One Health – American Conservative Movement https://americanconservativemovement.com American exceptionalism isn't dead. It just needs to be embraced. Mon, 05 Jun 2023 08:51:16 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.6.2 https://americanconservativemovement.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/cropped-America-First-Favicon-32x32.png One Health – American Conservative Movement https://americanconservativemovement.com 32 32 135597105 Why Countries Must Leave the World Health Organization https://americanconservativemovement.com/why-countries-must-leave-the-world-health-organization/ https://americanconservativemovement.com/why-countries-must-leave-the-world-health-organization/#comments Mon, 05 Jun 2023 08:51:16 +0000 https://americanconservativemovement.com/?p=193278 STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Countries that treasure individual freedom and respect bodily autonomy have only one choice: Exit the World Health Organization
  • One Health is the culmination of a grand global plan that places human health, animal health, environmental concerns, food, travel, housing and everything else under a single umbrella, and the WHO is being set up as the central decision-maker and overseer of it all
  • One Health is based on the premise that a broad range of aspects of life and the environment can impact health and therefore fall under the “potential” to cause harm. The One Health agenda includes medicine, food and agriculture, communications, economics, civil society, global trade and commerce, research, noncommunicable disease, mental health, land use, disease surveillance and much more
  • Behind the scenes, One Health partnerships have already been formed in countries around the world. The One Health network was built and expanded in the U.S. primarily by cutting public health funding. One Health then stepped in with funding but, of course, recipients of One Health grants had to embrace the concept and push it out to others
  • One Health is also baked into the proposed amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR), which the World Health Assembly (WHA) is scheduled to vote on in May 2024. This is how the WHO will gain the authority to dictate how we live our lives

Countries that treasure individual freedom and respect bodily autonomy have only one choice: Exit the World Health Organization. It is now beyond clear that the WHO intends to eliminate both of those, and then some, through an international program called One Health, formally adopted by the WHO and the G20 health ministers in 2017.1

The term “One Health” was first coined by EcoHealth Alliance,2 the group that subcontracted risky gain-of-function research to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), the lab from which SARS-CoV-2 emerged.

In hindsight, it’s easy to see that the globalists’ plan to concentrate power has been in the works for decades, and the playbook is always the same: “Give us more power so we can protect you and keep you safe.” Alas, every time we give them more power, we find ourselves both less safe and less free.

What Is One Health?

In the video above, Dr. Meryl Nass explains the implications of One Health. In short, our entire way of life, our freedom, our quality of life — indeed, our very humanity, are now at stake.

One Health is basically the culmination of a grand global plan that places human health, animal health, environmental concerns, food, travel, housing and everything else under a single umbrella, and the WHO is being set up as the central decision-maker and overseer of it all.

As explained by Nass, the One Health concept was initially based on the concept that veterinarians and doctors stood a better chance of combating zoonotic diseases — infections that jump species from animal to human — by working together. While that’s a reasonable idea, the concept was hijacked by globalists who saw that it could be used to gain power and control over the whole world.

The One Health agenda is based on the premise that a broad range of aspects of life and the environment can impact health and therefore fall under the “potential” to cause harm.

The graphic above illustrates some of the areas that fall within the scope of One Health. But that’s not all. According to a One Health Commission document, One Health also includes:3

  • Communications
  • Economics
  • Civil society
  • Global trade, commerce and security
  • Public policy and regulation
  • Research
  • Noncommunicable diseases (basically human medicine as a whole)
  • Mental health
  • Agricultural land use (which involves forcing farmers off their land)
  • Disaster preparedness and response
  • Disease surveillance
  • The “human-animal bond” (the relationship with our pets) and much more

The WHO Will Have Power to Dictate Every Facet of Our Lives

If the WHO’s proposed pandemic treaty is enacted, the WHO will have unilateral power to make decisions about all of these areas, and its dictates will supersede and overrule any and all local, state and federal laws.

For example, under One Health, the WHO will be able to declare climate change as a health emergency and implement climate lockdowns to address it. It will be able to restrict local and international travel under the guise of environmental and/or human health, implement a vaccine passport requirement as a biosecurity measure, radically alter diets around the world in the name of animal welfare and environmental protection, and much more.

As noted by Nass, “they’re basically trying to lasso everything in the world under One Health.” Meanwhile, One Health “lacks a conceptual system, real world evidence and a method for being implemented and evaluated,” she notes.

The One Health joint plan of action itself is pure word salad. It tells us nothing, really, other than it’s about forming a global coalition to “drive change” and transform life at the “global, regional and country level” under the guise of “health.”

The One Health Network Has Already Been Built

Behind the scenes, One Health partnerships have already been formed in countries around the world. According to Nass, the One Health network was built and expanded in the U.S. primarily by cutting public health funding. One Health then stepped in with funding but, of course, recipients of One Health grants had to embrace the concept and push it out to others.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), nongovernmental organizations and universities are all disbursing funds to expand the One Health network in the U.S. “Advancement of a One Health approach” is even included in the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).4

The One Health concept is also creeping into the school system, where students are being taught the importance of “responsible citizenship,” “cultural sensitivity” and “global mindedness.” The same tactics are used to build this network in other countries as well.

One Health Is Baked Into IHR Amendments

Importantly, as explained by Nass,5 One Health is also baked into the proposed amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR), which the World Health Assembly (WHA) is scheduled to vote on in May 2024. This is how the WHO will gain the authority to dictate how we live our lives.

“So, people need to be aware that this is coming, it’s a runaway train and we have to do what we can to stop it — which we can do by pulling out of the WHO,” Nass says.

As noted by Nass, in the U.S., a small group of national legislators are introducing House6,7 and Senate bills8,9,10 to require Senate supermajority approval of the WHO treaty before it’s signed.

In the U.K., conservative MPs are also warning ministers of an “ambition evident … for the WHO to transition from an advisory organization to a controlling international authority,” and are urging the Foreign Office to block efforts to “intrude materially into the U.K.’s ability to make its own rules and control its own budgets.”11

Andrew Mitchell, the minister of the Foreign Officer, has vowed to “block any law that prevents the U.K. from setting its own health policy,” but he also stressed that the U.K. is “supportive of the pandemic treaty currently being negotiated by national governments,”12 and that treaty, as it’s currently written, completely eliminates member states sovereignty.

People in other countries also need to educate their legislators about the dangers of One Health, the IHR amendments and the pandemic treaty under consideration, and call on them to protect their nations against this stealth takeover.

So, to summarize, One Health is a global project to centralize power with the WHO so that it will have the authority to control every aspect of human life, across the world, without regard for national sovereignty or human rights. Any number of countermeasures, including those used during the COVID pandemic, can then be deployed to combat things like climate change, loss of biodiversity, noncommunicable diseases, pollution, hunger, poverty and so on.

Overblown Warnings of Doom and Other Tactics

In a May 25, 2023, Substack article, Nass highlights the three elements used repeatedly to push what is ultimately a global takeover agenda:13

  1. An overblown warning about impending doom
  2. A totally inaccurate description of the cause
  3. A vague solution that benefits the globalists at the expense of the population at large

These were used during the COVID pandemic. They’re also being used to push the false idea that antibiotic resistance is caused by global warming, and therefore requires a more comprehensive approach — a One Health approach.

Nass cites a February 2023 report by the UN Environmental Program (UNEP) titled “Bracing for Superbugs: Strengthening Environmental Action in the One Health Response to Antimicrobial Resistance.”14

UNEP is one of the four international agencies that are pushing the One Health agenda globally and, according to this report, the fact that nations are already addressing antibiotic resistance is not enough.

Instead, nations must all work together using a singular, coordinated approach that includes “environmental-related plans such as national chemical pollution and waste management programs, national biodiversity and climate change planning.”

Countries must also come up with “innovative financial incentives and schemes” to pay for the proposed action plan and “guarantee sustainable funding.” UNEP also calls for “science-policy interfaces,” the prioritization of interventions and the strengthening of surveillance systems. They also stress that all strategies employed must “utilize the One Health approach while addressing financial/business, climate and cultural contexts.”

Does anyone else see how problematic that can become? To raise just one example, overuse of antibiotics in food production is at the root of the problem, yet any strategy to address it must take stakeholders’ financial and business concerns into account. At the end of the day, it becomes all about protecting and promoting the interests of certain “stakeholders,” which are primarily NGOs and private businesses. As noted by Nass:15

“Antimicrobial resistance is so simple. Bacteria develop mutations that allow them to evade antibiotics, and their new genes are often contained in small plasmids that can be excreted by the cell and shared with other bacteria …

Until this present moment, the FDA, CDC and the WHO all knew that antimicrobial resistance was due primarily to the use of antibiotics in livestock feed, because it increased the rate of growth; 75% of antibiotics by weight are used for this purpose, globally.

And people consume these antibiotics when they eat the meat, or the farmed fish, or the chickens. But now we must believe that antibiotic resistance is an environmental problem, which can only be solved by using the … One Health approach.”

‘Climate-Aggravated Outbreak Threats’ Being Pushed

If climate lockdowns and the like sound unbelievable, start paying attention to what you read in the news. For example, PR Newswire16 recently announced a partnership between the WHO and the Rockefeller Foundation aimed at “genomic surveillance, adoption of data tools for pathogen detection and assessment of climate-aggravated outbreak threats.”

More and more, we’re seeing “pandemic threats” being tied to things like climate change, so that the first can be used to justify drastic action on the second. As reported by PR Newswire:17

“The Rockefeller Foundation and the World Health Organization (WHO) have announced a new partnership to strengthen the WHO Hub for Pandemic and Epidemic Intelligence.

As part of the collaboration, the Foundation is investing US $5M in partners working with WHO to cultivate global networks for pathogen detection and strengthen pandemic preparedness capabilities, including broadening surveillance for diseases worsened by rising temperatures and extreme weather.”

October 2022 Pandemic Simulation

There’s also no doubt that we’ll be faced with additional pandemics, because the pandemic threat is what drives the push for global centralization of power. The globalists who practiced what was to become the global COVID response have also told us there will be more pandemics, and at this point, it would be foolish not to believe them. So, what might the next pandemic be, and when might it strike?

October 23, 2022, the WHO, Johns Hopkins University and The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation cohosted a tabletop exercise dubbed “Catastrophic Contagion,” involving a novel (and supposedly fictional) infection called “severe epidemic enterovirus respiratory syndrome 2025” (SEERS-25), which primarily affects children and teens.

These are the same groups that ran Event 201, which turned out to be a pandemic simulation for COVID. According to the Catastrophic Contagion simulation, SEERS-25 — an enterovirus like the polio virus — will originate in Brazil in 2025.

Fictional news reports featured in the simulation reported 1 billion cases worldwide and some 20 million deaths, including 15 million children, plus millions more left permanently paralyzed from the infection. Based on this exercise, we can assume (unless additional pandemic exercises are carried out) that the next pandemic will target children and young people.

This would be a logical progression, from a totalitarian perspective, considering people are typically willing to do just about anything to keep their children safe.

COVID showed them that most people were willing to sacrifice even their most basic freedoms “to save grandma.” So, what won’t they willingly give up if it comes down to “saving children”? The globalists intend to take our human rights and civil liberties away from us, and to be successful in that endeavor, they will need all the help and cooperation they can get.

https://twitter.com/BernieSpofforth/status/1661253625555853313

Dr. Abdullah Assiri, co-chair of the WHO’s Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (WGIHR) recently stated18 that the world “requires a different level of legal mandates” to address future pandemics, and that “actions that may restrict individual liberties” is a priority.

Who Is Making Decisions on Our Behalf?

Clearly, the idea that unelected and unaccountable globalists are trying to strip away individual freedoms and implement a totalitarian system of global top-down control is not a loony “conspiracy theory.” It’s a plain fact, and we, the public, have NO say in this.

In the video above, author, researcher, activist and natural health advocate James Roguski19 explains the World Health Assembly’s (WHA) role in the WHO’s takeover. Part of what makes it so difficult to stop this power grab is because the WHA is the body that will vote on the IHR amendments and the pandemic treaty, but the public is not allowed to know who, from their country, is part of the WHA.

Roguski tried filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to get a list of the U.S. delegates and was told there’s no such list. So, we can’t know who the WHA delegates are until they’ve signed in at the meeting and cast their vote on our behalf.

Needless to say, this means we cannot contact them beforehand to tell them how we think they should vote on a given issue. That said, Roguski was able to determine that Xavier Becerra, U.S. secretary of Health and Human Services, is the U.S. lead delegate.

Past the Point of No Return, All Freedom Will Be Lost

It’s now beyond imperative that people understand where we’re headed, and that the COVID measures weren’t just responses to a given pandemic, but rather were the foundation for a totalitarian one world government, where human rights and freedoms will no longer exist.

This is likely the biggest challenge mankind has ever faced as a collective, and it requires strong collective resistance. In order for that resistance to occur, however, people must understand what’s going on and how all of these various programs, treaties, partnerships and agendas work together. They’re all part of the same scheme, which is to implement a One World totalitarian technocratic government under which humans have no intrinsic value.

Call on Congress to Withdraw US From the WHO

While the U.S. House and Senate have introduced identical bills to thwart the WHO’s power grab through the proposed pandemic treaty, that still might not protect us if President Biden signs it, because the treaty is specifically written to circumvent the Senate-approval process.20

A far more effective strategy would be for Congress to withhold its annual contributions to the WHO, and then withdraw the U.S. from the WHO altogether. I believe it may be worth supporting all these strategies. So, please, contact your representatives and urge them to:

  • Support the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act
  • Withhold funding for the WHO
  • Support U.S. withdrawal from the WHO

We also need to protect our nation against the IHR amendments. To that end, the World Council for Health has launched a global #StopTheWHO campaign. Here’s how you can get involved:21

  • Speak — Raise awareness on the ground and online. Use articles, posters, videos
  • Act — Campaign through rallies, political mobilization, legal notices and cases and similar campaigns
  • Collaborate with health freedom coalitions such as the World Council for Health
  • Explore activist toolboxes such as: World Council for Health Stop the Who Campaign and stopthewho.com
  • Engage global indigenous leadership to take a united stand against the WHO’s IHR
  • Notify World Health Assembly country delegates to oppose the IHR amendments (if you can identify them)
  • Activate people’s parliaments, legislatures or referendums to oppose power grabs

Sources and References:

Article cross-posted from Dr. Mercola’s site.

]]> https://americanconservativemovement.com/why-countries-must-leave-the-world-health-organization/feed/ 1 193278 ‘One Health’ — The Global Takeover of Everything https://americanconservativemovement.com/one-health-the-global-takeover-of-everything/ https://americanconservativemovement.com/one-health-the-global-takeover-of-everything/#respond Mon, 01 May 2023 08:25:07 +0000 https://americanconservativemovement.com/?p=192225 STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The World Health Organization is seeking to cement its control over global health through amendments to the international health regulations (IHR) and its pandemic treaty
  • The pandemic treaty will grant the WHO power over far more than pandemic responses. It emphasizes the “One Health” agenda, which combines human health, animal health and environmental concerns into one
  • Under the One Health agenda, the WHO would have power to make decisions relating to diet, agriculture and livestock farming, environmental pollution, movement of populations and much more
  • Private interests wield immense power over the WHO, and a majority of the funding is “specified,” meaning it’s earmarked for particular programs. The WHO cannot allocate those funds wherever they’re needed most. This too massively influences what the WHO does and how it does it. So, the WHO is an organization that does whatever its funders tell it to do
  • The globalist takeover hinges on the successful creation of a feedback loop of surveillance for virus variants, declaration of potential risk followed by lockdowns and restrictions, followed by mass vaccinating populations to “end” the pandemic restrictions, followed by more surveillance and so on. The funding for this scheme comes primarily from taxpayers, while the profits go to corporations and their investors

In the March 22, 2023, video above, Dr. David Bell, Ph.D., a PANDA Science Sense Society1 executive committee member,2 reviews the new international pandemic treaty proposed by the World Health Organization — what it is and the impact it will have on democracy and freedom across the world — and the proposed amendments to the WHO’s international health regulations (IHR).3 As noted by PANDA:4

“The COVID event has revealed that it was about more than just public health and the political, economic and societal aspects of the response are of far greater significance than the virus itself. There remains a continued drive toward the transformation of our societies in ways that threaten democracy and our existing ways of life.”

The WHO’s pandemic treaty and the IHR amendments are two of the strategies that are driving us “toward transformation of society that threaten democracy and our existing ways of life.” Both are aimed at achieving the same thing, namely centralizing power over nations with the WHO.

The WHO Is Wholly Compromised

As noted by Bell, the WHO is no longer what it used to be. For starters, private interests now wield immense power over the organization. Bill Gates is the largest funder of the WHO when you add together the donations from the Gates Foundation and his other organizations, such as GAVI the Vaccine Alliance.

Another major change is that most of the funding is “specified,” meaning it’s earmarked for specific programs. The WHO cannot allocate those funds wherever they’re needed most. This too massively influences what the WHO does and how it does it. As noted by Bell, “The WHO is very much an organization that does whatever its funders tell it to do.”

As just mentioned, Gates wields the greatest financial influence, and he never seems to fund anything that he can’t profit from at the backend. For example, he funds a “green revolution” in Africa that promotes genetically engineered (GE) crops because he’s invested in the companies that supply GMO seeds. The end result is greater famine and poverty, but Gates laughs all the way to the bank.

He also funds vaccination campaigns for the very vaccines he’s invested in. It’s not about charity or doing good for the world. He simply creates markets for his investments.

Bell points out that the COVID lockdown strategy clearly did not come from the WHO itself, but rather from some outside source. How do we know this? Because its pandemic guidelines up until the COVID outbreak called for isolating infected patients only, for seven to 10 days.

Then, when COVID came about, that guidance was completely turned on its head, and the entire world, sick and healthy alike, were told to self-isolate for weeks and months at a time. Someone made the WHO issue this irrational and unscientific recommendation.

As a result of lockdowns, several of the WHO’s supposed goals for global health and well-being, especially for children, suffered dramatic setbacks, yet they didn’t seem to care.

On top of that, the WHO pushed for mass vaccination of populations they clearly knew had extremely low risk for COVID — children and young adults in terms of age groups, and Africa in terms of geographic location. Not surprisingly, Gates vaccine-related organizations (GAVI and CEPI) led that charge.

COVID Countermeasures Had Nothing to Do With Health Care

Bell also highlights how idiotic the vaccination narrative was. “With a fast-moving pandemic, no one is safe unless everyone is safe.” That motto was reiterated everywhere to promote the COVID jab, yet it’s completely irrational, because people who recover from the infection have natural immunity.

They are extremely safe, regardless of others’ vulnerability. We don’t need the whole world to be immune. We just need to meet the threshold for herd immunity and the vulnerable are automatically protected by those with natural immunity.

“What this is telling you is that the people running this are not interested in evidence, in truth, or even in being logical,” Bell says. “They’re interested in sound bytes, and this has nothing to do with health care. Nothing.”

If not about health, what was the pandemic response about? In short, it was about money, and more specifically, wealth transfer. Forty new billionaires were created while some 200,000 small businesses were destroyed in the U.S. in 2020 alone.5 Vaccine makers also made hundreds of billions of dollars on “vaccines” that provided virtually no protection while killing an unprecedented number of working age adults and decimating birth rates.

‘The Greatest Show on Earth’

Bell goes on to review how the pandemic industry is putting on “the greatest show on earth.” According to the pandemic industry, pandemics are becoming more frequent. This is false, Bell says.

They also claim there’s “increasing interaction between humans and wildlife or livestock,” the insinuation being that lethal viruses regularly jump species. This notion, Bell says, is just “plain silly.”

Still, these are the narratives they’re going with to create a feedback loop of surveillance for variants, declaration of potential risk, followed by lockdowns and restrictions, followed by mass vaccinating populations to “end” the pandemic restrictions, followed by more surveillance and so on. The funding for this scheme comes primarily from taxpayers, while the profits go to corporations and their investors.

Two Instruments to Seize Control

As explained by Bell, the two primary instruments that will turn the WHO into a central health police are the IHR amendments and the WHO’s pandemic treaty.6 The IHR amendments (which have force under international law) will provide “teeth” to the WHO’s goal of increased control over health emergencies, while the treaty will provide financing, governance and supply networks.

IHR Amendments Destroy National and Individual Sovereignty

The IHR amendments,7 as currently drafted:

  • Expand the definitions of pandemics and health emergencies. Specifically, it introduces “potential for harm” rather than actual harm. So, the WHO can mandate lockdowns or medical interventions based on the mere suspicion that a virus might cause public harm.
  • Change the recommendations of the IHR from nonbinding to mandatory, so member states MUST follow and implement the WHO’s recommendations.
  • Solidify the director-general’s ability to independently and single-handedly declare health emergencies.
  • Set up an extensive surveillance apparatus in all member states.
  • Enable the WHO to share country data without consent.
  • Give the WHO control over certain resources within member countries, including intellectual property rights.
  • Force national support for censorship activities directed by the WHO.
  • Change existing IHR provisions that affect individuals from nonbinding to binding, including provisions relating to border closures, travel restrictions, quarantines, medical examinations and the medication and vaccination of individuals.

Treaty Will Expand WHO’s Power Beyond Pandemics
Meanwhile, the pandemic treaty will:

  • Set up an international supply network overseen by the WHO.
  • Fund the WHO’s health emergency structures and processes by requiring at least 5% of national health budgets to be dedicated to health emergencies.
  • Set up a governing body under the auspice of the WHO to oversee the entire health emergency process.
  • Expand scope of the WHO’s power by emphasizing the “One Health”8,9 agenda, which recognizes that a very broad range of aspects of life and the environment can impact health and therefore fall under the “potential” to cause harm. This is how the WHO will be able to declare climate change as a health emergency and subsequently require climate lockdowns, for example.

The graphic10 below illustrates how the WHO’s scope of control is expanded under the One Health agenda to cover vast aspects of everyday life. Under the new treaty, the WHO will have unilateral power to make decisions about any of these areas, and its dictates will supersede and overrule any and all local, state and federal laws.

Interestingly, the term “One Health,” which was formally adopted by the WHO and the G20 health ministers in 2017, was first coined by the executive vice president of the EcoHealth Alliance, the same firm that appears to have had a hand in the creation of SARS-CoV-2, William Karesh, DVM, in a 2003 article on Ebola.11

Taxpayers Fund Their Own Exploitation

As noted by Bell, it’s not just the WHO that is pushing this agenda. It’s financed and promoted by a long list of organizations, including the United Nations, the European Union, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI, the Wellcome Trust, UNICEF, CEPI, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the World Bank.

But while these entities are officially funding the pandemic industry, what’s really happening is they’re “using taxes to fund wealthy people to exploit poor populations elsewhere,” Bell says. We’re also funding our own exploitation and demise. It’s not just the poor that will suffer under a globalist totalitarian regime, but everyone who is not part of the globalists’ top echelon.

Taxpayers are providing the money while private profiteers are deciding how that money is spent, and it’s being spent in ways that will benefit themselves. So, it’s a private-public “partnership” where the public is being robbed and all the benefits go to the private sector.

Current Timeline

As it currently stands, the IHR amendments will be voted on in the World Health Assembly (WHA) in May 2024, about a year from now. They only need a majority vote to pass. If that vote happens as planned, then the 10-month deadline for member states to reject the amendments will expire in March 2025, and the amendments will come into force in May 2025. If a member state opts out, then the current 2005 IHR version will apply to that state.

The WHO pandemic treaty will also be voted on by the WHA in May 2024. It requires a two-thirds majority vote to pass, and 30 member countries to ratify it. Thirty days after ratification, the treaty will take force for the countries that signed it.

The globalists don’t want to wait three years, however, so in the meantime, they’re working on a third avenue, which involves the creation of a “medical countermeasures platform for pandemics” under the WHO. And this platform will be implemented by September 2023. Many aspects of this platform will then simply morph right into the IHR amendments and the treaty.

“We need to understand that this whole thing is based on complete nonsense,” Bell says. “But it’s working.”

The Endgame, and How to Stop It

In an April 16, 2023, Substack article,12 Jessica Rose, a postdoctoral researcher in biology, tries to make sense of the last three years. Starting at the end, she believes the endgame is the “conversion of the majority of human beings into workers … like ants.”

To get there, the globalists must dehumanize us, systematically chip away at the human spirit, render us infertile and destroy all notions of bodily autonomy and national sovereignty. And, like Bell says, the plan has worked quite well so far. But cracks are beginning to show. More and more people are starting to put the puzzle pieces together, as Rose attempts to do in her article.

The COVID pandemic was the set-up, Rose suggests. It was geared to “test compliance levels” and set the scene for the next act, which was to normalize all things abnormal. The trans movement, which completely overwhelmed the social consciousness in a single year, is a continuation and expansion of that “normalization of the abnormal” phase.

It’s also a major component of the agenda to dehumanize and sterilize the population. After all, trans youth — which are also among the most brainwashed individuals in society right now — are the future of humanity. A brand-new report by legal experts backed by the United Nations is also seeking to normalize pedophilia,13 which would further dehumanize and de-spirit our youth for generations to come.

Adding insult to injury, the report was published March 8, 2023, “in recognition” of International Women’s Day. Never mind the fact that young girls and women are the primary victims of this sick mindset.

The “manmade climate change” hysteria and subsequent war on carbon is another fabricated “emergency” that is unhinged from science and reality. And, like the global COVID response, the UN’s Sustainable Development goals are perfectly tailored to enable the endgame. Under these goals, human freedom, human health and quality of life are sacrificed to “protect the environment and save the planet.”

As Rose notes, if the WHO pandemic treaty goes through, we can expect to be locked down indefinitely under the guise of “some climate catastrophe, likely linked to some ‘deadly pathogen’ passed to humans via some insect vector like mosquitoes.”

By then, central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) will also be in place, which will enable the unelected totalitarian regime to enforce whatever restrictions the WHO and its funders dream up, be it related to the food you’re allowed to eat based on your carbon footprint, the drugs you’re forced to take, what causes you’re allowed to fund, what businesses you’re allowed to buy from, when and how far you’re allowed to travel or anything else.

“A practical way I can think of to stop the endgame from being realized is to stop the CBDC,” Rose writes. “Use cash. Insist upon it. Do not give business to stores that only use cashless systems. Supply equals demand, so demand the use of CASH. Use bitcoin. It’s the antithesis of CBDCs.”

Other Strategies to Reclaim Our Freedoms

At the end of his video, Bell also reviews some of the possible ways in which we can respond to the threats to our national sovereignty and personal freedom, and the challenges involved.

  • Reform the WHO — The question is how? Can it be reformed?
  • Exit and defund the WHO — Drawbacks of this strategy include the fact that countries that exit the WHO lose direct influence over its direction, and the pandemic industry will still exist and exert immense influence worldwide.
  • Ignore the amendments and the treaty — Few countries will be able to afford this, as noncooperative member states will be sanctioned by the rest. Malfeasant rulers will also still be enabled.
  • Educate the populace and politicians and “encourage noncompliance with stupidity” — This is “a hard road,” Bell says, “but [it] gives the people a voice.”

Educating the populace, politicians in particular, may ultimately be the best approach. As noted by Bell in an April 2, 2023, article in The Daily Sceptic:14

“The international community can benefit from coordination over public health. But that is not what CA+ [the pandemic treaty] proposes. This is a draconian measure aimed at taking away national sovereignty.

It gives vast powers to a single organization with troubling funding arrangements and a track record for causing terrible damage. Legislators should reject these proposals, refuse to send taxpayer money to the WHO and reject the notion of public health by dictate.”

Article cross-posted from Dr. Mercola’s site.

]]> https://americanconservativemovement.com/one-health-the-global-takeover-of-everything/feed/ 0 192225