Ep. 123 - How the WHO Takes Over the World
Have you heard?
There is a lot of fuss going around about the World Health Organization's meeting in Geneva this week. People are claiming that the WHO intends to pass regulations that are legally binding on State governments, effectively superseding the sovereignty of countries around the globe, including our own.
Even more disturbing, some reports claim that the Biden administration actually drafted and presented the revisions to the International Health Regulations that will strengthen the grip of the WHO around the neck of global leaders. Could it be that our own government is about to give the World Health Organization the authority to force vaccinations, quarantines, and health surveillance on the unsuspecting American public?
In a White House press release dated February 2, 2022, the administration explicitly states its commitment to strengthening the WHO, implementing the multilateral Global Health Security Agenda, and accelerating the Global VAX initiative with a "whole-of-government" effort that enhances international coordination with other "non-governmental stakeholders."
Does all of that sound good? Or does any of that raise a few red flags for you?
At surface level, all of these initiatives are dripping with altruistic intent. It sounds as if the whole world is working together to protect humanity from the threat of infectious disease, striving to prevent future pandemics from causing Covid level calamity. There is no doubt that a "global level response" will help save lives -- and saving lives is the most important thing, right? WRONG.
Let me just cut to the chase.
As the name Global Health Security Agenda implies, this is all part of a much larger agenda. The reality of current circumstance is that we are witnessing the implementation of a global socialist agenda that has been at play for decades, and the COVID-19 Great Reset was the opening scene for their final act. While skeptics may doubt me, this is not speculation. It's just a cold hard fact.
The truth is that the United States ceded its sovereignty to international governance long ago. As for the International Health Regulations, these binding international laws have been in place since 1969. Originally only regulating "quarantinable diseases," over the years the scope of the IHR have been repeatedly revised and expanded to include a "wide range of potentially international public health risks," such as:
emerging communicable diseases
contaminated foods or pharmaceuticals
contamination of the environment
release of toxic or nuclear material
events that create potential for disease
Functionally, the International Health Regulations are an apparatus of global surveillance, requiring all member States to submit reports and data that the WHO can use for the "detection, assessment, and prevention" of potentially adverse events. Embedded in the language is the authority to dictate national responses to any event the WHO deems a threat to global health, culminating in the new One Health agenda that links human health to environmental health, effectively extending their mandates to regulate all human behavior.
To be clear, this authority is already on the books, and has been for decades. The challenge has been getting 194 different countries to comply with these international laws and regulations, and COVID-19 gave the less inclined world leaders a wake-up call as to the importance of this global surveillance state, and the globally directed response to international pandemics.
But does the WHO have the authority to overrule national governments?
Honestly, the question is irrelevant. This is thinking in terms of government. The globalists (aka socialists) think in terms of governance. This is a game of influence, pure and simple. All they have to do is convince national leaders there is an urgent need to comply with their recommendations -- or else people will die. They do this by assembling panels of "international experts" who then disseminate guidelines that direct policy decisions at the local level.
The "global level problems require global level response" argument is almost water tight, and as with most deception it contains a vein of truth. However, the Communist Manifesto states they use language that has a "hidden, higher, socialistic interpretation, the exact contrary of its real character," which is why it is wise to scrutinize this seemingly benevolent agenda.
Here is some language from the global health agenda that indicates their underlying, hidden intent:
The goal of the agenda is "to contribute to the collective"
Locally led efforts for "social and behavioral change"
Locally designed approaches to "more sustainable results"
Strengthening systems to hone "programming for greater impact"
Management strategies that support "sustainable health systems"
Generating and disseminating evidence "to inform our collective efforts"
This language comes from the U.S. Agency for International Development's Vision for Health System Strengthening, which works to "align global partners toward shared commitments," and their work with the Bureau for Global Heath to implement the Health Systems Strengthening Learning Agenda. These are just two of the myriad initiatives being simultaneously implemented throughout the whole-of-government approach to appropriate your personal freedom.
The point is this:
Just like the government was censoring information long before they announced the Disinformation Governance Board, our public health policy was being steered toward the global socialist state long before most of us had ever heard of the International Health Regulations.
What is happening now is a mere formalization of international control that has been happening for years, but that would have been considered unpalatable just a few years ago. Thus, our fuss is just another indication that everything is going according to plan.