigations into "influencing the U.S. election campaign" in 2016, a put-upon predator's tale that ended in nothing against Trump, as honest observers had

predicted, but kept the president under a constant indictment that was unceasingly spread by the mainstream media.

Trump had also been accused of wanting material from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Selenskyj, who has been in office since 2019, to discredit Joe Biden, who was Trump's opponent in the 2020 presidential election and is now the incumbent U.S. president. The mainstream media, 95 percent anti-Trump in the U.S., made a scandal out of it. Trump had tried shameful things, namely to construct "false accusations" against Biden and to introduce them into the US election campaign via Ukraine.

Trump had claimed that the Biden family personally enriched itself in Ukraine thanks to Joe Biden's vice presidency. In plain language: the office of state had been misused for private interests. This is a legally

and morally reprehensible act, which also has very concrete political consequences in the

U.S. relationship with the country, in this case Ukraine. The Democrats around Biden and

the mainstream supporting him reacted indignantly, denied everything and went on the

counterattack. They claimed everything was a lie to hurt Biden. The phone conversation

between Trump and Selenskyj, when Trump inquired about Biden's dealings in Ukraine, had been intercepted by an intelligence agency and played to the public.

What was known was that Biden's son, Hunter Biden, had been given a consulting contract with Ukraine's state-owned gas company Burisma under Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that paid him a whopping $50,000 a month. But why does the son of a U.S. vice president receive such a consulting contract in Ukraine? Consultant for what? The consulting contract no longer exists because father Biden ran for president, but Hunter Biden is supposed to continue to collect for every cubic meter of gas that flows through the pipelines through Ukraine to the West - Russian gas, by the way, which relies on the pipelines through Ukraine and must be paid to Burisma for its transit.

The Obama/Biden administration (2009-2017) was very active in Ukraine as part of its anti-Russian policy. First by removing Ukraine from its historically close economic entanglement with Russia and reorienting it to the West, then directly by supporting the 2014 Maidan coup and installing a U.S.-friendly president, in transition Oleksandr Turchynov, then the aforementioned Poroshenko.

Were there countertrades going on? Not only political, but also private? Were there even quid pro quos?

Is it coming to light a year after Biden's swearing-in?

Trump was portrayed in 2020 as a liar trying to rig the election, but a year after Biden was sworn in as U.S. president, even leading U.S. media outlets that had supported Biden's campaign and discredited Trump are now making corruption allegations against Biden's son, including the main left-liberal establishment media outlet, the New York Times. Hunter Biden had allegedly hidden from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service money he had received in Ukraine. This, according to the accusations, was not only about possible tax evasion, but also about the dubious origin of the money.

>>15929274

(cont)

Biden Senior, who is the extended arm of the establishment in U.S. politics and thus globally, has always had a reputation for being a rather unscrupulous lobbyist. And so back to what Trump tried unsuccessfully to uncover in 2020 - due to the short time until the election date - and now seems to be coming to light.

In January 2018, Joe Biden, presidential

candidate-to-be of the Democratic Party, spoke to a very select group, the Council on

Foreign Relations. This is the oldest of the most influential existing circles of power,

founded by the Rockefeller family in the 1920s. Influence is pooled and exercised in these circles. This was a conversation moderated by Richard Haass, Chairman of the CFR. The event apparently served to reinforce the conviction of the influential mentors that he, Biden, was the suitable candidate for the U.S. presidency. In the process, Biden boasted (see video, starting at min. 52.14) that in 2016, as U.S. vice president, he traveled to Kiev to force

the removal of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

Shokin, which Biden did not say,

was at the time investigating Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company with which Biden Junior also did business (and counter-business), in a corruption scandal. Shokin had made a name for himself as an anti-corruption investigator since 1998 and had been appointed by Poroshenko as Ukraine's Prosecutor General in early 2015 and also as a member of Ukraine's National Security Council a few days later.

Verbatim, Biden told the invited guests

that he had traveled to Ukraine as vice president with a billion dollars in U.S. taxpayer

money in his luggage to support the U.S.-friendly Poroshenko government: "I remember convincing our [U.S. government] team, our leaders, that we should provide loan

guarantees. And I traveled, I think for the twelfth or thirteenth time, to Kiev. And I was to

announce that there would be another tranche of a billion dollars. And I had gotten a commitment from [President] Poroshenko and [Prime Minister] Yatsenyuk that they would

take action against the Prosecutor General. But they did not do that. They said they would

go to a press conference. I said, 'No, I will not. We're not going to give you the billion dollars,' and they said, 'You can't do that, you don't have the authority, you're not the President.' I said, call him [Obama]. I said, I am telling you that you are not getting the billion dollars. I will leave in about six hours. If the Attorney General is not fired, you are not going to get the money. And, damn it, the Attorney General was fired. And they put in a reliable person."

On April 3, 2016, Poroshenko signed the decree firing Shokin. That on the subject

of "influence peddling" in other countries, which mainstream media chalk up to others but take for granted by the U.S. government. In any case, the investigation of Hunter Biden was off the table. The new "reliable person" then declared that no irregularities had been found.

In the 2020 campaign, when Trump spoke of it and a found laptop of Hunter Biden surfaced

a few days before Election Day, the mainstream denied it. The New York Times also claimed that behind Trump's allegations was a covert, or dirty, operation by Russian intelligence to influence U.S. elections. They replayed the same record they had played against Trump in 2016.

>>15929276

(cont)

New accusations against Biden

In these days, another accusation was added: Hunter Biden is alleged to have been involved in the establishment of biological research laboratories with U.S. participation in Ukraine with his company Rosemont Seneca Technology Partners, one of the main investors in Metabiota. The issue was raised by the Russian side in the wake of the military intervention in Ukraine. The U.S. government initially denied, and the mainstream raged about Russian fake news and "disinformation." In the meantime, however, the U.S. government has had to admit as much. On March 11, Russia referred the

issue to the UN Security Council. Although previously denied, the U.S. has since admitted

the existence of the labs in Ukraine, as well as U.S. involvement. It continues to deny that

biological weapons research was conducted there. The background is the same as in the

bio-lab in Wuhan, from which the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus is suspected to have originated, regardless of whether or not biological weapons research was actually carried out in Ukraine or Wuhan. In the U.S., laws prohibit certain highly dangerous and bioethically unacceptable research. In the U.S., after such a law came into effect, the Obama administration pretended to comply with it and ended relevant research in the U.S., but in reality, as a great deal of evidence shows, moved it abroad, to countries where there are no legal prohibitions, including Wuhan and also Ukraine. Ukraine, not least under the influence of the Obama/Biden administration, had turned into a Wild West in the field of bioethics. In addition to allegedly banned biological research, the country also became an Eldorado for womb rental aka surrogacy, where well-heeled clientele can order children.

On the issue of U.S. biological research, the Neue Zürcher Zeitung wrote on March 12:

"But first, the claim that bio-weapons are being researched in some laboratories has nothing to do with a theory. It may be a misstatement of fact. Second, mere denials by the U.S. and Ukraine on such a sensitive matter are not worth much in the search for truth. For example, the U.S. also vehemently denied for years that it had set up prisons in Poland and elsewhere to treat terrorism suspects using methods banned in the United States. Only years later did the Polish government confirm this."

The authenticity of Hunter Biden's laptop confirmed

Now the authenticity of Hunter Biden's laptop has been confirmed. This no longer has any

influence on the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, but it does show that the public was misled at the time - and not by "conspiracy theorists" or "Russian secret services", but by the mainstream media and the now occupant of the White House.

The evaluation of the laptop (Maxey had received a copy of the hard drive from Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York and lawyer for Donald Trump) was carried out in "tireless work" (Maike Hickson) by one man in particular, the devout Catholic Jack Maxey, a former associate of Steve Bannon. It is thanks to him that Biden's laptop is back in the headlines. As Maike Hickson reconstructed for LifeSiteNews, Maxey announced last Feb. 16 that he had been in contact with the New York Times and had provided it with material from the Biden laptop. The newspaper, which had spoken of "Russian disinformation" during the 2020 campaign, reviewed the material and confirmed the authenticity of the laptop for the first time. Biden had left the laptop in April 2019 in a repair shop in the state of Delaware because of moisture damage. The repair was never paid for and the laptop was never picked up. The store's owner in Wilmington, Delaware, John Paul Mac Isaac, eventually notified the FBI because the customer was registered as Hunter Biden and there is a notation on the laptop that it belongs to the Biden Foundation, named after Hunter Biden's late brother. The FBI seized the computer. Apparently, however, copies of the hard drive had been made earlier and leaked to the New York Post.

>>15929298

(Cont)

In October 2020, Rudy Giuliani urged the Attorney General's Office of the State of Delaware (the Bidens' place of residence and the location of the repair shop) to open an investigation on suspicion of criminal dealings, for which evidence was found on the computer. So far, all that is known from the FBI is the seizure file. Biden's campaign team and the mainstream media claimed that the FBI was involved because it was investigating a "Russian disinformation campaign." If Giuliani's hints made at the time were confirmed, Biden's counterattack would have been a red herring. The FBI has not yet commented on the matter. Last March 16, the New York Times now wrote:

"The email and others in the cache have been confirmed as authentic by people familiar with them and the investigation."

According to Hickson, "As numerous observers note, The New York Times has yet to correct its earlier statements on the matter. But the story is finally getting traction, with numerous media outlets calling out the 51 intelligence experts who had declared just before the 2020 election that this laptop was Russian disinformation. Senator Ben Johnson has also criticized the New York Times and former intelligence experts for their role during the presidential election in denying the authenticity of the laptop. Joe Biden had denied the authenticity of the laptop before his presidential election, assuring the American public that 'there is nothing to all this. It's all slander. Every major organization, every serious investigator has pointed out that this is a smear. This is a classic smear.'"

There is no doubt that the contents of the laptop, had its authenticity been confirmed in 2020, would have been election-influencing. Now, it is expected that there will finally be a thorough investigation into "all the crimes, corruption cases and sexual misconduct found on that laptop," Hickson said.

That is likely to play no small role in the

upcoming U.S. midterm elections in November, which will elect the House of

Representatives and one-third of the Senate.

Jack Maxey announced on March 9, shortly

before the New York Times confirmed the authenticity of the laptop, that he would not only turn over all the material to law enforcement, but also make it available to the world public.

"This is all coming to light now," said Maxey, who indicated March 19 that he had notified

The New York Times of his plans, putting him on the spot.

Yesterday, Maxey wrote that by the end of the week, all the material would be available to anyone worldwide. He also issued a warning:

"The world is not ready for what my team and I have found. I can only advise you to

restrain your anger and look to the Constitution to save us first."

It will be seen how these words are to be understood. In any case, he says, the revelations are not just about dubious business dealings and a conflation of the Biden family's political and private interests. Hickson recalls that it was also announced by Maxey that some photos and films of Hunter Biden on the laptop "concern underage girls and even his own niece."

When asked about his personal safety, Maxey showed his rosary. To which Hickson commented: "Let us all pray for this devout Catholic. May he win his fight for the truth and for our country. If the Biden administration begins to crumble under the laptop revelations, it will be due in large part to the work of Maxey."

In the end, the question remains as to why the New York Times is flip-flopping. Is it just the

pressure generated by Maxey's announced revelations? Or has the decision already been

made that Biden is no longer a presidential candidate in 2024, so there is no need to give

such consideration to himself? One will see.

The example shows, on the basis of various

stages, how necessary it is to deal critically with the media. Information is conveyed

through them. But through them, control is also exercised. The mainstream is second to

none in terms of fake news, manipulation and, above all, opinion control.