by James Corbett After years of scamdemic hype and veiled threats, the World Health Organization (WHO) have finalized their pandemic treaty. Formally referred to as the "WHO Pandemic Agreement," the document reflects years of wrangling, cajoling and horse trading among the globalist technocrats. And now that the negotiations are over, their control over the global health space can now be hardwired into international law. There are reasons to be relieved that the document is not as bad as it could have been. As some are pointing out, the latest draft of the agreement has been significantly defanged, with the most egregious language about mandatory enforcement and WHO sovereignty having been removed. Even better, the relevance of this agreement to Americans has been lessened by the recent executive order withdrawing the US from the WHO. But for those of us concerned about the establishment of world government, we are not out of the woods yet. There are provisions in this agreement that will allow the would-be global health tyrants to expand beyond the boundaries of the current draft text and to assume the dictatorial powers that their critics (like yours truly) have been warning the treaty would bestow on the WHO. What's worse, what can be undone with the stroke of Trump's presidential pen (or robopen) can be redone with the stroke of a presidential pen (or robopen), and it would be the height of naïveté to assume that the next puppet to occupy the Oval Office won't immediately sign the US back on to the agreement. So, is this the start of a global governmental system of technocratic health control? And, if it is, what does that mean for the future of humanity? In order to answer that question, we're going to have to go back to the roots of the WHO's power grab. And that story, it turns out, starts in a most unexpected place . . . The Treaty is Born
The text of the proposed pandemic treaty is now online, and, for those who followed my coverage of the negotiations over the past four years, it's worth a read to find out what finally resulted from all that blather. Lowlights include:
In other words, many of the core articles that I was warning about years ago have made it through the gauntlet of negotiation into the final text itself. Having said that, the final text is not quite as bad as what was proposed in some of the earlier drafts of the treaty. As Thi Thuy Van Dinh and David Bell note in their recent Brownstone Institute article, "Commentary on the WHO’s Draft Pandemic Agreement: Pointless Verbiage," the WHO conspirators have been forced to temper their more obvious excesses of power mania in order to navigate the text through its many rounds of negotiation and achieve "consensus."
Notably, the language found in earlier drafts of the text, stating or implying the imposition of binding obligations on the agreement's signatories, has been removed. In its place are wishy-washy, unenforceable expressions of WHO hopes and dreams like "may," "where appropriate" and "when mutually agreed." However, as I pointed out in my previous coverage of the treaty, the creation of an annual "Conference of the Parties" (COP) to continue revising and expanding the agreement in the future is a back door for stronger, legally binding provisions to be inserted in the future. For our purposes today, though, one of the most interesting pieces of commentary on this new agreement comes from The Lancet. In "The pandemic treaty: a milestone, but with persistent concerns," The Lancet editorial board point out a curious and little-known fact: "The pandemic treaty is only the second-ever legally binding international agreement negotiated by WHO." Wait, what? The "second-ever legally binding international agreement negotiated by WHO"? What was the first? That, it turns out, is an interesting question, and one whose answer provides those of us who are concerned about preserving freedom in the face of global tyranny a valuable lesson about how global government is really being established. W.H.O. THE HELL CANCELLED CIGARETTES?!
Do you remember when smoking was allowed in pubs and restaurants? If you're a young'un, you probably don't. As an oldster, however, I certainly do. Specifically, as someone who had lived in Ireland while attending Trinity College from the fall of 2002 until the fall of 2003, I remember my bemusement when, reading the newspaper in Japan in March 2004, I learned that Ireland had become the first country in the world to implement a nationwide "ban on smoking in the workplace," including pubs and restaurants. I could only imagine how my Irish friends were mocking the move. "They're banning smoking in pubs now? Why don't they just ban drinking in pubs and get it over with?" Still, many people around the world probably read the news out of Ireland with a sense of equanimity. "Good!" they no doubt remarked. "Who needs those cancer sticks everywhere, anyway?" And they probably didn't connect that story about Ireland's smoking ban to the smoking ban that was implemented in their own country in later years. But have you ever wondered why a ban on smoking in public places took place in country after country in the span of a few years? How did the entire planet switch over at virtually the same time from smoking everywhere to smoking only in certain designated areas? Was there a coordinated global intervention to make this happen? You bet there was! And the story of that intervention clues us in to the fact that we've been living under global governance for years now. The whole story starts with the authority granted under Article 19 of the WHO's constitution, which states:
That legalistic blather may sound innocuous, but, like most bureaucratic blather, it hides a much more menacing reality. This article grants the WHO the authority it is now using to adopt the biosecurity-establishing, world-government-birthing pandemic treaty. It's also the same authority that the WHO invoked two decades ago to further its test case for global tyranny, the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Just like Article 19 of the WHO constitution, a "framework convention on tobacco control" sounds innocuous enough. Not only is smoking bad for you, it's also bad for the people around you. Who, then, could possibly argue against an international agreement seeking "protection from exposure to tobacco smoke" and "reduction measures concerning tobacco dependence and cessation"? (Well, alright, those of us principled voluntaryists who believe that government restrictions on individual choices are inherently unethical might have something to say about such a convention, but since when has the general public had the time or ability to consider well-reasoned arguments about principles?) And so it was that in 2003 the WHO adopted the framework convention at their annual World Health Assembly in Geneva. And so it was that the following year Ireland implemented its smoking ban and that in the ensuing years country after country around the world followed suit. For those who question the use of the words "global health tyranny" in conjunction with agreements on smoking bans, I present to you the next stage of this increasingly tyrannical process: "The City That Treats Adults Like Children."
Hmmm. Is this ban on tobacco purchases imposed on anyone born after March 1, 2004, in any way related to Ireland's precedent-setting March 2004 nationwide smoking ban? Inquiring minds want to know. Yes, although hardly anyone at the time recognized it back in 2003, the convention adopted by the World Health Assembly in Geneva was a world-historical event. The tyrants flexed their muscles and proved that the WHO is one of the building blocks of a global governmental system. Specifically, by invoking a "health emergency," the WHO can create biosecurity mandates that will then be passed into law in each WHO member nation. Even better for those behind this move toward global governance, vanishingly few ever realize that their local ordinance was actually a mandate trickling down all the way from the conclave of conspirators in Geneva. Yes, whatever one thinks of the merits of such an action, the international agreement to ban smoking in public spaces in country after country around the world was the very thin edge of the very large wedge of global biosecurity tyranny. And, just as the censors always start by banning the most offensive and objectionable content in order to set the precedent for more widespread bans later on, so, too, did the global government biosecurity conspirators start with the easy target of tobacco control so they could move on to their pandemic treaty later on. WHAT NEXT?
First, the good news: there are still bureaucratic hurdles to be cleared before the pandemic treaty—sorry, pandemic "agreement"—is actually adopted. In fact, as Kerry Cullinan points out in her article on the subject for Health Policy Watch, "WHO Outlines Long Road Ahead Before Pandemic Agreement Comes into Force," the process for adopting the treaty—outlined in a separate document on "procedural matters"—is rather convoluted. Fortunately, the document provides a handy-dandy flow chart to make the process clear as mud:
Long story short: according to the aforementioned Article 19 of the WHO constitution governing the adoption of such treaties, this type of agreement requires a "two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly." The procedural document makes an odd stipulation, however: "Adoption of the text by consensus automatically fulfils [sic] this requirement." Of course consensus clears the bar for a two-thirds requirement, doesn't it? Why would they have to stipulate this? Could it be that they envision a scenario in which the treaty is adopted in a similar manner to the WHO’s farcical adoption of the amendments to the International Health Regulations in 2022?  However, even after the ringleader of the World Health Assembly circus no doubt gavels down on the "consensus" adoption of this text, member states will then have 18 months in which to notify the WHO Director-General whether or not they will be signing the convention. All of this leaves time and space for the remarkable global uprising against the WHO to undo the agreement before the biosecurity regime becomes cemented into place. But now the bad news: these types of long, procedural, bureaucratic processes are PRECISELY what the globalists thrive on. They're more than happy to spend years, decades, even generations fighting a war of attrition against the public, knowing that we can be easily distracted by the next psyop and take our eyes off the ball long enough for them to slip a disastrous treaty past our goalie. A momentary blip on the radar like MAHA means nothing to these generational psychopaths. If they have to wait for the political pendulum in the US to swing back once again in order to ensnare Americans in their One Health web, they won't hesitate to do so. If they have to gin up a bird flu crisis or a monkeypox scare or a Disease X scamdemic in order to get the public to fall back into lock step with our WHO overlords, they'll do it in a heartbeat. So, while it's true that the WHO has been taken down a peg by the US withdrawal, it's not down for the count. In fact, like a cornered animal fighting for its life, the global biosecurity state is more dangerous than ever. Let's inform our fellow citizens of the perils of this pandemic agreement and use the global awakening to push the WHO tyrants over the edge. Like this type of essay? Then you’ll love The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter, which contains my weekly editorial as well as recommended reading, viewing and listening. If you’re a Corbett Report member, you can sign in to corbettreport.com and read the newsletter today. Not a member yet? Sign up today to access the newsletter and support this work. Are you already a member and don’t know how to sign in to the website? Contact me HERE and I’ll be happy to help you get logged in! You're currently a free subscriber to The Corbett Report. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment