This post was written before “Squeezing the Orneriness Out of Me.” I’m still ornery.
Are our kids now taking their education from the Internet? I wouldn’t be surprised if they were.
The Internet of course is neutral. It’s just a machine, made and programmed by people.
Just like AI is neutral. It’s what use we make of it that’s critical.
All of these things in the wrong hands could be used to … well, control people. Like James Bond showed us: To attempt to control the world. (Oh, how far fetched!)
Well, here we are. UN “peacekeepers,” FEMA “emergency relief workers,” IRS “tax officers” all of them being used to corral, extort, and control us. Or worse.
The WHO, the WEF, presidents and prime ministers, kings, queens, and even movie stars (!!) (1) – so many are shown to be corrupt, addicted to adrenochrome (read: child torture), and looking forward to absolute control over a depopulated globe.
Their paradise is our slave colony – if you’re fortunate enough to be among the 500 million left alive. All of the organizations, not just the WEF, are warped and sadistic. Candace Owen called them “institutional evil.” (2)
Did I leave out religious leaders? Oh my. I’m sorry. They provided the justification.
Sad as it all is, we need to put these people out of business. No, not execute them.
Executions are totally unnecessary and only serve to brutalize us and the person thus launched onto the other side. If they can be brutalized further than their Satanic practises have taken them.
There’s no need to bloody our hands. The rising vibrations will provide the dark ones with an exit route – any exit route will serve.
Moreover, as SaLuSa reminded us some time ago:
“Bear in mind that whatever happens where your dark ones are concerned, they will stand in the Halls of Justice before they start a new experience.” (3)
We’re going to be faced with so many difficult decisions in the months and years ahead. We watched the divisions arise over Covid, gender, race, climate, etc.
But that was between lightworkers/patriots/truthers and the hoodwinked divide-and-conquer victims of the Satanic cabal. Now we may see divisions arise among lightworkers themselves over how to get to permanent peace.
We have our work cut out for us. I know down to my bones that love is what will carry us through. (4)
Footnotes
(1) These are the white hats who rode the white horses and captured the dark hats, defended truth, freedom and the American way, and defeated the enemies of freedom, etc., etc. These are the wonder women, the strongmen who defended us, the upright lawyers who defended the persecuted underdog, the brave doctors who defied the medical profession, etc.
“WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus insisted the IHR [International Health Regulations] be updated in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.” (1)
OK, this one got in. (Thanks again, Ev.)
Let me get it straight. DARPA, the WHO, Wuhan labs, Fauci and their allies created Coronavirus-19 and now they insist that control be given over to them before the next pandemic strikes, which they’re probably busy creating (Monkeypox, Marberg, bird flu, etc.), if they’re still alive, that is (Fauci is reportedly not).
In public they oppose the changes to the IHR and behind closed doors they agree to them?
We have the same people who created the problem now offering themselves as the solution. Isn’t that how it works? Blow up the Twin Towers and then offer your pre-prepared legislation as the solution – which takes away people’s freedom.
You offer yourself to protect them against “terrorists.” Meanwhile you are the terrorists. (Most of the top planners of 9/11, by the way, have reportedly been executed for treason.)
In some circumstances we call it a false flag. In others a conspiracy. They don’t get bigger than a conspiracy to control the world. And yet that’s what we face.
Improbable. Implausible, you say. But not impossible. A very large number of people have banded together to create another elite-dominated world. Call it Nazism, Fascism, or whatever you want. It divides the world into controllers (an elite) and controlled (their servants).
We were warned that things would have to reach the level of a near-death experience for society to be ready for global martial law. If the WHO’s actions, and the complicity of so many meeting delegates, don’t send all reasonable adults into shock, then I’m not sure what it will take to wake people up.
We’re talking about unelected officials handing our freedom over to the deep state, to more unelected officials and people complicit in democide. Not only will it never, ever happen for more reasons than I can name. But for sure, I think, the prospect of it will drive people to seek common ground to stop the spread of the evil the deep state has in store for us.
Add this news to the late Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack acknowledging burning down food-production plants in evidence produced at his Gitmo treason tribunal (he was reportedly hung), farmers and officials slaughtering thousands of animals “infected” with bird flu, which the cabal itself probably introduced and tested for.
Throw in the IRS arming its agents and FEMA robbing disaster victims in Tornado Alley – or killing them outright at Lahaina. Add in insect protein, the open border, bridge collapses….
Stand back and observe, I was asked. I am standing back and, at the moment, I observe outrage in me.
Not like I intend to act on it. I’ll process it as with all extreme feelings. But the summary of how I feel right now is that I feel outraged at the idea – in this instance – of surrendering my country’s sovereignty to the WHO. This one truly did get in.
Footnotes
(1) Yudi Sherman, “5 key takeaways from the WHO’s new IHR amendments,” Frontline Doctors, June 04, 2024, at https://frontline.news/post/5-key-takeaways-from-the-who-s-new-ihr-amendments.
A video on the Geneva Convoy and a selection of articles from Frontline Doctors on the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty. Thank you for allowing me to use this event to demonstrate the impact of lethargy on our behavioral choices. Thanks again to Ev.
Del Bigtree’s The Highwire covers the Geneva convoy
Countries at the World Health Assembly in Geneva last week approved new amendments to the International Health Regulations, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced Saturday.
The International Health Regulations (IHR) are a set of international laws that are legally binding on all WHO countries. Claps and cheers reportedly erupted at the World Health Assembly when country delegates agreed to the IHR amendments.
The amendments are the result of two years of negotiations, which began after WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus insisted the IHR be updated in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Here are five key takeaways from the new IHR amendments.
The director-general has unilateral power to declare a ‘pandemic emergency’
Director-General Ghebreyesus may declare public health emergencies and pandemic emergencies at will. He requires no approval from a committee or oversight body.
Once an emergency is declared, it triggers the IHR, which obligate governments to obey the WHO’s rules. These rules require countries to use resources that go towards monitoring and tracking cases, surveillance, research, and developing and distributing “health products” such as masks and vaccines.
Each country must establish a WHO enforcement body
The IHR amendments also require each country to establish a “National IHR Authority,” which is a governmental body tasked with enforcing the WHO’s regulations in that particular country. This is different from the existing requirement to establish a National IHR Focal Point, which is simply a point of contact in each country for WHO officials.
Countries must address ‘misinformation’
Another new addition to the regulations is that governments must develop “risk communication” in a pandemic. This requires “addressing misinformation and disinformation” such as social media posts questioning the safety of vaccines or promoting scientific evidence that challenges conclusions made by public health authorities.
Member countries must pay for ‘equitable access’
WHO member countries must fund the pandemic response in poorer countries, which the IHR refers to as “equity.” The term “equity” or “equitable access” has been added eight times to the amendments, which require governments to:
[I]dentify and enable access to financial resources, including through the Coordinating Financial Mechanism, established pursuant to Article 44bis, necessary to equitably address the needs and priorities of developing countries, including for developing, strengthening and maintaining core capacities.
The WHO will issue mandates concerning ‘health documents’
The WHO will make decisions about how countries issue and authenticate “health documents,” which would seemingly include the international certificate of vaccination mentioned elsewhere in the IHR:
WHO, in consultation with States Parties, shall develop and update, as necessary, technical guidance, including specifications or standards related to the issuance and ascertainment of authenticity of health documents, both in digital format and non-digital format. Such specifications or standards shall be in accordance with Article 45 regarding treatment of personal data.
According to Article 45, governments should not publicize a person’s personal data unless it is necessary for public health.
The WHO has been working on a digital international certificate of vaccination since last year.
In June 2023, the WHO announced the launch of its “digital health partnership” with the European Commission that will involve the development of global vaccine passports among other “digital products to deliver better health for all.”
(2)
WHO pandemic treaty hits snag
Republican governors slam pandemic accord: ‘Unprecedented and unconstitutional powers over the United States and its people’
World Health Organization (WHO) officials have expressed disappointment that negotiations for a “pandemic treaty” have failed to meet a crucial deadline.
‘We are not where we hoped we would be’
For over two years, the WHO has been attempting to introduce a pandemic accord that it claims will “strengthen global pandemic prevention, preparedness and response to prevent a repeat of the health, social and economic impacts that were caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Last week, the WHO’s Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) held its ninth round of negotiations with member states to compose a final draft of the treaty. The negotiations did not meet expectations, however. WHO officials are disappointed that a final draft was not approved in time for the organization’s annual World Health Assembly in Geneva this week.
“We are not where we hoped we would be when we started this process,” INB Chairman Roland Driece told the Associated Press. Driece added that creating a pandemic treaty is crucial “for the sake of humanity.”
The WHO is also holding negotiations to amend the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR) with which all member states must comply.
24 governors join opposition to pandemic treaty
There has been widespread criticism that the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments will require member states to cede sovereignty to the WHO in the event of a pandemic.
On Wednesday, 24 Republican governors signed a letter to Joe Biden expressing concern that these two initiatives “would purport to grant the World Health Organization (WHO) unprecedented and unconstitutional powers over the United States and its people.”
“The objective of these instruments is to empower the WHO, particularly its uncontrollable Director-General, with the authority to restrict the rights of U.S. citizens, including freedoms such as speech, privacy, travel, choice of medical care, and informed consent, thus violating our Constitution’s core principles,” the governors wrote.
They also expressed concern that the agreements currently under negotiation will transform the WHO from an advisory body to a global health authority. Under the proposed arrangements, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus would have the power to unilaterally declare a “public health emergency of international concern” (PHEIC).
“Furthermore, these instruments would erode sovereignty by granting the WHO’s DirectorGeneral [sic] the authority to dictate responses to a declared PHEIC, stripping elected representatives of their role in setting public health policies and compelling citizens to comply with WHO directives, potentially including mandates regarding medical treatments,” the letter continued.
What does the agreement say?
Indeed, recent drafts of the pandemic treaty would crack down on taxpayers who disobey mandates, among other measures.
In Article 18 of the draft, the WHO clarifies that governments must promote “pandemic literacy” — a strategy which, like media literacy, tells the public who to trust and suppresses “misinformation.”
“The Parties shall strengthen science, public health and pandemic literacy in the population, as well as access to information on pandemics and their effects and drivers, and combat false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation, including through effective international collaboration and cooperation as referred to in Article 16 herein,” the agreement states.
In addition, governments should craft policies that will quash noncompliance with “public health and social measures” and enforce “trust in science and public health institutions.”
“The Parties shall, as appropriate, conduct research and inform policies on factors that hinder adherence to public health and social measures in a pandemic and trust in science and public health institutions,” says the document.
Member states are also instructed to rope in the private sector for pandemic-related activities.
Other provisions in the agreement require governments to take an authoritarian approach to pandemics that go beyond mere regulations and extend to social engineering. In Article 17, for example, governments must not only develop public health policies but also “social policies” aimed at “mobilizing social capital in communities for mutual support.”
A pretense to prescribe global policies?
The WHO would also be able to use public health as a pretext to dictate global policy. In one clause, for example, the WHO demands that governments “encourage ceasefires in affected countries during pandemics to promote global cooperation against common global threats.” In another clause, countries must enforce “gender equality” and place more women in leadership positions to create a proper “health and care workforce.”
Governments would be permitted to withdraw from the pandemic agreement only after waiting two years after signing it, following which the agreement will still remain in effect for that nation for another year as the withdrawal does not take effect immediately.
During that time, the WHO can declare a pandemic at any time and for any reason. Such reasons might include a virus like COVID-19, a social condition like loneliness, or a phenomenon like “climate change.”
(3)
Your personal freedoms are dangerous — to the WHO
‘People having too much freedom is the thing that annoys the regulators’
The failure of the WHO member states to adopt the WHO’s pandemic treaty by the proposed May 27th deadline can be seen as a victory, albeit not final, by freedom-loving persons around the globe.
WHO calls personal decisions dangerous
In September 2019, the WHO ”declared vaccine hesitancy one of the ten biggest threats to global health . . .“ The WHO may actually be threatened by individuals exercising the right to make their own personal health decisions based on their own research.
In August 2020 the WHO credited itself with coining the term “infodemic,” declaring information not coming from the agency to be dangerous misinformation.
Soon after the world started getting used to the terms coronavirus and COVID-19, WHO coined another word: “infodemic” — an overabundance of information and the rapid spread of misleading or fabricated news, images, and videos. Like the virus, it is highly contagious and grows exponentially. It also complicates COVID-19 pandemic response efforts.
“We’re not just battling the virus,” said WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. “We’re also battling the trolls and conspiracy theorists that push misinformation and undermine the outbreak response.”
A BMJ article, “‘Torrent of fake news’ has put negotiations at risk, says WHO chief,” published January 29, 2024, revealed that WHO Chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, a former leader of the Marxist terror group Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), already saw the writing on the wall — that the pandemic treaty was destined to fail. Instead of taking people’s concerns to heart, however, he chose to blame the troubles on “fake news.”
WHO officials blamed conspiracy theories for mobilising public opposition to the accord and hindering negotiations. Social media is awash with what Tedros described as a “a torrent of fake news, lies, and conspiracy theories.”
Among the false claims are that the pandemic treaty plans to snatch sovereignty from countries by imposing lockdowns or vaccine mandates. “This is fake news, lies, and conspiracy theories. Negotiating members know that the agreement will give WHO no such powers, because you are writing it,” Tedros said.
Despite Tedros protestations, “fake news” is not the reason the pandemic treaty is now on life support.
Power grab
Censorship
National Herald India‘s AJ Prabal described what appears to be the main reason politicians throughout the world have resisted ratifying the treaty – they’re apparently unwilling to cede their own powers to the world body. He documents the breadth of power the unelected and unaccountable body holds to censor scientists and what it deems “disinformation:”[1]
Once the countries sign the treaty, they will hand over all regulatory control of future pandemics (Disease X) to WHO. The UN body will declare the onset of fresh pandemics, declare protocols to be followed (lockdowns, vaccines), prescribe medicines and their dosage, demand surveillance prescribed by it, and decide on which medicines and vaccines are acceptable and which are not. What is more, WHO will also have the power to censor scientific papers, scientists, and research, and also decide what is disinformation and what is not.
WHO is an unelected body and is totally unaccountable to anyone, [Dutch politician and European Parliament independent member Robert ‘Rob’] Ruse has pointed out. But WHO nevertheless wants countries to cede part of their sovereignty so that WHO, despite its poor record, can control future pandemics, bio-terrorism and climate change. (Emphases added.)
Not a good fit for most
Ruse also explained that solutions cannot be one-size-fits-all. Different countries have different needs as demographics and health concerns vary.
Ruse has also pointed out that one size does not fit all. [Pune-based epidemiologist] Dr Banerjee agrees. Demographics differ from country to country as do conditions, he points out. India is a young country with an overwhelming percentage of its population below the age of 70, whereas Europe is ageing faster. Obesity and comorbidities are major health issues in the West but not so much in Asia. In Africa, mortality from Covid was higher in South Africa, where people are more obese than in other countries. While obesity is a problem in the West, malnutrition is a more serious problem in poorer countries like India. (Emphaisis added.)
Ignores local health concerns
Focusing on pandemic solutions rather than local health needs can lead to misapplied resources and bad outcomes. This is what happened in India where TB and dengue are more serious diseases than COVID was.
Not just demography, but population density and cultural differences too can play a role in pandemics. In India, 80 per cent of the population did not take a booster dose. They did not have to. More Indians died of other diseases than of Covid-19, and yet the government spent 50 per cent of the total health budget on securing vaccines to deal with Covid. Neglect of other diseases has led to a resurgence in cases of TB and dengue, and about 2,000 children in India continue to die every day of diseases other than Covid, Dr Banerjee points out. (Emphases added.)
Your personal health takes a backseat to “public health”
Former British comedian and actor, Russel Brand may be one of those who Ghebreyesus believes is spreading lies. Now a podcaster with some conservative views, Brand has not hesitated to express his perspective on the events of our times.
In a May 2022 podcast, a week before a gathering of the WHO’s World Health Assembly, the WHO‘s governing body, to work on the treaty, Brand elaborated on the agency’s interest in increasing its regulatory powers while quoting from a Telegraph article on the treaty draft. It is funded, Brand pointed out, primarily by nations and organizations with “biases at odds” with your and his health requirements and his preference for more freedom, not less:
Lifesite News journalist Stephen Kokx reported on an interview Brand had with Tucker Carlson, during which they discussed several topics, including Brand’s experience of having been targeted by the CIA and the UK government for his viewpoints — they had tried to destroy his reputation with vague sexual allegations — and Brand’s views of the globalists’ attempts to suppress dissent:[2]
“There are now sets of globalist organizations, funded by government, but also by corporations, that are making deliberate, profound attempts to shut down any dissent in an astonishingly aggressive way,” he said.
. . .
“It’s like we’re being prepped, groomed, primed for ‘war is coming.’ We’re being kept in a state of constant anxiety in order to induce compliance,” he asserted. “The ongoing stoking of cultural tension is to ensure that people don’t begin to recognize that actually we have far more in common with one another than we do with these curious sets of establishment interests that seem to be transcendent of national democracy. To be explicit, I’m talking about organizations like the WHO, NATO, the WEF, and their astonishing influence.” (Emphases added.)
They also discussed geopolitics and the globalists’ doublespeak to cloak their intentions. Kokx reported:
Brand and Carlson agreed that the “loathing of nature” carried out by global elites indicates “something dark” is happening.
“Clearly what we’re watching are the fruits of spiritual war,” Carlson stated. “Certainly the solution seems to me to be spiritual,” Brand replied, adding that “authoritarianism now is being deliberately veiled in the insidious language of care, concern, safety and convenience.” (Emphasis added.)
Trust them not to take away your freedom?
Authoritarianism vs freedom was a topic of grave concern for Sky News Australia’s Outsider program cohosts Rowan Dean, Rita Panahi, and James Morrow, as well. In a discussion about the global pandemic treaty,”[3] they voiced concern about the proposed treaty and how it may be well received in Australia, particularly as most of the people accepted and even cheered on COVID-19 countermeasures. They also expressed concern about the dire implications the treaty has for personal freedoms, pointing out that the regulators, who may not be willing to endure people’s personal freedom, claim that freedom is the problem:
Dean:
The reality is the World Health Organization have [sic] made it crystal clear James that they want that ability to have a global pandemic treaty.
Morrow:
Well you know, and thing here that underlies this and so many things that we need to be vigilant about and what people need to be vigilant about but they get called conspiracy theorists and whack jobs and things like that, the fundamental idea behind all of this is this idea that freedom is somehow the problem.
And this is the issue, with so many of the issues that we face, whether it’s the pandemic whether it’s the climate crisis, if you want to say that in quotes, whatever the issue is, people having too much freedom is the thing that annoys the regulators and we’re going to see this. We saw the Climate Council this week come out and say that well to, you know, fight the climate thing not only do we need to all move to EVS but we need to own half as many cars and take half as many car trips we need to take trips according to the public transport schedule.
You know, we see this on level after level after level and this is what people need to be really vigilant about. It is not freedom that is the problem. It is always the people who want to take your freedom away.
Dean:
And we’re now in a world where really it’s not left versus right — it’s authoritarianism versus freedom, as James says — or the collective, the greater good versus freedom of the individual to make their own choices. And what we saw during COVID, which is why we must have a royal commission, as Rita was saying, to find out what actually happened during COVID. You must have that Royal Commission into what actually happened and what did happen to our freedoms and at what costs they came. (Emphases added.)
Considering the above, it appears that it is the WHO’s agenda that presents a danger — to your personal freedom.
The image above is not about the World Health Organization’s (WHO) mishandling of the coronavirus. It’s from an article published in 2015, after the WHO botched their response to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. 12
You can see how far we’ve come since then. “Reform” of the WHO has a formula: Use failures as a cry for more. If only the WHO had more enforcement power, more laws and agreements, and more money, it won’t happen again, they claim — while they simultaneously fearmonger about the inevitability of “the next pandemic.”
Can the WHO be reformed?
The House Select Subcommittee recently met to discuss whether the WHO could be reformed in the wake of mishandling COVID.3 The answer is no. The WHO has a long and well-known history of mishandling pandemics and outbreaks (even after so-called reforms) including Ebola, H1N1 (swine flu),4 AIDS, 5 SARS, 6 and most recently COVID (the last two of which were tied to lab leaks 78 in China). There’s been mishandling of funds,9 accusations of corruption of the Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus 10, and findings of sexual assault by WHO staff when responding to an outbreak of Ebola in the Congo.11 Regarding the assault: The known perpetrators did leave the WHO, and the victims of assault by WHO employees were given $250 each, but only after they completed training courses on “income generating activities.”12 Is that reform?
The WHO has continued to grow and fail, with deadly results, after each misstep and crime. One of the U.S. delegates to the WHO, Loyce Pace from the Office of Global Affairs in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), defended what she called past efforts at reform in the subcommittee meeting. But her idea of reform was not conducting investigations, restructuring, or replacing those at fault. Instead, she pointed to new committees formed in response to mistakes and tragedies, calling them “reform.” (Check out the SHF recap of the subcommittee hearing here.) And she continues to call on the U.S. and its people to give even more support to the WHO in the form of tax dollars and authority.
If you still need convincing that the organization has no intention of real reform, look to the recent reelection of Director General Tedros,13 from Marxist Ethiopia, who didn’t even have the vote of his home country. 14 Dr. Tedros — who is not a medical doctor, but a doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.) in community health — gave great deference to China on the COVID outbreak, including delayed declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), and parroting Chinese claims that SARS-CoV-2 would not transmit from human to human.
There’s a global consensus that under his leadership, the WHO mishandled yet another disease outbreak, this time amounting to the most devastating pandemic in a century, both in human lives and in economic terms. In other words, despite previous “reforms” that included new committees, more surveillance, greatly expanded scope through the 2005 amendments to the International Health Organization, and a growing bank account, the failures have only become more catastrophic in return. Is this reform?
There is no reform. The WHO is doing exactly what it was meant to do.
The spiral of history
In 1944, the head of the Rockefeller Foundation, Raymond B. Fosdick, stood before the American Public Health Association at a conference in New York City and declared, “A world health organization must inevitably be attached to any world peace organization.”15 He said this in the context of describing what he called deplorable health conditions in China that were a threat to us here in the United States.
The WHO didn’t exist until 1948. There was no centralized international health organization of any sort until the turn of the 20th century because of the general desire of countries around the globe to keep to themselves and avoid loss of sovereignty. Once regional organizations started to appear, the only actions agreed upon were that countries would notify others if they had outbreaks, and that they would serve as clearinghouses for the exchange of information about epidemics. These offices had no enforcement power and existed only as a place for information exchange and support of governments during outbreaks.
At the time of Fosdick’s comment (who was also not a medical doctor), there was an international organization called the League of Nations, which did have a health organization (LNHO), though other health organizations of the day, including Rockefeller Foundation’s own International Health Division, had more clout.
Shockingly, the U.S. was not a part of the League of Nations. This was a huge blow to President Woodrow Wilson because the league was his idea, proposed in the Treaty of Versailles which ended the first World War. The Senate voted twice not to join because provisions would override American sovereignty.
We refused no assistance that we could possibly render. All the great energy and power of the Republic were put at the service of the good cause. We have not been ungenerous. We have been devoted to the cause of freedom, humanity, and civilization everywhere. Now we are asked, in the making of peace, to sacrifice our sovereignty in important respects, to involve ourselves almost without limit in the affairs of other nations and to yield up policies and rights which we have maintained throughout our history.
We are asked to incur liabilities to an unlimited extent and furnish assets at the same time which no man can measure. I think it is not only our right but our duty to determine how far we shall go. Not only must we look carefully to see where we are being led into endless disputes and entanglements, but we must not forget that we have in this country millions of people of foreign birth and parentage. –Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, congressional speech, August 1919.
Despite lack of Senate support, Wilson continued to send American public health officials to the LNHO to work. (Remember the public health officers, like the CDC now, are under presidential control as an executive agency).
Wilson understood he needed the public on his side for his international interventions. He had campaigned under the slogan, “He kept us out of war,” but then chose to involve the U.S. in the very war he kept America out of. So in 1917, he created the Committee on Public Information, which many knew as the Creel Committee, and some newspapers of the time referred to as the Committee on Misinformation. It was created to convince Americans that getting involved in global affairs was a good idea. One writer described it as an “attempt to mobilize public opinion behind the war effort with every available form of mass communication.”16
There was no social media back then, so the Creel Committee used newspapers and movie theaters. “Creel, a former journalist, particularly targeted newspapers. He later estimated that the news division placed material in 20,000 newspaper columns each week during the war.”17 The Library of Congress tells us there were over 75,000 “engaged patriotic local residents” who were trained to give 4-minute speeches at movie theaters between changes of reels of film.18
To reach the public who couldn’t access newspapers or movies and saturate public consciousness with a “patriotic fervor,” they engaged the art community for paintings, posters, sculptures, exhibitions, and more.19
FDR, who was president after Wilson, learned from Wilson’s mistakes and was able to get Congress on board to create The United Nations to replace the defunct League of Nations. The public health outreach arm, of course, is named the World Health Organization.
In this history, you can clearly see the seeds of things like the Biden administration’s failed Disinformation Governance Board and the commandeering of social media to spread the propaganda of destructive and unwanted coronavirus policy.
No country has ever exited the WHO… yet
The WHO Constitution does not have a provision for withdrawal. Neither does the U.N. Charter. This was intentional because countries left the League of Nations as a method of political blackmail or to avoid their obligations.
The U.S., however, when joining the WHO, put on record our own path for leaving: one-year notice and all dues paid.
Many know that Trump started the process of leaving the WHO, but the Biden administration swiftly reversed course after he took office.
There has been only one other attempt to leave. In 1948, just after joining, Soviet Union countries announced they were leaving the WHO. But Brock Chrisholm from Canada, who was head at the time, very strategically never accepted their resignation and let them back in years later in the 1950s after the death of Stalin.20
Let’s pause for a moment to reflect: The only attempts to leave the WHO in its 75-year history were by Communists who said the U.S. had too much influence, and then by the U.S. who said Communist China had too much influence. What does that tell us about the organization’s leadership, policy, and dynamics? What does it tell us about the ability of the organization to be reformed? The pendulum has swung from left to right over 75 years, but at its core, the organization has been ineffective and corrupted as two cold-warring ideologies have fought for control.
So this plan for global health security through a pandemic treaty and amendments to the IHR isn’t the beginning of a new era, it’s the end of a long game plan that has been in place for decades, at least. It’s not about health, it’s about control.
