Jo Nova has given her usual insightful comments on one of the main tyranny threats coming up fast, with the body of World Health Organization (WHO) regulations, including what was previously called the pandemic treaty. While we have covered this before, she notes some important updates. There has been some criticism that the regulations and treaty will be taking away not just national sovereignty but will effectively put the WHO in the clinic with you and your doctor, constraining his/her treatment options. This is still the case, but the new document, presented in complex legalese, makes it more difficult to work out exactly what powers WHO will have, or where the limits actually are.
Jo does note: “The new proposed amendments strike out the words “non-binding” with respect to WHO advice, so it’s “binding advice” now? They also strike out “with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons” which are apparently out-dated and dangerous terms for public health. Where the old agreement says “public health risk” that’s now going to become “all risks with a potential to impact public health” which almost certainly includes the risk of climate change, nasty language, and any discussion of the failings of vaccines or the WHO itself. See Article 3.”
This indicates that in response to objections, the WHO has simply doubled down and made its document even more explicitly tyrannical. Hope does lie in the election of Donald Trump who has said he will pull the US out of the treaty. If he withdraws US funds from the WHO, it is possible the whole globalist pack of cards could collapse. Let us hope so.
“What looks, smells and acts like a World Government?
An invisible legal cage is being built around us in full view. We know they want it. The UN keeps trying to control quarantine, vaccines and travel. They’ve been pushing for disinformation enforcement since 2021. It’s a trillion dollar business model, and lifelong sweet careers. A bureaucrat would have to be mad to say “no”.
Bret Weinstein, former professor of evolutionary biology, talks to Tucker Carlson in the video below, and argues that we are in effect, living inside a coup. In May this year the World Health Organisation (WHO), a UN committee, will put forward a few modifications “to protect us all”. These harmless amendments will mean the WHO could effectively be in the room when you visit your doctor. In the event of an “emergency” foreign unelected non-representatives will decide what your doctor can and can’t prescribe for you and what vaccines you need to have, and you can’t vote them out. What could possibly go wrong?
These amendments used to be called “the Pandemic Treaty” but like a shapeshifter, it now has a different name. This is part of the language battle — it’s so much harder for opposition to coalesce, or gravitate towards a moving target. It’s like wrestling with jello.
Obviously, after these clauses come into force, we could get a climate or flu emergency practically any day…
The Turnkey Totalitarian Planet is an invisible cage built around us:
8:49| The Covid Pandemic caused us to become aware of a lot of structures that had been built around us; Something former NSA Whistleblower William Binney once described as the Turnkey totalitarian state. A totalitarian state is erected around you, but it’s not activated. And then once it’s built the key gets turned. We’re now seeing something that even outstrips Williams Binney’s description because it’s the Turnkey Totalitarian Planet. The World Health Organisation is above the level of nations, and it’s going to be in a position, if these regulations pass, to dictate to nations how they are to treat their own citizens — to override their own constitutions. So that is frightening…
It’s a loophole of the mind, not the constitution
Our rights aren’t necessarily extinguished by a UN committee “treaty” but in reality people’s willingness to accept the erosion of their rights can make it a daily reality anyhow.
As I have said before — A constitution is just a sheet of paper with words on it — it’s only as strong as the will of the people to fight for it is. And we have seen many times how the words have been effectively neutralized. The US and Australian constitutions both say that nothing but gold and silver coin are legal tender, but who cares? (See USA Article S10.C1.3 and Australian constitution Act Sect 114.) For two years Australians were banned from leaving Australia unless they took an approved injection. The Health Minister said this was so we could meet our international obligations — which means effectively the UN was deciding who came and went.
Only idiot conspiracy theorists, of course, would suggest that the UN wants to be a World Government, but nearly 150,000 Australians were denied the right to leave the country without an injection, unless they swam or paddled across the Arafura Sea. What looks, acts and smells like a government we didn’t vote for — one that stops us getting on a plane.
Weinstein offers no exact legal quotes, which is a shame, but the difficulty of finding quotable quotes is no doubt also part of the strategy. Some of these UN amendments are unreadable — there is often no single complete sentence in sight, only grammatical warfare, with dependent clauses split across sections and articles and changes buried in appendices. The swamp of legalese can hide a crocodile and who would know? Bad writing is a crime.
In May the UN World Health Organisation (WHO) will table their little amendments (for your own good). My understanding is that we have a ten month window to get our PM or President to write to the UN to opt out. For people in the US this will be decided at the election. Trump says he will terminate the Treaty. No wonder they work so hard to stop the voters getting that choice.
The new conservative New Zealand Government has sensibly added a “national interest test”.
UPDATE: To clarify those WHO legal requirements
The new proposed amendments strike out the words “non-binding” with respect to WHO advice, so it’s “binding advice” now? They also strike out “with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons” which are apparently out-dated and dangerous terms for public health. Where the old agreement says “public health risk” that’s now going to become “all risks with a potential to impact public health” which almost certainly includes the risk of climate change, nasty language, and any discussion of the failings of vaccines or the WHO itself. See Article 3.
Obviously criticizing the WHO would be “a danger to public health”.
The 46 page document is loaded with layers of legal origami that are hard to unpack. But if WHO advice is “binding” and “State Parties shall implement these regulations…” and “develop and maintain capacities to implement the Regulations”, there are plenty of dangerous phrases for UN lawyers, and compliant corruptocrats to work with.
As James Roguski’s site, Libby Klein documents the new rules in relation to the Australian parliament Australia will be obliged to follow the WHO’s “recommendations” in relation to public health, in the event of a public health emergency such as a pandemic. We can see this in black and white in the proposed amendments to Articles 1, 13A, 42 and 43 of the IHR. Yes, it will be Australia making the decisions, but we will have given the WHO the legal authority to tell us what those decisions should be.
You can argue ’til the cows come home whether that’s “ceding sovereignty” but I ask you: why would an Australian government want to put us in the position where we are legally obliged to follow the WHO’s “recommendations” in the first place, noting that the list of (binding) recommendations in Article 18 includes – but is not limited to – mandatory vaccination, isolations, medical treatment and restrictions.
Now that “recommendations” are to become binding, Australia finds itself in the bizarre position of its parliament having to pass legislation in order to avoid becoming indentured to the WHO. This is a magic trick!
If the UN is so smart and it’s intentions are so good, why do we need to enshrine our lack of choice into law? We could just let them persuade our elected representatives for each and every incidence instead. What’s wrong with that? Klein asks:
1. Why does the Federal government want to hand decision-making over to the WHO?
2. If the Federal government doesn’t intend to comply with binding WHO public health “recommendations”, why is it supporting the power transfer? What would the sanctions be for non-compliance? (See here for a good discussion of the likely influence of the amendments despite the lack of formal enforcement mechanisms.)
3. If the government does intend to comply, why?
4. How is committing to complying with future WHO legally binding “recommendations” in Australia’s national interest?
If it gets accepted, our only option is to exit the entire UN — and since this “treaty” is so draconian, and filled with ill intent, let’s do that anyway.”