By Dustin Broadbery
Since the 1950s nation states have been governed by public international law, framed by intergovernmental organisations, particularly the United Nations (UN) and their specialised agencies: World Health Organisation, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.
These international laws have become the common legal language and frameworks, rules and customs that guide nation states through a number of important domains. From war to diplomacy, trade to human rights. But increasingly, world citizens are being subjected to these laws, enacted by unelected statesmen who are without recourse to the people. This shift from one distant form of centralised democracy, to an even more remote one, is worth further examination.
The World Health Organisation (WHO)
The World Health Organisation (WHO) is the embodiment of an organisation whose policy and strategy is directed by the pharmaceutical corporations it apparently regulates and not the citizens is supposedly serves.
This is unsurprising when 76% of WHO funding is from voluntary contributions. Notably: foundations and pharmaceutical corporations who wield unimaginable influence over global health policy. This cosy financing relationship between the regulator and the regulated, has resulted in one man alone, the anodyne Bill Gates, being crowned the Tsar of international public health.
Why not? Gates contributes 20% of WHO funding through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and GAVI, The Vaccine Alliance. It is no secret that money buys influence.
This corporatised takeover of global health policy bears many hallmarks of the Fabian-imagined world run by a ‘body of experts’ (as we explored in Part I). Only this time, the ‘qualified rulers’ are multinational pharmaceutical corporations and billionaires, whereas the role of intergovernmental organisations like the WHO is to help Big Pharma sell patented drugs.
Not much has changed then since the days of rule by royal dynasties, where the richest and most powerful bloodlines ruled the land. The difference nowadays: the wealth of billionaires like Gates buys the necessary political influence to set public policy and agenda.
In her brilliant documentary, Trust WHO, filmmaker Lilian Franck reveals the unhealthy ties between the WHO and big lobbying firms.
Particularly, it was not until the late nineties that new regulations began to emerge around the dangers of smoking. This was largely down to big tobacco lobbying the WHO since the 1950s to downplay the public health risks associated with smoking. Giving rise to the iconic cigarette advertising campaigns of the eighties and the smoking epidemic that followed. Notwithstanding the dangers of smoking was long understood by health professionals, especially the WHO.
Likewise, the nuclear industry has been a strong lobbying force behind the WHO around events like Fukushima and Chernobyl, to effectively gloss-over the effects of radiation poisoning in support for the feasibility of nuclear energy.
To fully understand the strategy of the WHO throughout SARS-CoV-2, it is important to note the agency’s erroneous declaration of the Swine Flu pandemic in 2009. Following unorthodox relaxing of rules around the definition of a ‘pandemic’. Specifically the criteria: ‘severity of illness’ and ‘mortality rate’.
Swine Flu brought about a new culture of disease classification where you could now have a pandemic with zero deaths. These amendments took place following secret deals between European governments and GSK, Sanofi & Novartis. Resulting in a paycheque for Big Pharma in the region of $18 billion dollars for a vaccine that was not required, for a pandemic that did not happen. Later, The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) held an emergency inquiry into the “influence” exerted by drugmakers over the WHO, for a disease that it transpired killed between one third to one tenth the rate of seasonal flu.
In 2020 the WHO crowned China the global pacemaker for a new phenomena known as lockdowns. Unsurprising when Tedros Adhanom became the WHO’s first non-doctor Director-General, amid allegations of heavy lobbying by CCP diplomats. Adhanom was effectively China’s dog in the fight, despite an appalling track record on public health and human rights.
In 2017 Adhanom was accused of covering up three cholera epidemics as Ethiopian Health Minister, when he had served as a central committee member for the Tigray People’s Liberation Front — a Marxist political party accused of crimes against humanity.
Preceding his appointment at the WHO, Adhanom was Chair of The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (an international financing organisation established in 2002 with seed funding from Gates BMFG). Later he served as a board member of GAVI, another BMGF public health hydra.
Prior to 2020 the WHO’s reputation was blemished by multiple controversies, with calls from the international community to rethink global health policy and especially the role of the Specialised Agency of the UN.
The Lancet Medical Journal published an independent report calling for the WHO to be stripped of its role in declaring disease outbreaks, whereas the journal Nature called out their poor response to the Ebola outbreak of April 2014, when it took the Agency until August of that year to declare a global emergency.
Later In 2017, the WHO were criticised for allocating $200 million a year for executive travel expenses. Exceeding the Agency’s combined budget to combat AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Reminiscent of how the Red Cross raised half a billion dollars for Haiti, and built just six houses.
To fully understand the role of the WHO in international public health, we must set the GPRS to 1948, and take a closer look at the WHO’s first director general, celebrated psychiatrist, Brock Chisholm, who many have accused of being a Communist.
In his famous paper, ‘The Psychiatry of Enduring Peace and Social Progress’, Chisholm advocated for ‘the world citizen’. Believing man’s environment ‘was no longer local’. He saw the individual as a type of neurosis that must be treated for his malady and the solution was psychiatrists. “One or two million of them” to be specific. “Trained as salesmen to break down the doors of resistance”. Especially within the family, which according to Chisholm was a breeding ground for individualism. He therefore “induced governments to institute compulsory treatment” for this neurosis as with other “infectious diseases” Going on to suggest: we must “watch carefully for signs that any individuals or groups are becoming potential enemies and kill them all ruthlessly before they can become strong”.
In 1946 Chisholm presented his controversial paper at a US conference on mental health. Two years later it was published by the now prestigious magazine Psychiatry, by his socialist friend, Alger Hiss. A senior US State Department official who was exposed as being a top Soviet agent and jailed for perjury. Remarkably, Hiss was involved in the creation of the United Nations and the WHO, acting as the UN’s presiding Secretary General and co-authoring the UN Charter.
United Nations Organisational Structure
According to the United Nations ‘democracy is core to its values’. They claim: “the UN has done more to support democracy around the world than any other global organisation,”despite there being nothing even remotely democratic about the UN’s organisational structure. UN officials are not democratically elected for and by the people, but rather, the UN is governed, in the Fabian tradition, by ‘qualified rulers’ or a ‘body of experts’. Those elected to the UN’s committees, programs, funds, conferences and specialised agencies, are diplomats appointed by the executive branch of national governments, and not by citizens of those nation states. What’s more, UN officials are protected by diplomatic immunity, meaning that they are not subject to the very laws they partake in framing. Nothing out of the ordinary then in the cosy world of politics where it’s one rule for those making the rules, another rule for everyone else.
The UN’s organisational structure is a loose association of sovereign nation-states, frequently gridlocked by the veto/unanimity principle. On the one hand, Article 2 of the UN’s Charter stipulates that its “organisation is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members”. But on the other hand, the veto powers of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council directly contradicts that assumption. Because when that veto is used by China, France, Russia, United Kingdom or United States, it cancels the adoption of any substantive resolution, regardless of the level of international support the draft has amongst members. The game is indeed rigged from the outset.
The UN claims to have done more for human rights than any other organisation. Yet, according to Freedom House’s annual global analysis of political rights and civil liberties: Of the 46 members of the UN Human Rights Council, 22 are from countries rated Free Democracies, 10 are from countries rated Partly Free, and 14 are from countries rated Not Free. Put into perspective: 53% of members from the world’s foremost authority on human rights, are governments of undemocratic countries.
United Nations and Eugenics
In 1994, the UN would inherit the zeal of Francis Galton’s eugenics programs with the International Conference on Population and Development. A $17 billion project to “stabilise” the world’s population. Later it was incorporated into the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).
Amongst other questionable investments, the UNFPA supported a forced sterilisation and ethnic cleansing program in Peru, launched by then-President Alberto Fujimori who argued that a lower birth rate would alleviate poverty.
The consequences of Fujimori’s poverty mitigation efforts resulted in 200,000 mostly poor, indigenous women, being sterilised without their consent.
The UNFPA also established ‘family planning programs’ that supported China’s brutal sterilisation agenda. Which the UNFPA claimed were “fully voluntary and non-coercive.” Despite an independent investigation by the Population Research Institute concluding, the policies of the program included: “age requirements for pregnancy; birth permits; mandatory use of IUDs; mandatory sterilisation; crippling fines for non-compliance; imprisonment for non-compliance; destruction of homes and property for non-compliance; forced abortion and forced sterilisation.”
As of 2018, Eugenics-heir Bill Gates is the largest non-government funder of the UNFPA, through the BMGF.
UN and Human Rights
The UN’s top ranks have been a breeding ground for unsavoury characters, especially former high-ranking Nazi, Kurt Waldheim, who served as Director General from 1972 to 1981. Socialists and Communists at the helm of the agency have included: Swedish socialist Dag Hammarskjold, Burmese Marxist U Thant, Peruvian socialist Javier Perez deCuellar, and Egyptian socialist Boutros Boutros-Ghali.
In fact, the majority of the UN’s nine Director Generals have been socialists or communists, including the UN’s current Director General, António Guterres, former VP of the Socialist International, a worldwide group of Social Democrats (in the Fabian tradition), originally founded by communists, and once headed by Karl Marx.
Under the leadership of Guterres and his predecessor, Ban Ki-moon’, the UN moved furtively from one controversy to another.
According to a UN report obtained by Associated Press, between 2004-2007 at least 134 Sri Lankan peacekeepers in Haiti were found guilty of exploiting children in a sex ring from 2004 to 2007. In the wake of the report, 114 peacekeepers were sent home, none were imprisoned.
In 2010, UN peacekeepers transferred from Nepal to assist with emergency rescue work in the wake of the 2010 Haitian earthquake brought with them the cholera epidemic. Killing between 10,000-30,000 people. It was not until 2016 that Ban Ki-moon officially acknowledged the responsibility of the UN, following six years of denying the agency’s culpability and maintaining complete impunity from any claims of compensation from the families of the deceased. In 2017, fourteen UN human rights experts put out a joint statement, slamming the UN’s coverup, directly accusing Ban Ki-moons’ successor, Guterres of gross violations of his obligations to remedy the crisis through adequate UN funding and compensation.
In 2016, following significant pressure from the international community, Guterres published an annual review of the UN’s Peacekeeping Forces that revealed 145 incidents of sexual exploitation and abuse in 2016 alone. Troops and diplomats were implicated across all UN peacekeeping missions in cases involving 311 victims, which the UN admitted “was merely the tip of the iceberg”.
The scandal broke after repeated attempts by Guterres to cover-up the endemic rape of children by UN peacekeepers in Africa. The Independent revealed 2,000 paedophiles were working for the UN, many in positions of authority and operating with diplomatic immunity. Later, the UN whistleblower who had exposed the scandal quit his post in protest over what he claimed was “an institutional coverup” that provided “complete impunity” for the diplomats and peacekeeping forces responsible. With rare exceptions, the names of those found guilty have been kept confidential, making accountability and indeed justice for the victims impossible.
Guterres, a lifetime socialist and globalist, has been a leading voice throughout COVID-19, repeatedly calling for “more robust global governance” bt imploring the World Bank, IMF and EU to bring about “order” to a future world disrupted by coronavirus.
Another VP of the communist-rooted Socialist International is Gro Harlem Brundtland who served as Director-General of the World Health Organization (1998-2003) and UN Special Envoy on Climate Change (2007-2010).
In 1987, Brundtland chaired a pivotal report of the UN’s World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), called Our Common Future (also known as The Brundtland Report), considered by many to be the seminal paper for sustainable development that introduced the world to the global warming doomsday scenario.
An important contributor to the report was a lesser known but hugely influential public figure called Maurice Strong. The report revealed some uncomfortable truths at the heart of climate change policy:
Traditional forms of national sovereignty raise particular problems in managing the global commons and their shared ecosystems…In many parts of the world, the population is growing at rates that cannot be sustained by available environmental resources….Urgent steps are needed to limit extreme rates of population growth.
UN on Climate Change
The UN’s programs on climate change, or more precisely: the multi-billion dollar environmental industrial complex has been paving the way for pro-world taxation, resource inventorying & consolidation and one world governance since the 1970s.
As a doomsday scenario, climate change pulls emotively on the same heartstrings as COVID-19, with its apocalyptic vision of a world citizen crying out for change and institutional giant strides towards global governance.
Climate change leverages the Fabian-envisaged ‘body of experts’. In this instance, environmental scientists and UN policy makers guide national policies towards the implementation of Agenda 21 and the SDGs of Agenda 2030, while noble custodians of the planet – environmental activists – steer civil society towards the same destination. This process of using the scientific community and weaponising the left, first conceived by the Fabians and mastered through climate change, is now perfected to a fine art with COVID-19.
This is unsurprising when the same principle actors have been at the helm of both doomsday mechanisms, including Brundtland who has been a leading pundit throughout COVID. He has been calling for an unprecedented scale of partnership between governments, businesses, intergovernmental organisations, nonprofits, scientists and researchers (otherwise known as one world government). According to Brundtland, all must come together to coordinate the critically important global vaccination program. Which, for the layperson, means mandatory.
In a world marred by inequalities, extreme poverty, social injustice and the corporatised theft of the world’s resources, the sweeping momentum of environmentalism is largely down to its cachet with those on the left, predisposed towards humanitarian causes, even in their anthropomorphic sense, where environmentalism has become the asthenic cousin of humanitarianism.
Climate change provides a hobby and mantra to grassroots activists who would otherwise present a legitimate threat to the machinations of the state. Instead, they join the ranks of co-opted movements like Extinction Rebellion, unaware they are doing the unofficial bidding for a global elite as ‘aggressive salesmen’ knocking down doors in the Brock Chisholm tradition, peddling privations and collectivism.
Given the scientific consensus of this looming environmental catastrophe, it would be wise to examine the origins of the theory of climate change, and take a closer look at the principal players who put this important agenda at the heart of global sustainable development.
The man who put the UN into the climate change business and pioneered the theory of sustainable development, is a lesser-known billionaire oil tycoon and self-confessed socialist, Maurice Strong.
Strong spent decades ascending to the highest ranks of the UN, standing at the right hand of the agency’s Directors General, and serving as the founding director of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) that produced Agenda 21. Strong was the founder of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). He organised the Rio Earth Summit, which paved the way for the Kyoto Protocol and later the Paris Agreement. Strong was also co-Chairman of the World Economic Forum, mentor to Klaus Schwab, and member of the influential think tank, The Club of Rome.
Even by the most credulous of estimations, Strong’s role as climate doomsayer presented a serious conflict of interest when his shady business dealings in the oil industry and personal track record on conservation directly contradicted the very values which he helped popularise, On the one hand, Strong presided over the UN’s global affairs on climate from 1962 to 2005. On the other, he was one of the wealthiest men in the world, having amassed billions of dollars from the oil industry.
While many questioned why an oilman would be unofficially elected as the custodian of the environment, Strong enjoyed the full endorsement of his cronies at the UN, despite one of his companies, Desarrollos Ecologicos, building an illegal $35 million luxury hotel within the Gandoca-Manzanillo Wildlife Refuge in Costa Rica (an important conservation area where development is restricted unless it has the approval of the Kekoldi Indian Association). Naturally, Strong was above the very laws he helped popularise on conservation and proceeded with his development without the necessary permits.
In 1992 as the Cold War drew to a close, Strong organised the UN’s seminal event on climate: the Rio Earth Summit. The event enshrined what would become the climate change agenda through the groundbreaking action plan: Agenda 21, which called for a greater level of international cooperation on issues relating to sustainability between UN member states in the wake of the Cold War. At the Rio Earth Summit, Strong revealed some of the agenda at the heart of climate change policy:
We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialised civilisation to collapse.
Much more on link.