Friday, May 30, 2025

Polaris of Enlightenment

Vaccine critic in the EU Parliament: “Covid-19 was an act of biological warfare against humanity”

The criticized covid vaccinations

Published 31 May 2023
– By Editorial Staff
Dr David Martin spekas at the EU-parliament at the International Covid Summit III.

The high-profiled vaccine sceptic Dr David Martin, who describes himself as a financial analyst, author, commentator, professor and researcher, declared during the International Covid Summit in the European Parliament that covid-19 was in fact “a form of biological warfare” deliberately unleashed by the US government to create a global pandemic, benefit the pharmaceutical giants and promote mass vaccination programs.

In early May, the third edition of the International Covid Summit was held in Brussels, sponsored by the EU groups European Conservatives and Reformists and Identity and Democracy.

A large number of guests and speakers were invited, including American biochemist Dr. Robert Malone, who is also the inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology.

During the conference, experts, activists and EU parliamentarians discussed the possibility that covid-19 was deliberately used as a “weapon” to impose draconian control over citizens, shut down societies and benefit certain actors financially, as well as the seemingly deliberate manipulation of corona statistics by Western health authorities and the health risks associated with the controversial vaccines.

One of the participants was Dr. David Martin, a high-profile vaccine critic and debater, and what he had to say about the virus has shocked millions of people around the world. Martin argues that a coronavirus was first identified in 1965 and that powerful interests have worked for over 50 years to manipulate and modify the virus, turning it into a “biological weapon” that was deliberately released to harm humanity and benefit the pharmaceutical giants and other special interests.

Below the full transcript of Dr. David Martin’s controversial speech in the EU Parliament:

 


 

It is a particularly interesting location for me to be sitting today, given that over a decade ago I sat in this very chair right here in the European Union Parliament.

And at that time I warned the world of what was coming, during that conversation that was hosted at the time by the Green and EFA and a number of the other parties of the European Unions, of various representations.

We were having a conversation on whether Europe should adopt the United States policy of allowing for the patents on biologically derived materials.

And at the time I urged this body and I urged people around the world that the weaponization of nature against humanity had dire consequences.

Tragically, I sit here today, with that unfortunate line that I don’t like to say, which is “I told you so.”

But the fact of the matter is, we’re here not for a reprisal on past decisions. We’re here to actually, once again, come to the face of the human condition and ask the question, who do we want to be?

What do we want humanity to look like?

And rather than seeing this as an exercise in futility, which is very easy from time to time when you’re in the position I’m in, I actually see this not as an exercise in futility.

I see this as one of the greatest opportunities that faces us because we now have a public conversation, which is now front and center in people’s minds.

When this was an esoteric conversation about biological patents, nobody cared.

But when that conversation came home, then it became something people can care about.
So I’m actually quite grateful for this opportunity.

I thank the members of Parliament for hosting this.

I thank all of the translators who I apologize in advance.

I will use terminology that is probably very difficult to translate, so my apologies, and I’d also like to acknowledge the fact that many of you are aware of my involvement with this in large part due to the amazing work of my wonderful wife, Kim Martin, who encouraged me at the very early days of this pandemic to get on front of the camera and talk about all the information that I had been sharing among very small groups around the world.

And it was in fact her encouragement that put me in a place where many of you have heard what I have to say.

Ironically, the world that I came from that used to be very popular, my CNBC and Bloomberg presentations, which were televised on mainstream media around the world, was an audience that I lost.

I can confidently say Covid diminished my fame, but I can also confidently say that I’d rather stand among the people with whom I’m standing today than any of the folks that were part of that previous world. So, this is a much better place to be.

My role today is to set the stage for this conversation in a historical context, because this did not come in the last three years.

This did not come in the last five or six years.

This actually is an ongoing question that probably began here in Europe in the early stages of the mid 19 hundreds, but certainly by 1913, 1914, this conversation started right here in Central Europe.

The pandemic that we alleged to have happen in the last few years also did not happen overnight.

In fact, the very specific pandemic using coronavirus began in a very different time.

Most of you don’t know that Coronavirus as a model of a pathogen was isolated in 1965.

Coronavirus was identified in 1965 as one of the first infectious, replicatable viral models that could be used to modify a series of other experiences of human condition.

It was isolated once upon a time associated with the common cold.

But what’s particularly interesting about its isolation in 1965 was that it was immediately identified as a pathogen that could be used and modified for a whole host of reasons.

And you heard me correctly, that was 1965.

And by the way, these slides are public domain.

You’re welcome to look at every single reference.

Every comment that I made is based on published material.

So do make sure that you look at those references.

But in 1966, the very first COV Coronavirus model was used as a transatlantic biological experiment in human manipulation, and you heard the date 1966.

I hope you’re getting the point of what I’m saying.

This is not an overnight thing.

This is actually something that’s been long in the making.

A year before I was born, we had the first Trans-Atlantic coronavirus data sharing experiment between the United States and the United Kingdom.

And in 1967, the year I was born, we did the first human trials on inoculating people with modified coronavirus.

Isn’t that amazing?

56 years ago, the overnight success of a pathogen that’s been 56 years in engineering, and I want that to chill with all of you.

Where were we when we actually allowed in violation of biological and chemical weapons treaties?
Where were we as a human civilization when we thought it was an acceptable thing to do to take a pathogen for the United States and infect the world with it?

Where was that conversation and what should have been that conversation in 1967?

That conversation wasn’t had. Ironically, the common cold was turned into a chimera in the 1970s, and in 1975, 1976 and 1977, we started figuring out how to modify coronavirus by putting it into different animals.
Pigs and dogs.

And not surprisingly, by the time we got to 1990, we found out that coronavirus as a infectious agent was an industrial problem for two primary industries, the industries of dogs and pigs.

Dog breeders and pigs found that Coronavirus created gastrointestinal problems, and that became the basis for Pfizer’s first spike protein vaccine.

Patent filed. Are you ready for this In 1990?

Did you hear what I just said?

Operation Warpspeed.

I’m sorry.

Where’s the warp and the speed?

Pfizer 1990.

The very first spike protein vaccine for Coronavirus.

Isn’t that fascinating?

Isn’t it fascinating that we were, we were told that, well, the spike protein is a new thing.

We just found out that that’s the problem.

No.

As a matter of fact, we didn’t just find out it was not just now.

Now the problem, we found that out in 1990 and filed the first patents on vaccines in 1990 for the spike protein of Coronavirus.

And who would’ve thought Pfizer?

Clearly the innocent organization that does nothing but promote human health.

Clearly, Pfizer, the organization that has not bought the votes in this chamber, in every chamber of every government around the world, not that Pfizer, certainly they wouldn’t have had anything to do with this, but oh yes, they did.

And in 1990 they found out that there was a problem with vaccines.

They didn’t work.

You know why they didn’t work?

It turns out that Coronavirus is a very malleable model.

It transforms and it changes, and it mutates over time.

As a matter of fact, every publication on vaccines for Coronavirus from 1990 until 2018, every single publication concluded that Coronavirus escapes the vaccine impulse because it modifies and mutates too quickly for vaccines to be effective.

And since 1990 to 2018, that is the published science ladies and gentlemen, that’s following the science, following the science is their own indictment of their own programs that said, it doesn’t work.

And there are thousands of publications to that effect, not a few hundred. And not paid for by pharmaceutical companies.

These are publications that are independent scientific research that shows unequivocally including efforts of the chimera modifications made by Ralph Bairc in the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.

All of them show vaccines do not work on coronavirus.

That’s the science, and that science has never been disputed.

But then we had an interesting development in 2002, and this date is most important because in 2002, the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill patented, and I quote, an infectious replication defective clone of coronavirus.

Listen to those words …

Infectious replication, defective.

What does that phrase actually mean?

For those of you not familiar with language, let me unpack it for you.
Infectious replication.

Defective means a weapon.

It means something meant to target an individual but not have collateral damage to other individuals.
That’s what infectious replication defective means.

And that patent was filed in 2002 on work funded by NIAD’s Anthony Fauci from 1999 to 2002, and that work patented at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill mysteriously preceded SARS 1.0 by a year.
“Dave, are you suggesting that SARS 1.0 wasn’t from a wet market in Wuhan?”

“Are you suggesting it might have come from a laboratory in the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill?”
No, I’m not suggesting it.

I’m telling you that’s the facts we engineered SARS.

SARS is not a naturally occurring phenomenon.

The naturally occurring phenomenon is called the common cold.

It’s called influenza-like illness.

It’s called gastroenteritis.

That’s the naturally occurring coronavirus.

SARS is the research developed by humans weaponizing a life system model to actually attack human beings, and they patented it in 2002.

And in 2003, giant surprise, the CDC filed the patent on Coronavirus isolated from humans in violation once again of biological and chemical weapons, treaties and laws that we have in the United States, and I’m very, very precise on this.

United States likes to talk about its rights and everything else, and the rule of law and all the nonsense that we like to talk about, but we don’t ratify treaties about, I don’t know, defending humans.

We conspicuously avoid that we actually have a great track record of advocating for human rights and then denying them when it comes to actually being part of the international community, which is a slightly problematic thing.

But let’s get something very clear.

When the CDC, in April of 2003 filed the patent on SARS Coronavirus isolated from humans, what did they do?

They downloaded a sequence from China, and filed a patent on it in the United States.

Any of you familiar with biological and chemical weapons treaties knows that’s a violation.

That’s a crime.

That’s not an innocent, oops; that’s a crime.

And the United States Patent Office went as far as to reject that patent application on two occasions until the CDC decided to bribe the patent office to override the patent examiner to ultimately issue the patent in 2007 on SARS Coronavirus.

But let’s not let that get away from us, because it turns out that the RT PCR, which was the test that we allegedly were going to use to identify the risks associated with coronavirus, was actually identified as a bioterrorism threat by me in the European Union sponsored events in 2002 and 2003, 20 years ago that happened here in Brussels and across Europe.

In 2005, this particular pathogen was specifically labelled as a bioterrorism and bioweapon platform technology, described as such.

That’s not my terminology that I’m applying to it.

It was actually described as a bioweapons platform technology in 2005.

And from 2005 onwards, it was actually a bio warfare enabling agent.

It’s official classification from 2005 forward.

I don’t know if that sounds like public health to you, does it?

Biological warfare enabling technology that feels like not public health, that feels like not medicine, that feels like a weapon, designed to take out humanity.

That’s what it feels like, and it feels like that because that’s exactly what it is.

We have been lured into believing that EcoHealth Alliance and DARPA and all of these organizations are what we should be pointing to.

But we’ve been specifically requested to ignore the facts that over $10 billion have been funnelled through black operations, through the check of Anthony Fauci and a side-by-side ledger where NIAD has a balance sheet, and next to it is a biodefense balance sheet.

Equivalent dollar for dollar matching that no one in the media talks about, and it’s been going on since 2005. Our gain of function moratorium.

The moratorium that was supposed to freeze any efforts to do gain of function research.

Conveniently, in the fall of 2014, the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill received a letter from NIAD saying that while the gain of function moratorium on coronavirus in vivo should be suspended, because their grants had already been funded, they received an exemption.

Did you hear what I just said?

A biological weapons lab facility at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill received an exemption from the gain of function moratorium so that by 2016 we could publish the journal article that said SARS Coronavirus is poised for human emergence in 2016 and what, you might ask Dave, was the coronavirus poised for human emergence?

It was WIV ONE.

Wuhan Institute of Virology Virus One.

Poised for human emergence in 2016 at the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, such that by the time we get to 2017 and 2018, the following phrase entered into common parlance among the community, there is going to be an accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen.

The operative word, obviously in that phrase, the word release, does that sound like leak?
Does that sound like a bat and a Pangolin went into a bar in the Wuhan market and hung out and had sex?

And, and lo and behold, we got SARS Cov-2. No accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen was the terminology used.

And four times in April of 2019, seven months before the allegation of patient number one, four patent applications of Moderna were modified to include the term accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen as the justification for making a vaccine for a thing that did not exist.

If you have not done so, please make sure that you make reference in every investigation to the premeditation nature of this, because it was in September of 2019 that the world was informed.

That we were going to have an accident or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen so that by September, 2020 there would be a worldwide acceptance of a universal vaccine template.

That’s their words right in front of you on the screen.

The intent was to get the world to accept a universal vaccine template, and the intent was to use coronavirus to get there.

Let’s, let’s read this because we have to read this into the record everywhere I go.

“Until an infectious disease crisis is very real present and at the emergency threshold that is often largely
ignored to sustain the funding base beyond the crisis.”

He said, “we need to increase the public understanding for the need for medical countermeasures, such as a pan influenza or pan coronavirus vaccine.”

“A key driver is the media and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process.”

Sounds like public health.

Sounds like the best of humanity.

No.

Ladies and gentlemen, this was premeditated domestic terrorism stated at the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2015, published in front of them.

This is an act of biological and chemical warfare perpetrated on the human race, and it was admitted to in writing that this was a financial heist and a financial fraud.

“Investors will follow if they see profit at the end of the process.”

Let me conclude by making five very brief recommendations.

The last slide, nature was hijacked.

This whole story started in 1965 when we decided to hijack a natural model and decide to start manipulating it.

Science was hijacked when the only questions that could be asked were questions authorized under the patent protection of the CDC, the FDA, the NIH, and their equivalent organizations around the world.

We didn’t have independent science.

We had hijacked science, and unfortunately there was no moral oversight in violation of all of the codes that we stand for.

There was no independent, financially disinterested independent review board ever empanelled around coronavirus.

Not once, not once, not since 1965.

We do not have a single independent IRB ever empanelled, around Coronavirus.

So, morality was suspended for medical countermeasures, and ultimately humanity was lost because we decided to allow it to happen.

Our job today is to say, no more gain of function research, period.

No more weaponization of nature period.

And most importantly, no more corporate patronage of science for their own self-interest unless they assume 100% product liability for every injury and every death that they maintain.

Thank you very much.

 

Dr David E. Martin

 


 

The full part 1 of the International Covid Summit III can be seen below Dr. David Martin’s speech begins at 12.55.

 

TNT is truly independent!

We don’t have a billionaire owner, and our unique reader-funded model keeps us free from political or corporate influence. This means we can fearlessly report the facts and shine a light on the misdeeds of those in power.

Consider a donation to keep our independent journalism running…

US removes COVID vaccine recommendation for children and pregnant women

The criticized covid vaccinations

Published 28 May 2025
– By Editorial Staff
Kennedy has long been highly critical of the way the Biden administration urged that even young children be injected with the experimental vaccines.

The US government has removed the experimental COVID-19 vaccines from the list of recommended vaccinations for healthy pregnant women and children.

We’re now one step closer to realizing President Trump’s promise to make America healthy again, declared Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. when announcing the decision.

– I couldn’t be more pleased to announce that as of today the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from the CDC recommended immunization schedule, RFK said in a video posted on X yesterday.

According to analysts, the decision will most likely mean that significantly fewer children and pregnant women will be vaccinated with the heavily criticized vaccines in the future – partly because this is not recommended by the authorities – but also because many insurance companies will likely no longer cover the cost.

– Last year the Biden administration urged healthy children to get yet another COVID shot despite the lack of any clinical data to support the repeat booster strategy in children, Kennedy continued.

“Common sense and good science”

At the announcement, Kennedy was flanked by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Dr. Martin Makary and National Health Service Chief Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.

– It’s common sense and it’s good science, Bhattacharya said.

– There’s no evidence healthy kids need it today and most countries have stopped recommending it for children, Makary added.

Even the US Department of Health and Human Services press secretary, Vianca N. Rodriguez Feliciano, states that “HHS and the CDC remain committed to gold standard science and to ensuring the health and well-being of all Americans – especially our nation’s children”.

“A victory for all children and pregnant women”

Since the vaccines became available, the government has recommended them to almost all citizens including children and pregnant women.

Mary Holland, CEO of Children’s Health Defense (CHD) which early on urged the CDC not to recommend the vaccine for children and challenged the agency after the decision welcomes the announcement.

– Hallelujah! Holland said, adding: “These dangerous, poorly tested shots have caused injuries and death to far too many children. And many of the vaccines’ long-term side effects remain unknown. This is a major step in the right direction”.

– CHD urged the CDC not to add these dangerous vaccines to the childhood schedule. When we were ignored, we fought relentlessly to get them removed. This is a victory for all children and pregnant women.

In 2022, CHD sued the US federal Food and Drug Administration for granting emergency approval of COVID-19 vaccines for children and infants. The lawsuit alleged that the FDA abused its emergency use authorization power to push dangerous biological substances on minors. The organization appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court, which ultimately declined to hear the case.

“Emergency use authorized” for 5-year-olds

Even during the most panicked phases of the coronavirus crisis, experts agreed that children were at extremely low risk from COVID-19. Shortly after the vaccines were approved, side effects were reported, and peer-reviewed studies linked the vaccine to myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in young people, in addition to several other health risks.

Despite this, public health authorities initially approved the vaccine for people aged 16 and older, and extended it to 12-year-olds in May 2021. The FDA then approved the vaccine for children aged 5 and older in October 2021, and for infants aged 6 months in June 2022.

However, the COVID-19 vaccine has never received full approval from the FDA for children under 12 it is still only authorized for use under emergency use authorization.

Nevertheless, the CDC added COVID vaccination to its routine vaccination schedule for children and adults in February 2023, after the agency’s advisory committee unanimously recommended it. The CDC has since continued to recommend annual booster doses for children.

The federal vaccination schedule also forms the basis for the vaccination recommendations given by most doctors, and also serves as formal guidance for state and local public health authorities that determine which vaccinations are required for school attendance. Children must usually have received all vaccines on the schedule to be considered “up to date”.

EU’s withholding of Pfizer vaccine texts ruled illegal by court

The criticized covid vaccinations

Published 15 May 2025
– By Editorial Staff
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla had secret text message conversations in 2021.

The European Commission is found guilty by the European Court of Justice of withholding text messages between Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer’s CEO in connection with the multi-billion euro purchase of COVID-19 vaccines. The Court ruled that the Commission violated transparency legislation when it refused to disclose the messages.

Now the Commission must disclose the conversations or provide a more credible explanation for why it cannot disclose them.

In spring 2021, it emerged that the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, had private text message conversations in connection with the comprehensive COVID-19 vaccine agreement concluded between the EU and the pharmaceutical company. The agreement covered 1.8 billion doses of COVID-19 vaccine, but few details of how it was reached have been made public. For example, the price tag for each dose is still not known.

When a journalist from the New York Times requested the text message conversations between von der Leyen and Bourla, it was announced that these had been deleted. The following year, the European Court of Auditors reviewed the case and questioned why the European Commission did not disclose the text messages or other written details of the agreement. Furthermore, the Commission is said to have chosen not to share any written details of the agreement, something it has been transparent about in the past, which was of course also questioned by the Court.

The European Court of Auditors has no authority to demand more information about the text message conversations, but the New York Times chose in 2023 to file a lawsuit in the matter and this week the case was brought before the European Court of Justice. The court was asked to examine whether the European Commission had breached the law by not disclosing the conversations.

Court: “Must provide credible explanations”

The court’s decision finds that the European Commission did break the law when it refused to disclose the text message conversations between the chairman and the CEO, reports the New York Times. Under EU transparency laws, the conversations should have been shared with the newspaper.

The European Commission claimed that it did not consider the conversations important and therefore deleted them and that they cannot be retrieved. However, it never explained the extent of the search for them, which the Court considers insufficient.

The commission cannot merely state that it does not hold the requested documents but must provide credible explanations enabling the public and the court to understand why those documents cannot be found”, the Court said.

It is unclear whether the text messages have actually been deleted, but the court ruled that the European Commission must now either disclose the conversations, or at least provide a more detailed and credible explanation as to why they cannot be disclosed. In a statement, the European Commission said it would “adopt a new decision providing a more detailed explanation”.

Top EU court rules on von der Leyen’s secret Pfizer messages

The criticized covid vaccinations

Published 13 May 2025
– By Editorial Staff
According to critics, transparency in the EU has decreased significantly under von der Leyen's rule.

EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s handling of secret text messages with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla is now under scrutiny in a court case that threatens to destroy her political legacy and further erode confidence in the EU’s decision-making process.

Tomorrow, the EU General Court will rule on whether the European Commission broke the law by refusing to release text messages exchanged between von der Leyen and Bourla during negotiations on a controversial COVID-19 vaccine deal worth billions.

The ruling is expected to further undermine confidence in von der Leyen’s leadership, which is already heavily criticized for its abuse of power and centralization of decision-making. Among other things, the case concerns whether text messages should be classified as official documents and thus subject to EU transparency rules.

The case was initiated by The New York Times and its former Brussels correspondent, who took the matter to court after the Commission’s decision to refuse to publish the text messages in 2022.

In an interview with the NYT in 2021, Bourla revealed that he and von der Leyen had built up a “deep trust” through their text message negotiations. The agreement, which was concluded in May 2021, meant that the EU purchased up to 1.8 billion doses of Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID vaccine – the largest single vaccine purchase during the COVID crisis.

– This court ruling could mark a turning point for transparency in the EU. When it comes to key decisions, particularly those affecting public health, secrecy should be avoided, said Shari Hinds, EU policy director at Transparency International.

“The elephant who wasn’t in the room”

In 2022, EU Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly (2013–2025) ruled that the Commission had committed serious administrative errors by not even searching for the text messages. She called it a “wake-up call” for the EU institutions and said that transparency had declined during von der Leyen’s tenure.

– Information is being held back for political reasons and that culture comes from the top, O’Reilly told Politico in 2023, also criticizing von der Leyen’s absence during the trial:

– The elephant who wasn’t in the room. The one person who could tell us everything wasn’t there.

The European Commission has repeatedly refused to comment on the case, but an official claimed at a press conference that the vaccine agreements were negotiated with the full support of the member states.

“Transparency must be a priority”

The court has previously criticized the Commission’s censorship of the vaccine contracts, large parts of which have been classified as confidential on the grounds of commercial interests.

Tilly Metz, a Green MEP, was one of many who soon wondered who or what was behind von der Leyen’s reluctance to share the information.

– She gets bad advice there. If you want the public to be confident and trust the politicians and what they do – and the contacts they do with industry – you have to put the focus on transparency.

“Confused” dossier

During a hearing in November 2023, judges expressed skepticism about the Commission’s refusal to hand over the text messages. When the Commission’s lawyers finally acknowledged that the messages existed, they were met with laughter in the courtroom.

– We do not deny that they exist, said Commission lawyer Paolo Stancanelli during the hearing. He defended the Commission’s actions by arguing that the text messages were not relevant to the contract negotiations – a claim that the judges sharply questioned.

One judge, José Martín y Pérez de Nanclares, ruled that the Commission had not taken “adequate and diligent measures” to justify the secrecy, while another, Paul Nihoul, criticized the “relatively confused” dossier.

The pressure on von der Leyen is increasing further through an investigation by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), which is looking into how the vaccine purchases were handled. In March, EPPO chief Laura Codruța Kövesi also confirmed that Commission officials had been questioned.

The EPPO is refraining from commenting on ongoing investigations, but the case risks further increasing mistrust in von der Leyen’s leadership and is expected to make it even more difficult for her to hold together an already deeply divided EU alliance.

US defense secretary: “No more vaccine mandates”

Donald Trump's USA

Published 7 May 2025
– By Editorial Staff
Hegseth has previously described the slogan "our diversity is our strength" as "the single dumbest phrase in military history".

Yesterday, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth strongly criticized left-wing liberal so-called diversity and inclusion programs within the military and reiterated the message that there is no future for such destructive phenomena within the US Armed Forces.

In a speech delivered at the Special Operations Forces Week conference, the defense secretary declared that climate alarmism, LGBTQ lobbying, and vaccine mandates are over, and that from now on, the focus will be solely on issues that are actually relevant to the military.

– No more pronouns, no more climate change obsession, no more emergency vaccine mandates, and no more dudes in dresses.

– We’re done with that shit, Hegseth continued.

Hegseth’s statements follow a US Supreme Court ruling that gives the green light to the Trump administration’s efforts to strengthen the military’s focus by restricting the participation of transgender people in the armed forces.

The decision is based on an executive order signed in January, shortly after Donald Trump took office, with the aim of ensuring what the administration describes as an effective and unified defense force.

“The dumbest phrase in military history”

The Nordic Times has previously highlighted Hegseth’s views on diversity programs in the US military and how he condemned the left-liberal rhetoric previously used by the military leadership.

– I think the single dumbest phrase in military history is ‘our diversity is our strength’, Hegseth explained at a meeting with Defense Department employees at the Pentagon.

– I think our strength is our unity, our strength is our shared purpose, regardless of our background, regardless of how we grew up, regardless of our gender, regardless of our race, he continued, promising to do everything in his power to remove left-wing activist influence from the army.

Our independent journalism needs your support!
We appreciate all of your donations to keep us alive and running.

Our independent journalism needs your support!
Consider a donation.

You can donate any amount of your choosing, one-time payment or even monthly.
We appreciate all of your donations to keep us alive and running.

Dont miss another article!

Sign up for our newsletter today!

Take part of uncensored news – free from industry interests and political correctness from the Polaris of Enlightenment – every week.