Censorship Industrial Complex
The Wuhan Cover-Up: Review of Bobby Kennedy’s Crucial Book
From the Brownstone Institute
BY
” No kidding, he has the receipts. Tony Fauci is only one pawn on the chessboard in this book. “
When Bobby Kennedy talked about writing this book a couple of years ago, I asked him, why? Mindful of how the truth about everything Covid (and much else) was being memory-holed, he said he wanted to create an accurate historical record of what happened, for the future.
I thought that was a good answer. We desperately need a clear, accurate understanding about many things that have been taking place over the past few years, or should I say decades, and we all need to be saving hard copies or pdfs on hard drives of the important bits of history that we dig up.
Bobby did the difficult part and collected those scraps, and he knitted them together into a narrative that very few people know about. In a nutshell: there is a cabal that took the concept of biological warfare 30 years ago and ran with it—in order to create new industries, massive profits, and to control the world using fear of death by contagion. He created a history that is also a page-turner, enabling us to understand in a much deeper way what we have just lived through.
No kidding, he has the receipts. Tony Fauci is only one pawn on the chessboard in this book. There are many others, and I will mention just a few. Robert Kadlec is one. Sir Dr. Jeremy Farrar is a real knight, despite or because of having played a pivotal role in the overdosing of over 2,500 patients with hydroxychloroquine in the UK/Oxford and WHO clinical trials that he oversaw and funded.
There are the funders; the scientists who will do anything for another grant; the massive network controlled by a syndicate: the money men and women from NIH’s many institutes, especially its best-funded NIAID; the NSF, whose former director was on the board of EcoHealth Alliance; the Wellcome Trust, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation; and other charities deeply entangled with the ones I just mentioned. There are think tanks that help guide the direction the funding takes. A US DoD that contributes billions to whitewash and hide its biowarfare research. And a massive bureaucracy and media that protects all these people from exposure and punishment.
Nobody really wants to think about bioweapons. They are unpleasant in the extreme to contemplate. They should not exist. They challenge our entire concept of medicine being sacrosanct, the knowledge of medicine never to be used for harm. This is in the Hippocratic Oath.
Unfortunately, we cannot bury our heads in the sand over this issue. Our lack of knowledge about it, our revulsion toward it, and our deep-seated fears about it have enabled the spectre of biological warfare to lead us on a long and winding road to hell.
The 2001 anthrax letters, sent at the right time to the right Senators, led to the Patriot Act, a massively profitable biodefense industry, and the rise of the Surveillance State.
By 2005 we had the PREP Act, ostensibly to allow the DoD to continue using anthrax vaccines despite the revocation of the vaccine license in 2004. Did anyone know back then that the PREP Act would be used to greenlight contaminated gene therapy injections for billions around the world? Why didn’t the scientists designing these injections predict some, if not all of their harms, having spent hundreds of millions to study beta coronaviruses over 2 decades? Or did they?
Without the PREP Act removing liability from the Covid vaccine manufacturers, the injectors, and the government planners who both designed the program, and gave away billions of taxpayer dollars in bonuses for each shot administered, such untested, unlicensed, and deadly shots would never have been administered.
These Patriot and PREP Acts were passed because Congress and the American public were played like a fiddle, induced to be terrified. Congress attempted to immunize itself from criticism by throwing money at the problem, much of it going to Fauci, while through ignorance Congress made the problem of biological warfare far worse.
Many Americans took the Covid experimental shots willingly, out of terror and ignorance. The half that held back were mostly beaten, shamed, or cajoled into compliance through the most incredible, federally-funded fifth general mind control assault the world has ever experienced.
We have just lived through 3 bioweapon events, at least: the original Wuhan coronavirus, the Omicron variant, and monkeypox, all of which assuredly came from labs.
It is obvious that many more nasty viruses and other microorganisms are still sitting in labs, many sponsored by military and intelligence agencies using our tax dollars. It is absolutely critical that the public act a lot smarter than it did last time, if there is a next time. It is critical to know what it is we are dealing with. And critical to understand that there ARE ways we can save ourselves that lie outside the government’s prescribed Overton window.
The Wuhan Cover-Up gives you the facts, the history, and the understanding you need to grasp what is actually happening, right now. If enough of us read it, we will gain the knowledge and strength in numbers to stop and defund the biowarfare industry, revoke these terrible laws, and lay down our deep, unconscious fears regarding contagion.
[Full disclosure: I helped edit this book. I was the first person in the world to study an epidemic (epizootic) and prove it was due to biological warfare.]
Censorship Industrial Complex
EU’s “Democracy Shield” Centralizes Control Over Online Speech
Presented as a defense of democracy, the plan reads more like the architecture of a managed reality.
|
European authorities have finally unveiled the “European Democracy Shield,” we’ve been warning about for some time, a major initiative that consolidates and broadens existing programs of the European Commission to monitor and restrict digital information flows.
Though branded as a safeguard against “foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI)” and “disinformation,” the initiative effectively gives EU institutions unprecedented authority over the online public sphere.
At its core, the framework fuses a variety of mechanisms into a single structure, from AI-driven content detection and regulation of social media influencers to a state-endorsed web of “fact-checkers.”
The presentation speaks of defending democracy, yet the design reveals a machinery oriented toward centralized control of speech, identity, and data.
One of the more alarming integrations links the EU’s Digital Identity program with content filtering and labelling systems.
The Commission has announced plans to “explore possible further measures with the Code’s signatories,” including “detection and labelling of AI-generated and manipulated content circulating on social media services” and “voluntary user-verification tools.”
Officials describe the EU Digital Identity (EUDI) Wallet as a means for “secure identification and authentication.”
In real terms, tying verified identity to online activity risks normalizing surveillance and making anonymity in expression a thing of the past.
The Democracy Shield also includes the creation of a “European Centre for Democratic Resilience,” led by Justice Commissioner Michael McGrath.
Framed as a voluntary coordination hub, its mission is “building capacities to withstand foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI) and disinformation,” involving EU institutions, Member States, and “neighboring countries and like-minded partners.”
The Centre’s “Stakeholder Platform” is to unite “trusted stakeholders such as civil society organizations, researchers and academia, fact-checkers and media providers.”
In practice, this structure ties policymaking, activism, and media oversight into one cooperative network, eroding the boundaries between government power and public discourse.
Financial incentives reinforce the system. A “European Network of Fact-Checkers” will be funded through EU channels, positioned as independent yet operating within the same institutional framework that sets the rules.
The network will coordinate “fact-checking” in every EU language, maintain a central database of verdicts, and introduce “a protection scheme for fact-checkers in the EU against threats and harassment.”
Such an arrangement destroys the line between independent verification and state-aligned narrative enforcement.
The Commission will also fund a “common research support framework,” giving select researchers privileged access to non-public platform data via the
Digital Services Act (DSA) and Political Advertising Regulation.
Officially, this aims to aid academic research, but it could also allow state-linked analysts to map, classify, and suppress online viewpoints deemed undesirable.
Plans extend further into media law. The European Commission intends to revisit the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) to ensure “viewers – particularly younger ones – are adequately protected when they consume audiovisual content online.”
While framed around youth protection, such language opens the door to broad filtering and regulation of online media.
Another initiative seeks to enlist digital personalities through a “voluntary network of influencers to raise awareness about relevant EU rules, including the DSA.” Brussels will “consider the role of influencers” during its upcoming AVMSD review.
Though presented as transparent outreach, the move effectively turns social media figures into de facto promoters of official EU messaging, reshaping public conversation under the guise of awareness.
The Shield also introduces a “Digital Services Act incidents and crisis protocol” between the EU and signatories of the Code of Practice on Disinformation to “facilitate coordination among relevant authorities and ensure swift reactions to large-scale and potentially transnational information operations.”
This could enable coordinated suppression of narratives across borders. Large platforms exceeding 45 million EU users face compliance audits, with penalties reaching 6% of global revenue or even platform bans, making voluntary cooperation more symbolic than real.
A further layer comes with the forthcoming “Blueprint for countering FIMI and disinformation,” offering governments standardized guidance to “anticipate, detect and respond” to perceived information threats. Such protocols risk transforming free expression into a regulated domain managed under preemptive suspicion.
Existing structures are being fortified, too. The European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO), already central to “disinformation” monitoring, will receive expanded authority for election and crisis surveillance. This effectively deepens the fusion of state oversight and online communication control.
Funding through the “Media Resilience Programme” will channel EU resources to preferred outlets, while regulators examine ways to “strengthen the prominence of media services of general interest.”
This includes “impact investments in the news media sector” and efforts to build transnational platforms promoting mainstream narratives. Though described as supporting “independent and local journalism,” the model risks reinforcing state-aligned voices while sidelining dissenting ones.
Education and culture are not exempt. The Commission plans “Guidelines for teachers and educators on tackling disinformation and promoting digital literacy through education and training,” along with new “media literacy” programs and an “independent network for media literacy.”
While such initiatives appear benign, they often operate on the assumption that government-approved information is inherently trustworthy, conditioning future generations to equate official consensus with truth.
Viewed as a whole, the European Democracy Shield represents a major institutional step toward centralized narrative management in the European Union.
Under the language of “protection,” Brussels is constructing a comprehensive apparatus for monitoring and shaping the flow of information.
For a continent that once defined itself through open debate and free thought, this growing web of bureaucratic control signals a troubling shift.
Efforts framed as defense against disinformation now risk becoming tools for suppressing dissent, a paradox that may leave European democracy less free in the name of making it “safe.”
|
|
|
|
You read Reclaim The Net because you believe in something deeper than headlines; you believe in the enduring values of free speech, individual liberty, and the right to privacy.
Every issue we publish is part of a larger fight: preserving the principles that built this country and protecting them from erosion in the digital age.
With your help, we can do more than simply hold the line: we can push back. We can shine a light on censorship, expose growing surveillance overreach, and give a voice to those being silenced.
If you’ve found any value in our work, please consider becoming a supporter.
Your support helps us expand our reach, educate more people, and continue this work.
Please become a supporter today.
Thank you for your support.
|
Censorship Industrial Complex
School Cannot Force Students To Use Preferred Pronouns, US Federal Court Rules

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
“Our system forbids public schools from becoming ‘enclaves of totalitarianism.’”
A federal appeals court in Ohio ruled Thursday that students cannot be forced to use preferred pronouns in school.
Defending Education (DE) filed the suit against Olentangy Local School District (OLSD) in 2023, arguing the district’s anti-harassment policy that requires students to use the “preferred pronouns” of others violates students’ First Amendment rights by “compelling students to affirm beliefs about sex and gender that are contrary to their own deeply held beliefs.” Although a lower court attempted to shoot down the challenge, the appeals court ruled in a 10-7 decision that the school cannot “wield their authority to compel speech or demand silence from citizens who disagree with the regulators’ politically controversial preferred new form of grammar.”
Because the school considers transgender students to be a protected class, students who violated the anti-harassment policy by referring to such students by their biological sex risked punishments such as suspension and expulsion, according to DE.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
“American history and tradition uphold the majority’s decision to strike down the school’s pronoun policy,” the court wrote in its opinion. “Over hundreds of years, grammar has developed in America without governmental interference. Consistent with our historical tradition and our cherished First Amendment, the pronoun debate must be won through individual persuasion, not government coercion. Our system forbids public schools from becoming ‘enclaves of totalitarianism.’”
OLSD did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
“We are deeply gratified by the Sixth Circuit’s intensive analysis not only of our case but the state of student First Amendment rights in the modern era,” Nicole Neily, founder and president of DE, said in a statement. “The court’s decision – and its many concurrences – articulate the importance of free speech, the limits and perils of public schools claiming to act in loco parentis, and the critical role of persuasion – rather than coercion – in America’s public square.”
“Despite its ham-fisted attempt to moot the case, Olentangy School District was sternly reminded by the 6th circuit en banc court that it cannot force students to express a viewpoint on gender identity with which they disagree, nor extend its reach beyond the schoolhouse threshold into matters better suited to an exercise of parental authority,” Sarah Parshall Perry, vice president and legal fellow at DE, said in a statement. “A resounding victory for student speech and parental rights was long overdue for families in the school district and we are thrilled the court’s ruling will benefit others seeking to vindicate their rights in the classroom and beyond.”
-
Business2 days agoP.E.I. Moves to Open IRAC Files, Forcing Land Regulator to Publish Reports After The Bureau’s Investigation
-
COVID-192 days agoMajor new studies link COVID shots to kidney disease, respiratory problems
-
Addictions20 hours agoCanadian gov’t not stopping drug injection sites from being set up near schools, daycares
-
International2 days agoIs America drifting toward civil war? Joe Rogan thinks so
-
Business19 hours agoParliamentary Budget Officer begs Carney to cut back on spending
-
International2 days agoBondi and Patel deliver explosive “Clinton Corruption Files” to Congress
-
International1 day agoState Department designates European Antifa groups foreign terror organizations
-
International1 day agoUS announces Operation Southern Spear, targeting narco-terrorists




