Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Great Reset

The US government’s ‘psychopathic’ record on bioweapons should give us pause about ‘bird flu’ claims

Published

10 months ago

8 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Emily Mangiaracina

Farmers and citizens around the world must resist dangerous animal cullings and put governments on the defensive about the new ‘bird flu’ scare, given what we know about the abuse of bioweapons and gain-of-function research.

In a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, medical science author Kris Newby told the story of how she learned that what is known as Lyme disease is likely the product of a bioweapon. She dropped fascinating discoveries that helped lead her to this conclusion: The admissions of a CIA “black ops guy” to dropping poison ticks on Cubans and of a bioweapons contractor to mass producing fleas, ticks, and mosquitoes “weaponized” with “deadly or incapacitating” diseases.

The importance of this interview goes far beyond the question of whether Lyme disease is a bioweapon, for which she provided hard-to-ignore evidence. By giving a disturbing glimpse into U.S. military involvement in disease bioweapons, it steers even the “conspiracy skeptic” to admit to the possibility, or likelihood, that governments, including our own, continue to test and deploy such bioweapons.

One who is unafraid of facing facts and reason will come to the same conclusion as Stanford professor Jay Bhattacharya upon reviewing Newby’s research: That the “mid-20th century US biomedical research establishment was psychopathic,” as shown by its knowingly “deadly investigations in the name of developing vaccines and bioweapons.”

But human nature doesn’t change, and if the biomedical establishment had psychopathic tendencies less than a century ago, there will be people within it with those same tendencies today, as Bhattacharya concludes, pointing out that this “may help explain many things about the COVID pandemic.”

This question of government involvement in bioweapons production is taking on fresh and urgent relevance as the WHO redoubles its efforts to pass a freedom-restricting, national sovereignty-overriding Pandemic Treaty and as a bird flu scare is emerging.

Despite the fact that evidence overwhelmingly shows COVID-19 was a gain-of-function bioweapon used as an excuse to push harmful “vaccinations” around the world, the public is expected to unquestioningly swallow the idea that there is no agenda or deliberation behind a bird flu outbreak. Moreover, we are to believe bird flu is such a threat that it necessitates the mass culling of millions of chickens, severely restricting our food supply.

Already, there are plans to kill over four million chickens in Iowa after the avian influenza was reportedly detected among a flock in Sioux County. A leaked Zoom meeting involving Canada’s chief public health officer, Theresa Tam, shows a government team discussing measures it can take to curb or prevent potential outbreaks in Canada: searching farms for positive bird flu cases in animals and quarantining those farms; surveillance and tracking of infection cases; honing in on the production of raw milk; and even searching for infection in “farm cats,” which they acknowledged is a delicate endeavor, since they are cherished as pets.

“I don’t think this is a threat to mankind. I think this is a giant threat to the food supply because of this elective mass destruction of livestock,” said Dr. McCullough, who went on to suggest that the animals ride out the infections without being killed by the masses. He also called for an investigation into gain-of-function research, suggesting that this bird flu, like COVID-19, may be the result of such research.

Remarkably, the scientist Dr. Michael Gregor, a vegan who once once testified on behalf of Oprah Winfrey in her “meat defamation” trial, has repeatedly claimed that chicken farms will trigger an apocalyptic virus that will threaten half of humankind. In 2006, he published a book called Bird Flu: A Virus of Our Own Hatching, in which he warns that “leading public health authorities now predict as inevitable a pandemic of influenza, triggered by bird flu and expected to lead to millions of deaths around the globe.”

In his 2020 book “How to Survive a Pandemic,” he recommends that humans eventually not eat poultry at all, asserting, “As long as there is poultry, there will be pandemics. In the end, it may be us or them.”

In fact, one Amazon book reviewer believes his title is a misnomer and should be replaced with the following: “How Raising and Consuming Animal Flesh Causes Pandemics, and (By the Way) How to Survive One.”

In other words, in order to avoid total apocalypse, humanity must face economic devastation as well as likely malnutrition and health deficits from the inability to consume animal flesh. Globalists including the World Economic Forum (WEF) and Bill Gates already want the world to transition to synthetic beef “for the climate.” Are we to believe that eliminating animal flesh, a staple of human diets going back thousands of years, is genuinely good for the welfare of mankind?

Targeting chickens also conveniently aims a blow at those who are seeking to opt out of the globalist system by producing their own food, especially since the most accessible source of animal protein is chicken eggs and meat, available even to non-farmers.

The globalists, however – pardon the pun – prefer to kill two birds with one stone. A bird flu outbreak could accomplish another major destructive goal of the globalists: Dr. McCullough thinks that the “end game” of this bird flu is “mass vaccination.” He pointed out that the military contractor Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) has already helped develop a bird flu vaccine which has been cleared by the FDA, and on Thursday, it was reported that the U.S. government is close to an “agreement to fund a late-stage trial of Moderna’s mRNA bird flu vaccine.”

Farmers and citizens around the world must resist mass animal cullings and put governments on the defensive, in light of what we know about the abuse of bioweapons and gain-of-function research. We have every right to question the origins and true danger of a new “pandemic,” considering what we’ve learned and witnessed during the COVID-19 outbreak. We cannot let globalists destroy lives in the name of saving them.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Crime / 3 hours ago

First Good Battlefield News From Trump’s Global War on Fentanyl

Opinion / 7 hours ago

Some scientists advocate creating human bodies for ‘spare parts.’

International / 9 hours ago

Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ defense shield must be built now, Lt. Gen. warns

Censorship Industrial Complex

France condemned for barring populist leader Marine Le Pen from 2027 election

Published on March 31, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

It remains to be seen how long the rule of lawfare can last against the rising demand for popular politics. The globalist remnants across the West are now liberal democracies in name only.

Marine Le Pen, the former leader of the populist French opposition party, has been sentenced to prison and barred from standing for election as president in 2027, following a court ruling against her for alleged financial crimes.

Le Pen is currently leading polls to win the presidential election, being 11 to 17 points ahead of the party of the globalist President Emmanuel Macron.

The ruling Monday on charges of “misuse of EU funds” sees Le Pen, leader of the National Rally (RN) party, facing two years’ imprisonment and a five-year ban on running for elected office. Her lawyer stated she would appeal the ruling.

 

Speaking a day before the verdict, Le Pen said, “There are 11 million people who voted for the movement I represent. So tomorrow, potentially, millions and millions of French people would see themselves deprived of their candidate in the election.”

She is to address the French nation in a televised statement Monday night.

Party leader Jordan Bardella responded on X, saying, “Today, it is not only Marine Le Pen who is unjustly condemned: it is French democracy that is being executed.”

Bardella has called for “peaceful mobilization” in support of Marine Le Pen, with a petition launched in protest at the “democratic scandal” of her effective cancellation as a candidate.

The RN won 33 percent of the vote in the first round of the 2024 French parliamentary elections, being the single largest party overall. It is prevented from entering government by a “cordon sanitaire” – an agreement between liberal-global and left-wing parties to “firewall” national-populists from power regardless of how many people vote for them.

Le Pen’s appeal would suspend the jail sentence and the fine of 100,000 euros – but would not be heard until 2026, effectively sabotaging her preparations for the 2027 election should she win. The ban takes effect when the appeal process is exhausted, meaning Le Pen is free to campaign until her appeal is heard in a year’s time.

The court ruled that Le Pen, whose RN was the single largest party in the recent French parliamentary elections, had misused 3 million euros in EU funds by paying party officials based in France.

She had told France’s La Tribune Dimanche on Saturday that “the judges have the power of life or death over our movement.”

The judges appear to have given her party a death sentence. Eight further RN members and twelve assistants were also found guilty in the same trial.

Elon Musk has warned the move will “backfire,” with globalist house magazine The Economist in agreement that “her sentence for corrupt use of EU funds could strengthen the hard right.” Its report stated, “Barring Marine Le Pen is a political earthquake for France.”

The shockwaves have reached across Europe, and around the world. Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini called the court’s ruling a “declaration of war by Brussels,” joining Dutch and Hungarian national-populist leaders Geert Wilders and Viktor Orban in condemnation of the move.

 

According to commentators, the legal ruling shows that the liberal-global regime is now canceling democracy. Independent journalist Michael Shellenberger said on X of worldwide globalist moves to criminalize its opponents: “This is a five alarm fire.”

 

Citing the lawfare undertaken against then-candidate Donald Trump, former State Department official Mike Benz described the many examples of the rule of lawfare were “a dagger in the heart of democracy”:

 

Donald Trump Jr. asked whether the French judiciary are “just trying to prove JD Vance was right” – referring to the vice president’s “blistering attack on European leaders” over their rising censorship and anti-democratic moves. Vance told EU and UK leaders in Munich, “Democracy rests on the sacred principle that the voice of the people matters. There is no room for firewalls. You either uphold the principle or you don’t.”

U.S. political strategist Steve Bannon also referenced populist figures facing legal persecution in his “War Room” rundown of the Le Pen affair today:

 

The move to legally “firewall” Le Pen has left even her political opponents disturbed, with the ruling Prime Minister Francois Bayrou reportedly “disquieted” by the verdict. Jean-Luc Melenchon, the leader of the left-liberal LFI and a determined political enemy of Le Pen, has said, “The decision to remove an elected official should be up to the people” – not the courts.

Right-populist leader Eric Zemmour, who coined the term “remigration,” warned of a “coup d’etat” of activist judges in 1997 – and said today that “everything has to change” as “it is not for judges to decide for whom the people must vote.”

Laurent Wauquiez of the conservative Les Republicains – who have also refused to work with the RN in coalition – said, “The decision to condemn Marine Le Pen is heavy and exceptional. In a democracy, it is unhealthy that an elected official be forbidden to stand for election.”

It seems this latest example of liberal-global lawfare may even see Le Pen’s party rise in the polls, with a survey today showing two-thirds of all French voters saying her ineligibility would not stop them voting for her RN party.

Nearly half of voters believe she was treated harshly “for political reasons,” with a quarter believing the move to bar her will be a “trump card” for the party overall.

Whether the move “backfires” or not, the message to Western electorates is becoming clear. You can vote for liberals of the left, right, or center – because anyone offering a real alternative will be locked out of power, or locked up in jail.

It remains to be seen how long the rule of lawfare can last against the rising demand for popular politics. After canceled elections, speech crackdowns, and criminalizing their opponents, the globalist remnants across the West are now liberal democracies in name only.

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

Welcome to Britain, Where Critical WhatsApp Messages Are a Police Matter

Published on March 30, 2025

By

logo

By Cam Wakefield

“It was just unfathomable to me that things had escalated to this degree,”

“We’d never used abusive or threatening language, even in private.”

You’d think that in Britain, the worst thing that could happen to you after sending a few critical WhatsApp messages would be a passive-aggressive reply or, at most, a snooty whisper campaign. What you probably wouldn’t expect is to have six police officers show up on your doorstep like they’re hunting down a cartel. But that’s precisely what happened to Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine — two parents whose great offense was asking some mildly inconvenient questions about how their daughter’s school planned to replace its retiring principal.
This is not an episode of Black Mirror. This is Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, 2025. And the parents in question—Maxie Allen, a Times Radio producer, and Rosalind Levine, 46, a mother of two—had the gall to inquire, via WhatsApp no less, whether Cowley Hill Primary School was being entirely above board in appointing a new principal.
What happened next should make everyone in Britain pause and consider just how overreaching their government has become. Because in the time it takes to send a meme about the school’s bake sale, you too could be staring down the barrel of a “malicious communications” charge.
The trouble started in May, shortly after the school’s principal retired. Instead of the usual round of polite emails, clumsy PowerPoints, and dreary Q&A sessions, there was… silence. Maxie Allen, who had once served as a school governor—so presumably knows his way around a budget meeting—asked the unthinkable: when was the recruitment process going to be opened up?
A fair question, right? Not in Borehamwood, apparently. The school responded not with answers, but with a sort of preemptive nuclear strike.
Jackie Spriggs, the chair of governors, issued a public warning about “inflammatory and defamatory” social media posts and hinted at disciplinary action for those who dared to cause “disharmony.” One imagines this word being uttered in the tone of a Bond villain stroking a white cat.
Parents Allen and Levine were questioned by police over their WhatsApp messages.
For the crime of “casting aspersions,” Allen and Levine were promptly banned from the school premises. That meant no parents’ evening, no Christmas concert, no chance to speak face-to-face about the specific needs of their daughter Sascha, who—just to add to the bleakness of it all—has epilepsy and is registered disabled.
So what do you do when the school shuts its doors in your face? You send emails. Lots of them. You try to get answers. And if that fails, you might—just might—vent a little on WhatsApp.
But apparently, that was enough to earn the label of harassers. Not in the figurative, overly sensitive, “Karen’s upset again” sense. No, this was the actual, legal, possibly-prison kind of harassment.
Then came January 29. Rosalind was at home sorting toys for charity—presumably a heinous act in today’s climate—when she opened the door to what can only be described as a low-budget reboot of Line of Duty. Six officers. Two cars. A van. All to arrest two middle-aged parents whose biggest vice appears to be stubborn curiosity.
“I saw six police officers standing there,” she said. “My first thought was that Sascha was dead.”
Instead, it was the prelude to an 11-hour ordeal in a police cell. Eleven hours. That’s enough time to commit actual crimes, be tried, be sentenced, and still get home in time for MasterChef.
Allen called the experience “dystopian,” and, for once, the word isn’t hyperbole. “It was just unfathomable to me that things had escalated to this degree,” he said. “We’d never used abusive or threatening language, even in private.”
Worse still, they were never even told which communications were being investigated. It’s like being detained by police for “vibes.”
One of the many delightful ironies here is that the school accused them of causing a “nuisance on school property,” despite the fact that neither of them had set foot on said property in six months.
Now, in the school’s defense—such as it is—they claim they went to the police because the sheer volume of correspondence and social media posts had become “upsetting.” Which raises an important question: when did being “upsetting” become a police matter?
What we’re witnessing is not a breakdown in communication, but a full-blown bureaucratic tantrum. Instead of engaging with concerned parents, Cowley Hill’s leadership took the nuclear option: drag them out in cuffs and let the police deal with it.
Hertfordshire Constabulary, apparently mistaking Borehamwood for Basra, decided this was a perfectly normal use of resources. “The number of officers was necessary,” said a spokesman, “to secure electronic devices and care for children at the address.”
Right. Nothing says “childcare” like watching your mom get led away in handcuffs while your toddler hides in the corner, traumatized.
After five weeks—five weeks of real police time, in a country where burglaries are basically a form of inheritance transfer—the whole thing was quietly dropped. Insufficient evidence. No charges. Not even a slap on the wrist.
So here we are. A story about a couple who dared to question how a public school was run, and ended up locked in a cell, banned from the school play, and smeared with criminal accusations for trying to advocate for their disabled child.
This is Britain in 2025. A place where public institutions behave like paranoid cults and the police are deployed like private security firms for anyone with a bruised ego. All while the rest of the population is left wondering how many other WhatsApp groups are one message away from a dawn raid.
Because if this is what happens when you ask a few inconvenient questions, what’s next? Fingerprinting people for liking the wrong Facebook post? Tactical units sent in for sarcastic TripAdvisor reviews?
It’s a warning. Ask the wrong question, speak out of turn, and you too may get a visit from half the local police force.

Reclaim The Net needs your help

Make a one-time donation
Continue Reading

Trending

X