Mario retweeted
GOP Congress voted to give Morocco $40 mil and lent credibility to their claim to Ceuta. “the committee report (and final explanatory statement) tells agencies, and signals to everyone else, how Congress really wants the money spent and the programs run.”
teapawt.org/i/grok/share/0d547c2dd…
Mario retweeted
"What evidence is there in the pdfs that Fauci's org funded the very creation of COVID-19?"
(Wow.)
The documents establish a strong circumstantial chain but do not contain a smoking-gun classified document proving the virus itself was created with Fauci's money. Here's what they do contain:
The funding pipeline is confirmed and undisputed: NIAID (Fauci's agency) granted money to EcoHealth Alliance, which subgranted roughly $600,000 over five years to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for bat coronavirus research. The documents also include EcoHealth's 2018 DARPA proposal (Project Defuse), which described work to be done at WIV that involved sequencing bat coronavirus spike proteins, reverse-engineering them, inserting them into other coronavirus backbones, and infecting humanized mice to test their capacity to cause SARS-like disease. DARPA rejected this proposal as too dangerous. But NIAID funded EcoHealth for bat coronavirus work that continued at WIV anyway. EcoHealth's own belated progress report — filed two years late, covering the critical 2018–2019 period — showed the NIH-approved experiments made genetically manipulated viruses more lethal in mice.
The strongest direct claim comes from the Murphy memo (a Washington Times article circulated within the IC), in which Marine Corps Maj. Joseph Murphy, working with DARPA, concluded that SARS-CoV-2 was an "American-created recombinant bat vaccine, or its precursor virus" produced through the EcoHealth/WIV program. He described it as a synthetic chimera that leaked before it could be attenuated, likely escaping in August 2019 because it had been aerosolized for delivery to bats in caves. But this is Murphy's analysis, not a confirmed IC finding — and the IC never adopted it.
What the classified material adds is not forensic proof of creation but evidence that the people in a position to investigate that question had every reason not to, and behaved accordingly. The newly declassified IC emails show the investigation was repeatedly redirected away from the implications of Fauci's funding role, which is arguably more damning than a single piece of lab evidence would be — it explains why such evidence was never officially found.
Mario retweeted
Je vais partir du principe que tu es de bonne foi, parce que ton raisonnement est intuitif et que 90% des gens le partagent. Mais il repose sur trois erreurs factuelles, et ça vaut le coup de les regarder calmement.
Erreur 1 : la fortune d'Elon n'est pas un tas d'argent. C'est de la propriété d'usines, de fusées et de satellites. "Prendre la moitié de sa tune", concrètement, ça veut dire forcer la vente de la moitié de SpaceX et Tesla. L'argent ne sort pas d'un coffre, il sort des entreprises elles-mêmes, qui passent sous contrôle de fonds étrangers ou d'États. Tu ne redistribues pas du cash, tu démantèles un outil de production. C'est la différence entre récolter des pommes et découper le pommier.
Erreur 2 : "ça résout énormément de problèmes dans le monde". Cette expérience a déjà été tentée, en vrai. En 2021, le directeur du Programme Alimentaire Mondial de l'ONU a affirmé que 6 milliards de Musk pouvaient "résoudre la faim dans le monde". Réponse d'Elon : décrivez-moi exactement comment, comptabilité publique à l'appui, et je vends mes actions Tesla immédiatement. Le PAM a publié son plan. Verdict : ce n'était pas "résoudre la faim", c'était nourrir 42 millions de personnes pendant un an. Un an. Puis il faut re-payer, pour toujours. Le PAM avait d'ailleurs levé 8,4 milliards l'année précédente, et la faim était toujours là. Les ONG traitent les symptômes en boucle, jamais les causes, parce que leur financement dépend de l'existence du problème.
Erreur 3, la plus importante : tu cherches ce qui sort vraiment les gens de la pauvreté. Bonne nouvelle, on a la réponse, et elle est massive. En 1990, 36% de l'humanité vivait dans l'extrême pauvreté. Aujourd'hui, moins de 9%. Plus d'un milliard de personnes sorties de la misère en 30 ans. Par quoi ? Pas par la charité ni par l'aide internationale (plus de 1 000 milliards versés à l'Afrique en 60 ans pour un résultat à peu près nul). Par l'ouverture des marchés, l'industrialisation, le commerce. La Chine seule a sorti 800 millions de personnes de la pauvreté en abandonnant le collectivisme, pas en taxant ses entrepreneurs.
Donc fais le calcul complet. Option A : tu confisques 500 milliards, tu finances quelques années de programmes, l'argent est consommé, et tu as détruit la machine qui produisait les fusées, les voitures électriques et l'internet des zones rurales. Option B : tu laisses le meilleur allocateur de capital de sa génération réinvestir 100% de sa fortune dans des industries qui baissent les coûts pour tout le monde et emploient des centaines de milliers de personnes. L'option A soulage ta morale pendant 18 mois. L'option B sort des populations entières de la pauvreté pour toujours.
La pauvreté ne se redistribue pas. Elle se résout par la création. C'est contre-intuitif, c'est frustrant, mais c'est ce que disent 200 ans de données.
Mario retweeted
I’m tired of two tier society where such religious ‘exemptions exist’ - if I can’t even have a bottle of water or my big bottle of shampoo
Certain people shouldn’t be able to carry a knife just because their religion says so.
change.org/p/ban-the-kirpan-…
Mario retweeted
Sir Trevor Phillips hits the nail on the head: “Prime minister, Kemi Badenoch, Nigel Farage, anyone else, please stop telling me how to feel… perhaps you should all focus on doing your jobs”
Mario retweeted
People don't grasp the sheer speed and scale of Europe's decline.
This 👇 is an extraordinary number shared by Luis Vassy, director of Sciences Po (one of France's most famous schools) in this article: legrandcontinent.eu/fr/2026/…
He calculated that the EU is declining 3 times faster than the Qing dynasty at the height of China's century of humiliation.
Back then, it took China 50 years to drop from 30% of world GDP to 17%, whereas it took the EU just 17 years (from 2008 to 2025).
Insane 😢 And, sadly, given the current direction and the EU's systematically suicidal policy choices (latest example: teapawt.org/RnaudBertrand/status/2…), it's just the beginning...
It always astonishes me how there is virtually ZERO public debate - or even public awareness - in Europe about the decisions that will most shape ordinary people's lives.
These days, the EU is drafting a new anti-China legal framework where - quite literally - the more affordable and competitive Chinese products are, the more illegal they'd become.
You'd think EU citizens would want to be informed about such things - as it couldn't be more consequential for their prosperity.
Yet I bet virtually no EU citizen is even aware of it, beyond a vague sense that there is some sort of trade dispute going on.
So what's going on exactly? It all centers around a new legal instrument the EU is drafting called the "overcapacity instrument" (euobserver.com/218003/china-…).
First of all, the very notion of "overcapacity" is pretty ridiculous to begin with, especially the way it's being defined by the EU, as it basically means being competitive enough to export.
By this definition of "overcapacity," pretty much every European industry that's ever run a trade surplus - German cars, French wine, Italian fashion - has been guilty of "overcapacity."
I'm not even exaggerating: if you read this study by the EU Parliament on "Industrial overcapacities, with a focus on China" (europarl.europa.eu/RegData/e…), they define "overcapacity" as building more capacity than your domestic market can absorb. So the moment you build capacity to export abroad, you're in "overcapacity."
Utterly ridiculous.
And what this "overcapacity instrument" is about is creating a permanent legal mechanism for the EU to block Chinese competition across whole sectors of the economy, if they happen to be in "overcapacity."
In effect, this means that if China is competitive globally in a given sector in such a way that it exports a lot, that's proof of overcapacity, and legally it'd mean that the entire sector can be restricted from the EU market.
Which means it really, factually, is a legal framework where the more affordable and competitive your products are, the more illegal they become.
Which is a CRAZY economic concept! 🤦♂️
Please note that it's different from the anti-subsidy legal instrument, which the EU has already put in place in 2023 (the "Foreign Subsidies Regulation": competition-policy.ec.europa…).
This "overcapacity instrument" would be above and beyond this: it wouldn't even matter if a particular sector was subsidized by the Chinese government or not, the mere fact of its competitiveness in exports would be grounds for restrictions in the EU.
It doesn't take a genius to understand how badly this could impact everyday people: this is European consumers being forced to pay more for worse products by law, so that uncompetitive European firms don't have to improve.
Politicians frame it as avoiding a "China shock 2.0" but really this is choosing an even steeper self-inflicted decline than is already the case, where EU citizens would subsidize mediocre EU companies that would have even less pressure to catch up. It's a hidden tax: subsidies for uncompetitive firms paid by consumers instead of governments, which in turn makes them less incentivized to become competitive.
The first "China shock" did de-industrialize Europe somewhat, but at least it made things cheaper for European consumers. If this becomes Europe's response to a second "China shock" not only it'd make everything more expensive but it'd do nothing for EU industry: you don't become competitive by banning the competition...
Look at China itself: the way it industrialized was NOT by banning Western firms but on the contrary by welcoming them strategically and learning from them. You learn to compete by... competing, duh!
What I find most shocking in all of this isn't even the policy itself - you can make arguments for and against protectionism, and reasonable people can disagree.
What's shocking is that virtually no European media outlet is explaining any of this to the public. This is unarguably one of the single most consequential economic decisions the EU will make this decade, affecting the price of everything, and it's being drafted in near-total silence.
No newspaper is running the headline "EU plans to make Chinese goods illegal if they're too affordable" - even though that's essentially what's happening.
But that's what you call a "democracy" with "freedom of expression" these days apparently...
Mario retweeted
In my opinion, schools across the UK learning about Henry Nowak is far more important than watching Adolescence.
Mario retweeted
Enquanto eles faziam propaganda às vacinas, davam entrevistas e batiam palmas às farmacêuticas, havia famílias a chorar em silêncio.
Hoje demos voz a quem foi esquecido. A verdade não pode ficar confinada em quarentena. 🇵🇹⚠️
#CHEGA #Portugal #Covid19 #MartaTemido #Verdades Politica Parlamento Justiça Liberdade AndreVentura
Mario retweeted
This essay was written by a long-time friend who was convinced to publish it for public consumption. It describes the root causes of moral, economic, and democratic decay. It will require some effort but is worth the trouble...
forumgeopolitica.com/article…
Mario retweeted
The year is 1950. Your doctor lights a cigarette and tells you smoking is fine. He read it in a study. He is telling the truth about having read it. He does not know, or is not saying, that the study was funded by the tobacco industry.
The year is 1958. Your doctor tells you to eat less fat. The evidence is contested. The contestation is not in the public messaging. The food industry has been helpful in clarifying which findings deserve attention. Some researchers who published contradictory data have been quietly defunded. Ancel Keys is on the cover of Time magazine.
The year is 1962. Your doctor prescribes thalidomide to your pregnant wife for morning sickness. It has been approved. The FDA gave it the green light in Europe. Twelve thousand children will be born with severe limb malformations before anyone in an official capacity acknowledges the problem. The families are told the drug was safe. The drug was approved. Both of these things remain true.
The year is 1972. Your doctor prescribes Valium. Britain is in the grip of a benzodiazepine wave that will last two decades. The dependency risk is known internally. It is not shared. Your doctor is not lying to you. He was not told either.
The year is 1999. Your doctor prescribes Vioxx for your arthritis. It is newer than ibuprofen, well-tolerated, and Merck has a study showing it works. Merck also has internal data suggesting it roughly doubles the risk of heart attack. This data will not reach your doctor for four more years. Fifty thousand people are estimated to have died in the interim. Merck eventually settles for 4.85 billion dollars. No criminal charges are brought.
The year is 2002. Your doctor prescribes OxyContin. Purdue Pharma trained its sales representatives to tell doctors the addiction risk was less than one percent. That figure came from a letter, not a study. The letter was about patients with terminal cancer on short-term doses in hospital settings. Your doctor is a GP with a patient who has a bad back. Nobody draws a distinction. Nobody is required to.
The year is 2008. Your doctor checks your cholesterol. Your LDL is elevated. You are prescribed a statin. Nobody mentions that the number needed to treat for primary prevention is approximately 250. Nobody mentions that the muscle deterioration you'll notice over the next two years is listed as a rare side effect rather than a documented pattern affecting a meaningful percentage of patients. The trial that informed the prescription was funded by the manufacturer.
Now it is today.
Your doctor has new guidelines. New studies. New consensus.
He is confident.
He has always been confident.
The confidence has never been the problem.
The confidence is, in fact, precisely the problem.
Mario retweeted
I am dismayed. Active and serious negotiations have yet again been undermined. Neither the interests of the United States nor the cause of global peace are well served by this. And I pray for the innocents who will suffer. I urge the United States not to get sucked in further. This is not your war.
Mario retweeted
This picture contains three British Prime Minister’s past & present.
Tony Blair features in the Epstein files.
Gordon Brown features in the Epstein files.
Keir Starmer employs people in the Epstein files, including Epstein best friend Peter Mandelson.
Do you understand how the world works yet?
Mario retweeted
As someone works in human rights, I’ve never seen anything like the Epstein files in my 15-year career
Raped
Cannibalized
Trafficked
Filmed
Terrorized
Tortured
Murdered
13, 14, 15 year children
ZERO arrests
I don't understand how we're not having a global revolution right now
Mario retweeted
Three great "science" pushes over the last decade or so:
1) mastering the global climate with predictions of doom that never came true anywhere though half the world is saddle energy-use controls,
2) conquering the microbial kingdom with hegemonic impositions to eradicate the pathogen that causes Covid which became endemic anyway,
3) abolishing the biological basis of sex with pharmaceuticals and surgery, resulting in horrific abuse of teens and a compromise of women's rights.
Is there a crisis of trust? Certainly.
Mario retweeted
To all those who follow me because of @xx_xyathletics and who are now telling me to stop talking about covid...
Let me just explain a few things -- and why that isn't going to happen.
The only reason I'm even active on @X is because of covid. The only reason I have any following at all is because of covid.
Why? Because I objected to school closures and lockdowns from day 1. I lost my career, my city, pretty much all of my friends. Because I said closed schools, closed playgrounds, and masking were harming our kids.
We all suffered the most egregious violations of our civil liberties imaginable during lockdowns. I will never understand why people don't care and want to just pretend it never happened.
We couldn't leave our homes. Literally. We were told we couldn't see family, celebrate the holidays. We couldn't move about freely. We were censored. We couldn't gather or protest (unless it was for BLM, then it was ok). People couldn't go to church or AA meetings. For years!
Two year olds were forced to wear masks for hours a day. They suffered speech and developmental delays. That continue to this day.
Public school students in blue states were kept out of full time school for a year and a half. While their private school peers attended school and played sports. The most vulnerable children were harmed the most.
People couldn't work. 27M people lost their jobs in 2020. 27M!!
People couldn't visit loved ones in the hospital. People died alone. Women gave birth alone.
People were arrested for surfing. In the ocean - alone.
The world shut down. Supply chains stopped. That initiated the inflation we still are struggling to beat back.
I've been a covid dissident since March 2020. Children were harmed. They are still suffering from learning loss and the emotional impact of isolation and halted development. For some, the course of their lives was altered forever. They dropped out of school. Or fell behind and never caught up. Disengaged and never re-engaged. Drugs. Eating disorders. Suicidal ideation. Attempted suicide. Oh and the by way, the trans madness accelerated during lockdowns. Why? Isolation, terminal on-line-ness, depression, anxiety, all of it. Caused by lockdowns.
This is not something I will forgive. Or forget. You can't treat kids like prisoners and expect them to be ok (that is quote from a parent in Generation Covid - a parent who lost his child to suicide in 2021.)
I started making this documentary in 2022, and followed children and families who were harmed for 2 full years. It's called Generation-Covid.
Don't look away.
Mario retweeted
Six years ago today--one day after funding-agency heads Fauci, Collins, and Farrar commission scientists to write a paper falsely claiming no lab-origin scenario is plausible--one of the scientists, K.G. Andersen, privately tells the others lab origin "is in fact highly likely."
Mario retweeted
Six years ago today, a group of scientists got on a phone call and decided to lie to the world.
Fauci. Collins. Farrar. Andersen. Garry. Drosten.
They privately believed COVID looked engineered. So they wrote a paper saying the opposite — and used it to censor anyone who asked questions.
That one call shaped everything: the lockdowns, the censorship, the destroyed careers, the "trust the science" cudgel.
Here's exactly what happened. 🧵
