The World Health Organization wants to remove your rights and sovereignty

While people argue and divide themselves into “groups” here in the U.S., over elections and other important issues, there is a larger issue going on with the World Health Organization (WHO), which we have covered before.

It may not make much difference who is in the White House, or maybe it will be the life or death of our Constitutional rights and our sovereignty.

The WHO would like to take away our American God-given rights of free speech and bodily autonomy and bring the US, along with other nations, under their control, rather than the people who we vote to represent us.

Everything seems to be getting put in place, getting ready for the next “emergency” or “pandemic.” Covid, a manmade virus, paid for by our tax dollars and the vaccine, paid for by our tax dollars, could have just been a preview.

“Will people conform to mandates to stay home, wear masks and take experimental shots?” The courts have, for the most part, protected our rights in the aftermath, as well as the censorship that happened by the federal government and the social media companies, but that is under the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The WHO wants to control the next “event.”

This is what evolutionary biologist, professor and podcaster Bret Weinstein had to say this week, “The ability to [remove our free speech] is currently under discussion at the international level, and it's almost impossible to exaggerate how troubling what is being discussed is. In fact, I think it is fair to say that we are in the middle of a coup, that we are actually facing the elimination of our national and our personal sovereignty. And that is the purpose of what is being constructed.

“That it has been written in such a way that your eyes are supposed to glaze over as you attempt to sort out what is under discussion. And if you do that, then come May of this year, your nation is almost certain to sign onto an agreement that in some utterly vaguely described future circumstance, a public health emergency, which the director general of the World Health Organization has total liberty to define in any way that he sees fit.

“In other words, nothing prevents climate change from being declared a public health emergency that would trigger the provisions of these modifications. And in the case that some emergency or some pretense of an emergency shows up, the provisions that would kick in are beyond jaw dropping.”

He continued, “I call it the World Health Organization Pandemic Preparedness Plan. And what is under discussion are some modifications to the global public health regulations and modifications to an existing treaty. But all of this makes it sound minor and procedural. What has been proposed are, and again, the number of things included here is incredible.

“It's hard even for those of us who have been focused on this to track all of the important things under discussion and to deduce the meaning of some of the more subtle provisions. But the World Health Organization and its signatory nations will be allowed to define a public health emergency on any basis that having declared one, they will be entitled to mandate remedies.”

“The remedies that are named include vaccines. Gene therapy technology is literally named in the set of things that the World Health Organization is going to reserve the right to mandate that it will be in a position to require these things of citizens, that it will be in a position to dictate our ability to travel.

“In other words, passports that would be predicated on one, having accepted these technologies are clearly being described. It would have the ability to forbid the use of other medications. So this looks like they're preparing for a rerun where they can just simply take Ivermectin hydroxychloroquine off the table. They also have reserved the ability to dictate how these measures are discussed. That censorship is described here as well. The right to dictate that, of course, misinformation is how they're going to describe it.”

“Malformation is actually exactly what you need to know about to see how antiquated that notion is because this is actually, the Department of Homeland Security actually issued a memo in which it defined three kinds of, I kid you not, terrorism, miss, dis, and malformation misinformation are errors, disinformation are intentional errors, lies and malformation are things that are based in truth, but cause you to distrust authority.”

Interviewer asks, “So malformation is what you commit when you catch them lying?

“Yes, exactly. Yeah. Discussing the lies of your government is malformation and therefore a kind of terrorism, which I should point out. As funny as that is, and as obviously Orwellian as that is, it's also terrifying because if you have tracked the history of the spreading tyranny from the beginning of the war on terror, you know that terrorism is not a normal English word the way it once was. Terrorism is now a legal designation that causes all of your rights to evaporate.

“So at the point that the Department of Homeland Security says that you are guilty of a kind of terrorism for saying true things that cause you to distrust your government, they're also telling you something about what rights they have to silence you. They're not normal rights. So these things are all terrifying. And I do think as much as my jaw's open, the Covid pandemic caused us to become aware of a lot of structures that had been built around us.

“But nonetheless, people's willingness to accept the erosion of their rights because of a public health emergency has allowed this tyranny to use it as a Trojan horse. And I think that's also something people need to become aware of, that there are a number of features of our environment that are basically, blind spots that we can't see.

“Past vaccines were one, and I know I was an enthusiast about vaccines. I still believe deeply in the elegance of vaccines as they should exist. But I'm now very alarmed at how they're produced. And I'm even more alarmed at what has been called a vaccine that doesn't meet the definition, right? That is because many of us believe that vaccines were an extremely elegant, low harm, high efficacy method of preventing disease. When they called this mRNA technology a vaccine, many of us gave it more credibility than we should have.

“If they had called it a gene transfection technology, we would've thought, wait, what? Public health functions the same way. If you think about it, public health, step back a second, your relationship with your doctor, your personal health ought to be very important to you.

“But there are ways in which things that happen at a population level that affect your personal health and your doctor's not in a position to do anything about it. So somebody dumping pollution into a stream from which you're pulling fish, you might detect the harm at the population level. You might need regulation at a population level in order to protect you. Your doctor's not in a position to give you a pill to correct it. So the idea that public health is potentially a place to improve all of our wellbeing is real.

“But once you decide that there's something above doctors relative to your health, then that can be an excuse for all manner of tyranny. Public health has been adopted. It's like the sheep's clothing that has allowed the wolf to go after our rights because in theory, it's trying to protect us from harms that we would like to be protected. And it generates such fear. It's such a huge scale that it weakens people's moral immune systems. Absolutely. They'll accept things they would never accept.”