|
by David Bell from Brownstone Website
We need to remember what it is:
Not intrinsically nefarious, the organization is just being obedient to those who fund it and who define how those funds must be used.
This is necessary if its
staff are to keep their jobs. The WHO is, however, promoting a new treaty being discussed by its governing body, the World Health Assembly (WHA), aimed at centralizing its control over health emergencies.
The WHA is also amending the International Health Regulations (IHR), which have force under international law, to give the WHO power to,
'Health emergencies,' in this context, are any potential risk that the Director-General (Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus) determines might cause a significant problem to health.
This could be a viral variant somewhere, an outbreak of information that he/she disagrees with, or even changing weather.
The current DG has already insisted that all of these are major and growing threats. He even declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern after 5 people in the world died of monkeypox...!
The rest of the United Nations (UN), in its current desperation over impending climate Armageddon, is much the same as the WHO.
People whose wealth has made them very powerful see great gain in having the WHO and the UN act in this way.
These people have also invested heavily in the media and politics to ensure broad support. Staff of the WHO and the UN who fight this from within are hardly going to enhance their career prospects.
There is also just enough of a grain of truth in the stories (viruses do kill people and CO2 is rising while the climate is changing) to self-justify the overall harm they know they are doing.
The advantages of organizational capture
In reality,
When the ethos of funding the WHO and the wider UN was about helping the world's populations to improve their lot, this is what the staff generally advocated for and worked to implement.
Now that they are guided by the very wealthy and by multinational corporations that have investors to please, they advocate and work for the benefit of these new masters with the same enthusiasm.
In discussing how a relative few can influence or run these powerful international organizations, it is easy to think it is all unbelievable or conspiracist, if you don't pause and really apply your brain.
How could so few take over the whole world...?
If someone has as much money as whole countries, but does not have a country to look after, they really do have quite a lot of scope. Applying some of this money strategically to specific institutions that then serve as tools to influence the rest is achievable.
Their staff will be grateful for this apparent 'largesse'....
Institutional capture of this type is achievable when we relax rules on taxation and conflict of interest, allowing certain individuals and corporations to gain vast financial leverage and to openly apply it.
They can do this behind closed doors at resorts like Davos, while,
The result is inevitable, because the politicians need money and positive media coverage, and the cartels of the wealthy need more amicable laws.
The same entities fund,
The media will also publicly vilify those who step out of line.
The climate issue is not terribly different if you dig a bit.
Such industries will then shift to policies, and study results, that benefit the sponsors.
Try to think of a rich person who genuinely lost interest in becoming wealthier.
The opportunities of feudalism
To achieve success in accumulating more power and wealth, you would have to, by definition,
Most people don't like having this taken away from them. Power in a true democracy is granted by the people, not taken, and only held on the consent of those who granted it.
Few ordinary people want to give up their wealth to someone already wealthier than them:
To succeed in accumulating power and wealth it is therefore often necessary to take it by force or by deceit.
The most effective way is to silence them, and to reassure the majority who have fallen for the deceit that these nonconformists are the enemy (remember "Pandemic of the unvaccinated").
Denigration and scapegoating, using terms such as,
...make the non-complying minority look negative and inferior.
The majority can then safely ignore them, and even feel superior in doing so.
If the mass media can be brought on board, it becomes almost impossible for non-compliers to clear their name and get their message across.
The largest owners of media are BlackRock and Vanguard (who are coincidentally also the largest shareholders of several pharmaceutical companies).
So, imagine how profitable it would be if these investment houses, directly and through lackey organizations such as, ...thought of using such assets to provide maximum profit (as, indeed, in an amoral business environment, they are supposed to do).
If a relatively new 'virus' came along in such a scenario, all that would be needed is to apply those media and political assets to sow fear and confine people, then offer them a pharmaceutical way out of their confinement.
Such a scheme would virtually print money for their investors.
This pharmaceutical escape could even be made to look like a saving grace, rather than a scheme born of, and run through, greed.
Facing reality
A short glance at reality indicates that we do seem to be going through such a scenario...
We have got society into a total mess by dropping the basic rules that kept greed at bay, then let greed run rampant and called it "progress."
Soon other tools will impose Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC) and generously provide a Universal Basic Income (an allowance, as is given to a child) to relieve the impoverishment.
This programmable currency will be spent on what the financiers decide, and withdrawn on their whim, such as on any sign of disloyalty.
To fix this, it will be necessary to take the tools away from those who are misusing them, whether the tools are the WHO, UN or whatever.
If your really useful hammer is going to be used by an intruder to break your legs, then get rid of the hammer. There are more important things in life than banging in nails.
Put more plainly,
We need to decide whether individual sovereignty is a worthwhile cause.
History suggests that those on top will probably be keen on the feudal approach.
Therefore, those not on top, and those who hold to beliefs that transcend greed, had better start taking this problem seriously.
Ceasing support for institutions that are being used to steal from us is an obvious starting point.
Then we can address health, climate, and whatever else in a way that benefits humanity, rather than just benefiting a bunch of wealthy self-entitled miscreants...
|
