The WHO Wants to Rule the World Ramesh Thakur The World Health Organisation (WHO) will present two new texts for adoption by its governing body, the World Health Assembly comprising delegates from 194 member states, in Geneva on 27 May–1 June. The new pandemic treaty needs a two-thirds majority for approval and, if and once adopted, will come into effect after 40 ratifications. The amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) can be adopted by a simple majority and will be binding on all states unless they recorded reservations by the end of last year. Because they will be changes to an existing agreement that states have already signed, the amendments do not require any follow-up ratification. The WHO describes the IHR as ‘an instrument of international law that is legally-binding’ on its 196 states parties, including the 194 WHO member states, even if they voted against it. Therein lies its promise and its threat. The new regime will change the WHO from a technical advisory organisation into a supra-national public health authority exercising quasi-legislative and executive powers over states; change the nature of the relationship between citizens, business enterprises, and governments domestically, and also between governments and other governments and the WHO internationally; and shift the locus of medical practice from the doctor-patient consultation in the clinic to public health bureaucrats in capital cities and WHO headquarters in Geneva and its six regional offices. From net zero to mass immigration and identity politics, the ‘expertocracy’ elite is in alliance with the global technocratic elite against majority national sentiment. The Covid years gave the elites a valuable lesson in how to exercise effective social control and they mean to apply it across all contentious issues. The changes to global health governance architecture must be understood in this light. It represents the transformation of the national security, administrative, and surveillance state into a globalised biosecurity state. But they are encountering pushback in Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, and most recently Ireland. We can but hope that the resistance will spread to rejecting the WHO power grab. Addressing the World Governments Summit in Dubai on 12 February, WHO Director-General (DG) Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus attacked ‘the litany of lies and conspiracy theories’ about the agreement that ‘are utterly, completely, categorically false. The pandemic agreement will not give WHO any power over any state or any individual, for that matter.’ He insisted that critics are ‘either uninformed or lying.’ Could it be instead that, relying on aides, he himself has either not read or not understood the draft? The alternative explanation for his spray at the critics is that he is gaslighting us all. The Gostin, Klock, and Finch Paper In the Hastings Center Report “Making the World Safer and Fairer in Pandemics,” published on 23 December, Lawrence Gostin, Kevin Klock, and Alexandra Finch attempt to provide the justification to underpin the proposed new IHR and treaty instruments as ‘transformative normative and financial reforms that could reimagine pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.’ The three authors decry the voluntary compliance under the existing ‘amorphous and unenforceable’ IHR regulations as ‘a critical shortcoming.’ And they concede that ‘While advocates have pressed for health-related human rights to be included in the pandemic agreement, the current draft does not do so.’ Directly contradicting the DG’s denial as quoted above, they describe the new treaty as ‘legally binding’. This is repeated several pages later: …the best way to contain transnational outbreaks is through international cooperation, led multilaterally through the WHO. That may require all states to forgo some level of sovereignty in exchange for enhanced safety and fairness. What gives their analysis significance is that, as explained in the paper itself, Gostin is ‘actively involved in WHO processes for a pandemic agreement and IHR reform’ as the director of the WHO Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law and a member of the WHO Review Committee on IHR amendments. The WHO as the World’s Guidance and Coordinating Authority The IHR amendments will expand the situations that constitute a public health emergency, grant the WHO additional emergency powers, and extend state duties to build ‘core capacities’ of surveillance to detect, assess, notify, and report events that could constitute an emergency. Under the new accords, the WHO would function as the guidance and coordinating authority for the world. The DG will become more powerful than the UN Secretary-General. The existing language of ‘should’ is replaced in many places by the imperative ‘shall,’ of non-binding recommendations with countries will ‘undertake to follow’ the guidance. And ‘full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons’ will be changed to principles of ‘equity’ and ‘inclusivity’ with different requirements for rich and poor countries, bleeding financial resources and pharmaceutical products from industrialised to developing countries. The WHO is first of all an international bureaucracy and only secondly a collective body of medical and health experts. Its Covid performance was not among its finest. Its credibility was badly damaged by tardiness in raising the alarm; by its acceptance and then rejection of China’s claim that there was no risk of human-human transmission; by the failure to hold China accountable for destroying evidence of the pandemic’s origins; by the initial investigation that whitewashed the origins of the virus; by flip-flops on masks and lockdowns; by ignoring the counterexample of Sweden that rejected lockdowns with no worse health outcomes and far better economic, social, and educational outcomes; and by the failure to stand up for children’s developmental, educational, social, and mental health rights and welfare. With a funding model where 87 percent of the budget comes from voluntary contributions from the rich countries and private donors like the Gates Foundation, and 77 percent is for activities specified by them, the WHO has effectively ‘become a system of global public health patronage’, write Ben and Molly Kingsley of the UK children’s rights campaign group UsForThem. Human Rights Watch says the process has been ‘disproportionately guided by corporate demands and the policy positions of high-income governments seeking to protect the power of private actors in health including the pharmaceutical industry.’ The victims of this Catch-22 lack of accountability will be the peoples of the world. Much of the new surveillance network in a model divided into pre-, in, and post-pandemic periods will be provided by private and corporate interests that will profit from the mass testing and pharmaceutical interventions. According to Forbes, the net worth of Bill Gates jumped by one-third from $96.5 billion in 2019 to $129 billion in 2022: philanthropy can be profitable. Article 15.2 of the draft pandemic treaty requires states to set up ‘no fault vaccine-injury compensation schemes,’ conferring immunity on Big Pharma against liability, thereby codifying the privatisation of profits and the socialisation of risks. The changes would confer extraordinary new powers on the WHO’s DG and regional directors and mandate governments to implement their recommendations. This will result in a major expansion of the international health bureaucracy under the WHO, for example new implementation and compliance committees; shift the centre of gravity from the common deadliest diseases (discussed below) to relatively rare pandemic outbreaks (five including Covid in the last 120 years); and give the WHO authority to direct resources (money, pharmaceutical products, intellectual property rights) to itself and to other governments in breach of sovereign and copyright rights. Considering the impact of the amendments on national decision-making and mortgaging future generations to internationally determined spending obligations, this calls for an indefinite pause in the process until parliaments have done due diligence and debated the potentially far-reaching obligations. Yet disappointingly, relatively few countries have expressed reservations and few parliamentarians seem at all interested. We may pay a high price for the rise of careerist politicians whose primary interest is self-advancement, ministers who ask bureaucrats to draft replies to constituents expressing concern that they often sign without reading either the original letter or the reply in their name, and officials who disdain the constraints of democratic decision-making and accountability. Ministers relying on technical advice from staffers when officials are engaged in a silent coup against elected representatives give power without responsibility to bureaucrats while relegating ministers to being in office but not in power, with political accountability sans authority. US President Donald Trump and Australian and UK Prime Ministers Scott Morrison and Boris Johnson were representative of national leaders who had lacked the science literacy, intellectual heft, moral clarity, and courage of conviction to stand up to their technocrats. It was a period of Yes, Prime Minister on steroids, with Sir Humphrey Appleby winning most of the guerrilla campaign waged by the permanent civil service against the transient and clueless Prime Minister Jim Hacker. At least some Australian, American, British, and European politicians have recently expressed concern at the WHO-centred ‘command and control’ model of a public health system, and the public spending and redistributive implications of the two proposed international instruments. US Representatives Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) warned on 5 February that ‘far too little scrutiny has been given, far too few questions asked as to what this legally binding agreement or treaty means to health policy in the United States and elsewhere.’ Like Smith and Wenstrup, the most common criticism levelled has been that this represents a power grab at the cost of national sovereignty. Speaking in parliament in November, Australia’s Liberal Senator Alex Antic dubbed the effort a ‘WHO d’etat’. A more accurate reading may be that it represents collusion between the WHO and the richest countries, home to the biggest pharmaceutical companies, to dilute accountability for decisions, taken in the name of public health, that profit a narrow elite. The changes will lock in the seamless rule of the technocratic-managerial elite at both the national and the international levels. Yet the WHO edicts, although legally binding in theory, will be unenforceable against the most powerful countries in practice. Moreover, the new regime aims to eliminate transparency and critical scrutiny by criminalising any opinion that questions the official narrative from the WHO and governments, thereby elevating them to the status of dogma. The pandemic treaty calls for governments to tackle the ‘infodemics’ of false information, misinformation, disinformation, and even ‘too much information’ (Article 1c). This is censorship. Authorities have no right to be shielded from critical questioning of official information. Freedom of information is a cornerstone of an open and resilient society and a key means to hold authorities to public scrutiny and accountability. The changes are an effort to entrench and institutionalise the model of political, social, and messaging control trialled with great success during Covid. The foundational document of the international human rights regime is the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Pandemic management during Covid and in future emergencies threaten some of its core provisions regarding privacy, freedom of opinion and expression, and rights to work, education, peaceful assembly, and association. Worst of all, they will create a perverse incentive: the rise of an international bureaucracy whose defining purpose, existence, powers, and budgets will depend on more frequent declarations of actual or anticipated pandemic outbreaks. It is a basic axiom of politics that power that can be abused, will be abused – some day, somewhere, by someone. The corollary holds that power once seized is seldom surrendered back voluntarily to the people. Lockdowns, mask and vaccine mandates, travel restrictions, and all the other shenanigans and theatre of the Covid era will likely be repeated on whim. Professor Angus Dalgliesh of London’s St George’s Medical School warns that the WHO ‘wants to inflict this incompetence on us all over again but this time be in total control.’ Covid in the Context of Africa’s Disease Burden In the Hastings Center report referred to earlier, Gostin, Klock, and Finch claim that ‘lower-income countries experienced larger losses and longer-lasting economic setbacks.’ This is a casual elision that shifts the blame for harmful downstream effects away from lockdowns in the futile quest to eradicate the virus, to the virus itself. The chief damage to developing countries was caused by the worldwide shutdown of social life and economic activities and the drastic reduction in international trade. The discreet elision aroused my curiosity on the authors’ affiliations. It came as no surprise to read that they lead the O’Neill Institute–Foundation for the National Institutes of Health project on an international instrument for pandemic prevention and preparedness. Gostin et al. grounded the urgency for the new accords in the claim that ‘Zoonotic pathogens…are occurring with increasing frequency, enhancing the risk of new pandemics’ and cite research to suggest a threefold increase in ‘extreme pandemics’ over the next decade. In a report entitled “Rational Policy Over Panic,” published by Leeds University in February, a team that included our own David Bell subjected claims of increasing pandemic frequency and disease burden behind the drive to adopt the new treaty and amend the existing IHR to critical scrutiny. Specifically, they examined and found wanting a number of assumptions and several references in eight G20, World Bank, and WHO policy documents. On the one hand, the reported increase in natural outbreaks is best explained by technologically more sophisticated diagnostic testing equipment, while the disease burden has been effectively reduced with improved surveillance, response mechanisms, and other public health interventions. Consequently there is no real urgency to rush into the new accords. Instead, governments should take all the time they need to situate pandemic risk in the wider healthcare context and formulate policy tailored to the more accurate risk and interventions matrix. The lockdowns were responsible for reversals of decades worth of gains in critical childhood immunisations. UNICEF and WHO estimate that 7.6 million African children under 5 missed out on vaccination in 2021 and another 11 million were under-immunised, ‘making up over 40 percent of the under-immunised and missed children globally.’ How many quality adjusted life years does that add up to, I wonder? But don’t hold your breath that anyone will be held accountable for crimes against African children. Earlier this month the Pan-African Epidemic and Pandemic Working Group argued that lockdowns were a ‘class-based and unscientific instrument.’ It accused the WHO of trying to reintroduce ‘classical Western colonialism through the backdoor’ in the form of the new pandemic treaty and the IHR amendments. Medical knowledge and innovations do not come solely from Western capitals and Geneva, but from people and groups who have captured the WHO agenda. Lockdowns had caused significant harm to low-income countries, the group said, yet the WHO wanted legal authority to compel member states to comply with its advice in future pandemics, including with respect to vaccine passports and border closures. Instead of bowing to ‘health imperialism,’ it would be preferable for African countries to set their own priorities in alleviating the disease burden of their major killer diseases like cholera, malaria, and yellow fever. Europe and the US, comprising a little under ten and over four percent of world population, account for nearly 18 and 17 percent, respectively, of all Covid-related deaths in the world. By contrast Asia, with nearly 60 percent of the world’s people, accounts for 23 percent of all Covid-related deaths. Meantime Africa, with more than 17 percent of global population, has recorded less than four percent of global Covid deaths (Table 1). According to a report on the continent’s disease burden published last year by the WHO Regional Office for Africa, Africa’s leading causes of death in 2021 were malaria (593,000 deaths), tuberculosis (501,000), and HIV/AIDS (420,000). The report does not provide the numbers for diarrhoeal deaths for Africa. There are 1.6 million such deaths globally per year, including 440,000 children under 5. And we know that most diarrhoeal deaths occur in Africa and South Asia. If we perform a linear extrapolation of 2021 deaths to estimate ballpark figures for the three years 2020–22 inclusive for numbers of Africans killed by these big three, approximately 1.78 million died from malaria, 1.5 million from TB, and 1.26 million from HIV/AIDS. (I exclude 2023 as Covid had faded by then, as can be seen in Table 1). By comparison, the total number of Covid-related deaths across Africa in the three years was 259,000. Whether or not the WHO is pursuing a policy of health colonialism, therefore, the Pan-African Epidemic and Pandemic Working Group has a point regarding the grossly exaggerated threat of Covid in the total picture of Africa’s disease burden. A shorter version of this was published in The Australian on 11 March Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author. Author Ramesh Thakur, a Brownstone Institute Senior Scholar, is a former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General, and emeritus professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University. View all posts Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work. https://brownstone.org/articles/the-who-wants-to-rule-the-world/

Excuse me but no, a country that routinely uses white phosphorous to burn and maim children, and send them to their early grave, to a life of handicap of to excruciating pain does not have a right to exist. Any country that practices systemic, deliberate, continual sadism and brutality against people does not have a right to exist. And in even broader terms: any political organization that does not have justice at its core not only does not have a right to exist, it is our right and duty to bring about its demise. This is because political organizations, which is what all countries are, are not divine entities that we must protect religiously. The opposite is true: the only reason for the existence of any political organization is promoting what is good and just for people. This is'nt just me saying: morality and justice are ingrained into the essence of what is human. We love fairness and hate injustice. This is how we are made (all complaints should be addressed to the manufacturer). This is why this genocidal campaign is a huge self-delegitimization move on behalf of the west: most people will hate what is perceived as unjust and those who enable it, and no amount of manipulation, false reasoning and shadowbanning can change it. - This does not only, and must not apply only to Israel. This is universal, and it is on all of us to channel the energy generated by this catastrophe into a global movement, or quest, for justice and humanity, rather than wasteful partisan nonsense. We must never go back to being asleep. This is also why South Africa's appeal to the ICJ is so commendable and pivotal: it forces a major international player to face justice, and it breaks the mold as part of which countries mutually forgive each other's inhumanity, for the sake of a status quo that only benefits respective elites. I guess when you have freed yourself from apartheid you can't be part of the corrupt game anymore; which is why I'm sure Palestinians will become global leaders on justice when they get finally get theirs https://twitter.com/alon_mizrahi/status/1750081880987258885?t=eyG5Mi9jlG80VI49hiTNwg&s=19

Royal Society of Arts Expelled Me for Telling the Truth Rhoda WilsonJanuary 18, 2024 On 15 February 2021, BBC Panorama aired a “hit job” on several prominent doctors and scientists who had the integrity to speak out against the covid agenda. The title of the programme was ‘Vaccines: The Disinformation War’. BBC’s reporter for the programme was none other than disinformation agent Marianna Spring. Because of this BBC documentary, Dr. Coleman was expelled from the Royal Society of Arts (“RSA”) for his “views and his involvement in the BBC Panorama programme,” despite the BBC not asking for his consent to be “involved” with the programme and that ‘Vaccines: The Disinformation War’ has been widely recognised as trashy and dishonest. Dr. Coleman responded to the BBC’s programme in two articles which he published on his website vernoncoleman.org. The website is no longer available but copies have been archived on the Wayback Machine website. The articles referred to can be found HERE and HERE. In the first article published in May 2021, Dr. Coleman said: “The BBC’s Panorama programme is now rightly regarded as trashy and dishonest for forging documents. But Panorama’s trickery involving Princess Diana was trivial and insignificant compared to the way it has supported the Government’s covid fraud and helped promote a fraud which has already resulted in many thousands of deaths.” On 20 February 2021, Oracle Films and Covileaks responded to the Panorama programme by releasing the second of their series ‘Ask the Experts’. The first Ask the Experts was released on 7 December 2020 and was banned by Facebook and YouTube within two days. You can watch ‘Ask the Experts (Covid-19 Vaccine)’ on Odysee HERE. As one of the doctors who had been included, without his consent, in the BBC Panorama programme, Dr. Coleman contributed to the second part of Ask the Experts titled ‘Ask the Experts II (We will not be silenced)’. In Oracle Films’ documentary, Dr. Coleman said: “The BBC’s official policy is not to allow any discussion or debate about vaccination. Instead, they accept as gospel anything the Government, the regulators and the drug companies tell them. Those who question any aspect of the Government line are banned.” You can watch Ask the Experts (We Will Not Be Silenced) on Odysee HERE. Below, Dr. Coleman describes just one of the impacts of BBC’s nefarious programme. (Related: Prof. Norman Fenton: Globalists have captured all of the institutions, they’ve got control over everything) Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox… Royal Society of Arts Expelled Me for Telling the Truth By Dr. Vernon Coleman I used to be a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts but the RSA expelled me without a hearing or a debate or a chance to properly defend myself. They expelled me for daring to tell the truth about covid, for being “mugged” by BBC television and for daring to question the global warming myth. (The RSA said they were expelling me because “of my views and my involvement in the BBC panorama programme.” That’s what they said. This seemed to me to be a bit like arresting someone because they’d been mugged. I was never invited to appear on the programme they mentioned which was, inevitably, a one-sided “hit job,” criticising those of us who were daring to tell the (provable) truth. The RSA didn’t seem concerned that the BBC boasts that it won’t ever give airtime to those questioning vaccination “whether they’re right or wrong.”) Everything I said and wrote was factually accurate and, as it becomes ever clearer that everything I predicted is coming to pass, I wonder sometimes if they feel just a little embarrassed. Even if I had been wrong, what sort of organisation expels one fellow because one or two other fellows don’t agree with something they have said? (Does everyone in the RSA have to agree with one another? If so, who makes the rules and why don’t they publish their manifesto of acceptable beliefs? Or is freedom of speech a commodity only allowed to a special few?) My expulsion from the RSA was, at the time, rather a low point. We both thought about death and suicide as the injustices mounted. The endless unjustified abuse made it difficult for me to leave the house or to meet people and made us both seriously depressed. My wife is the kindest person I’ve ever met. In Paris, I once saw her run across to a woman rummaging for food in a rubbish bin. Antoinette didn’t just give the woman some money – she gave her all the money in her purse. All of it. I have known her to do that many times. She doesn’t give coins to beggars or street buskers – she gives them currency notes. I will never forgive the RSA because their mindless, censorious cruelty helped depress us both. It was, in some ways, a low point. Antoinette was also a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. She resigned the day I was expelled. The lack of debate and fairness has been commonplace throughout the years since early 2020. None of the politicians, journalists, doctors, broadcasters promoting the official line has ever been prepared to debate their beliefs. That is their strength, because it means that they can say and do whatever they like. But it is also their weakness because it means that anyone who is thoughtful and fair-minded must want to ask the question: Why have these subjects never been debated? The above is taken from Vernon Coleman’s new book `Truth Teller: The Price’. You can purchase a copy via the Bookshop on http://www.vernoncoleman.com Just go to the section dealing with Covid and the Great Reset. Note that this book, which explores the covid fraud and other trickery, and describes how Vernon Coleman has, for several years now, been regularly banned and censored, is itself already banned in some countries. Dr. Coleman has made over 300 videos, written a number of books and written over 1,000 articles in the last three years. Despite many attempts the fact checkers have failed to find any errors in any of his work. A copy of this book was sent to the Royal Society of Arts. They have not responded. Featured image: Royal Society of Arts. The charity has over 30,000 global members who pay an annual fee of £198. Source: BBC https://expose-news.com/2024/01/18/royal-society-of-arts-expelled-me-for-telling-the-truth/

Klaus Schwab wants to stop the retreat of globalisation and global governance with a new form of globalisation and global governance Rhoda WilsonDecember 19, 2023 Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret’s book ‘Covid-19: The Great Reset’ identified “the global governance free fall” as an existential challenge and if we do not collaborate “we are doomed.” “Nation states make global governance possible (one leads the other),” the book states. “The more nationalism and isolationism pervade the global polity, the greater the chance that global governance loses its relevance and becomes ineffective. Sadly, we are now at this critical juncture. Put bluntly, we live in a world in which nobody is really in charge.” The book defines “global governance” as the cooperation among transnational actors to respond to global problems and “globalisation” as a broad and vague notion that refers to the global exchange between nations of goods, services, people, capital and data. Although global governance is defined as a different concept, they are intertwined and the reasons for its “free fall” are the same as those for the retreat of globalisation. The solution to the retreat from globalisation, Schwab and Malleret said, was a new form of globalisation which required policies and effective global governance. Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox… Earlier this month, the US deep state’s Council on Foreign Relations publicised what they proposed to do about the rise in anti-globalisation through two interviews. One was with Peter Trubowitz, an associate fellow at the UK deep state’s Chatham House. The other was with Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund. The general outcome of both was that the plan was to counteract anti-globalisation with a different form of globalisation. Trubowitz suggested that what needs to be done is “to re-imagine the relationship between foreign and domestic policies” while Georgieva suggested “concentrating on the areas where, without working together, we are doomed.” The examples she gave as “we are doomed” without globalisation were “climate change,” the “green transition” and debt. Read more: Council on Foreign Relations tries to combat rise of anti-globalisation Not only were Trubowitz and Georgieva parroting each other in the ideas and some of the language they used, but both were parroting Klaus Schwab and his book ‘The Great Reset’. Plans to tackle Anti-Globalisation with a New Globalisation After having to admit that it is inevitable that “some deglobalisation will happen,” the authors of ‘The Great Reset’ attempted to instil fear about anti-globalisation. “A hasty retreat from globalisation would entail trade and currency wars, damaging every country’s economy, provoking social havoc and triggering ethno- or clan nationalism,” the authors claimed. (See The Great Reset pg. 81) They proposed “managing” the retreat of globalisation with a new form of globalisation. Written using the verbiage of the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda, the new globalisation, according to Schwab and Malleret, will be “a much more inclusive and equitable form that … makes it sustainable, both socially and environmentally.” They said this requires policy solutions and some form of effective global governance. Their policy solutions were “addressed in the concluding chapter.” Taking these words literally, the concluding chapter is ‘Chapter 3: Individual Reset’. Chapter 3 suggests “redefining our humanness” and “changing priorities” as “solutions.” Under the heading ‘Redefining our Humanness’ is a section titled ‘Moral Choices’. It is a mystery why Schwab and Malleret think they have the authority to redefine our humanness and decide our moral choices. But in doing so they have made their ideology clear. Under “moral choices” the two discussed how to maximise the common good: [It is] a moral choice about whether to prioritise the qualities of individualism or those that favour the destiny of the community. It is an individual as well as a collective choice (that can be expressed through elections), but the example of the pandemic shows that highly individualistic societies are not very good at expressing solidarity. … If (but it is a big “if”) in the future we abandon the posture of self-interest that pollutes so many of our social interactions, we may be able to pay more attention to issues like inclusivity and fairness. The Great Reset, Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret, July 2020, pg. 154 and 157none As we have said before, the term “the common good” and its ugly sister “the greater good” represent collectivism which is found in socialist, communist and fascist movements. These movements use “the common good” as a tool for social control. The authors don’t explain why there is a need for an “individual reset,” they simply assumed it was a consequence of the covid “pandemic.” However, as they did throughout the book, they used collectivism as a tool of social control. “If, as human beings, we do not collaborate to confront our existential challenges (the environment and the global governance free fall, among others), we are doomed,” they claimed. (See The Great Reset pg. 152) World Economic Forum’s Solution for the Precariat Class The threat of anti-globalisation to Globalists’ plans had been recognised long before Schwab and Malleret published their book. The Great Reset noted two “momentous markers” that demonstrated the retreat of globalisation. “The rise of nationalism makes the retreat of globalisation inevitable in most of the world – an impulse particularly notable in the West. The vote for Brexit and the election of President Trump on a protectionist platform are two momentous markers of the Western backlash against globalisation,” the two authors wrote. (See The Great Reset pg. 78) The EU or Brexit referendum which decided that the UK should leave the European Union and the election of Donald Trump as president of the USA both took place in 2016. The following year Schwab delivered the main address at the World Government Summit. “Let me give a short rundown on where we stand in our world and what directions we should choose,” he pontificated. First on his list was deglobalisation. “First, we are at historical crossroads. So, there’s one post sign, which directs us into what we called – to continue the way of what some people call neoliberalism – global cooperation. But we face a backlash of millions of people, particularly in the West, who feel that globalisation is not working to their advantage,” he said. In a self-defeating way, later in his speech after he mentioned some arbitrary benefits of globalisation, Schwab said that “globalisation has created a new economic equation; skills, labour is less in demand, which means if we look at the pie of GDP, the rent for labour is low and those who have capital, those who have new ideas have benefited more from globalisation.” This sort of sums up one of the reasons why billions, not millions, feel that globalisation is not working to their advantage. Effectively, globalisation means the self-proclaimed global elite get richer and own more while the poor get poorer and own less. Even Schwab had to admit it: “For this reason, what we have seen in the elections in the United States, in the Brexit vote, this anger of people against globalisation and against the elites, which they feel have profited from globalisation.” The second signpost of where the world was, according to Schwab, was the “re-erecting of walls, into, probably, a world which is more anchored in yesterday, and a world which probably is characterised by fragility and hostility.” What exactly Schwab meant when he used the term “re-erecting walls” perhaps only he knows. But in a broad sense, this again could be taken as referring to countries turning inward and so turning against globalisation. “I would suggest that we do not choose either of those two ways,” he declared. He then gave a sales pitch for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. “The Fourth Industrial Revolution will change our lives, will change how we live, how we consume, and how we work,” Schwab said. He listed drones, self-driving cars, artificial intelligence and new methods to manipulate genes as no longer being just an idea but a reality. There is a new class of people, Schwab said, called the precariats; “people who feel in a precarious situation who do not know whether they have enough when they get older, whether they can pay the medical bills.” In a 2016 article, the World Economic Forum accused the precariat of being “the new global class fuelling the rise of populism.” According to the Oxford Review, modern-day “gig economy” workers, mainly freelancers without long-term or permanent contracts and people on short-term and zero-hours contacts are all considered to be precariats. We have to ask if the new class of people Schwab refers to has been created by the activities of the so-called global elites at organisations such as the World Economic Forum. To address the issues the precariat class are experiencing and those who don’t know what the purpose of their life is or how they fit into the world as “global citizens,” the self-styled global elite and saviour of the world Klaus Schwab proposed some paradigms. After rejecting neoliberalism and the dismantling of the current globalist system as options, Schwab suggested that “we should prepare ourselves for the Fourth Industrial Revolution” and integrate the multi-stakeholder concept on which his World Economic Forum was built. As another possibility, Schwab wanted the Summit’s attendees to embrace “the Eastern philosophy.” In the West, Schwab said, there is a concept which protects the individual against the collective. Conversely, in the East is a concept to protect the collective against the individual, he said. World Government Summit: WGS17 Session: The Challenges of Globalism, 9 March 2017 The problem with the “Eastern philosophy” as Schwab calls it, is who decides what the collective needs protecting from and the protection measures that should be taken? Elected Governments are “Old Fashioned” A few months earlier, Schwab showcased Google founder Sergey Brin’s dystopian ideas at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting. Schwab introduced the topic of the predictive power of artificial intelligence (“AI”). “Digital technologies [now] have an analytical power … the next step could be to go into prescriptive mode, which means you do not even have to have elections anymore because you can already predict … and afterwards say: ‘Why do we need elections because we know what the result will be’.” “You might further ask, why do we need to have elected leaders because you might as well have all the decisions made,” Brin said. Schwab pressed the issue of the world being run by unelected decision-makers: He called the process of governments “old fashioned.” He cited the example of governments hearing about a technological development and then involving regulatory agencies, parliamentary commissions and then finally regulations being debated in and passed by parliaments. “This [process] is absolutely not suited anymore to our new technologies,” he said. “We need much more agile interaction between business, regulators, civil society and so on”. Brin added that he thinks the relationship between governments and business is often antagonistic, which, he said, is unhealthy. “Not only should we try to tackle things more quickly but also in a real collaborative way,” Brin said. World Economic Forum: Davos 2017 – An Insight, An Idea with Sergey Brin, 19 January 2017 This brings us back to the quote from The Great Reset noted at the beginning of this article. Collective choice, The Great Reset said, can be expressed through elections. “But the example of the pandemic shows that highly individualistic societies are not very good at expressing solidarity.” As with Schwab’s proposed use for predictive artificial intelligence, they are using jargon to accustom people to the idea of them removing our ability to make a choice and allowing self-appointed elites to make our choices – for the common good. Schwab’s version of “Eastern philosophy” is that business and like-minded profiteers, most likely through the World Economic Forum, will decide for “the collective.” In a nutshell, this is Schwab and his cronies’ plan for a new form of globalisation with its policy solutions and effective global governance. From the billions of us, no thanks, Schwab. The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help.. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox… . Can you please help power The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful journalism for the years to come… Your Government & Big Tech organisations such as Google, Facebook, Twitter & PayPal are trying to silence & shut down The Expose. So we need your help to ensure we can continue to bring you the facts the mainstream refuse to… We’re not funded by the Government to publish lies & propaganda on their behalf like the mainstream media. Instead, we rely solely on our support. So please support us in our efforts to bring you honest, reliable, investigative journalism today. It’s secure, quick and easy… Just choose your preferred method to show your support belowV support The FDA Can Now Withhold COVID Vaccine Safety Records. Again, We Ask – Are The FDA, With Their Ties to Bill Gates, Fit For Purpose? CJ Hopkins: The Gestapo raided homes in New Normal Germany as part of the Third European Day of Action Against Hate Crimes Switzerland: Health insurance data shows 73% increase in people receiving cancer treatment since 2020 Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Is Building A Massive Doomsday Bunker. https://expose-news.com/2023/12/19/klaus-schwab-wants-to-stop-the-retreat/

JungleCasino.io | Fully decentralized Smart Casino | Low House Edge 1% | No KYC https://junglecasino.io/ Jungle Casino is an innovative decentralized betting platform: a DeFi casino on the blockchain, a fair casino, and most importantly, 100% on-chain. It’s a fair and verifiable betting environment that allows you to play without registration, ensuring complete privacy. All transactions are verified on the blockchain, guaranteeing maximum transparency and fairness without the need for centralized registrations or deposits. Betting outcomes are ensured by Chainlink VRF, odds are public and visible in the contracts, so the probabilities of winning cannot be manipulated. Finally, a gaming experience without compromise! Jungle Casino strives to maintain the lowest profit margin possible (1% on some games), which is very low compared to most existing platforms, meaning you have a better chance of winning. Initially, the casino offers two options: playing on the Polygon blockchain or USDT. They will soon accept BTC for Jackpot and Lottery and many other cryptocurrencies. Jungle Casino focuses solely on cryptocurrencies because the blockchain provides players with absolute financial discretion through entirely anonymous processes. You can play without registration, no banking information is required, and your money stays in your wallet. Each game only involves the amount wagered, and winnings are paid instantly. How many players have been denied the right to recover their blocked funds from their accounts? With Jungle Casino, there’s no need for documentation or confusing conditions to retrieve your funds; everything is automated, and the platform has no access to your money. What Jungle Casino is going to offer that’s new and original, in addition to the gaming platform which is already complete in itself, is the opportunity to invest in the casino through the minting of NFTs or tokens. For the Halloween launch, we have created a themed game and we have set up a Jackpot. Affiliation program Join one of the most competitive affiliate programs in the field. Whether you are experienced or a beginner in affiliation, take advantage of our program to maximize your earnings. Your traffic will be efficiently optimized as our expertise and integrity ensure high customer loyalty, ensuring continuous profits through our commission plans. Benefit from a revenue share of up to 50% simply via your affiliate link connected to your wallet. No identity verification (KYC) required for players as well as affiliates Stay tuned to learn more about this very soon!

JungleCasino.io is an innovative decentralized betting platform: a DEFI casino on the blockchain, a fair Casino, and most importantly, 100% on-chain. https://junglecasino.io/ It’s a just and verifiable betting environment that allows playing without registration, fully respecting privacy. Here, all transactions are verified on the blockchain, ensuring maximum transparency and fairness without requiring registrations or centralized deposits. Betting results are guaranteed by Chainlink VRF; the odds are public and visible in the contracts, so winning probabilities cannot be manipulated. Finally, a gaming experience without compromise! Jungle Casino strives to maintain the lowest possible profit margin (1% on some games), which is really very low compared to most existing platforms, meaning you have better chances of winning. Everything is detailed transparently in Jungle Casino's Gitbook. Jungle Casino focuses only on cryptocurrencies as blockchain provides players with absolute financial discretion with fully anonymous processes. Thus, it is possible to play without registering, no banking information is required, your money stays in your wallet. Each game only involves the staked sum, and winnings are paid instantly. How many players have been denied the right to retrieve their funds stuck in their accounts? With Jungle Casino, no need for documentation or to comply with puzzling conditions to recover your funds, everything is automated and the platform does not have access to it, your money stays in your wallet. The site is accessible here. For more details, you can join the community on Discord, follow them on Twitter, Medium, Reddit, or Telegram to stay informed, or use the Live Support in case of questions. All project details are in the Gitbook, with complete documentation revealing the platform's operation from a technical point of view in minute detail. #crypto #blockchain #casino #nft #gambling #bet #slot #dice #junglecasino

JungleCasino.io is an innovative decentralized betting platform: a DEFI casino on the blockchain, a fair Casino, and most importantly, 100% on-chain. https://junglecasino.io/ It’s a just and verifiable betting environment that allows playing without registration, fully respecting privacy. Here, all transactions are verified on the blockchain, ensuring maximum transparency and fairness without requiring registrations or centralized deposits. Betting results are guaranteed by Chainlink VRF; the odds are public and visible in the contracts, so winning probabilities cannot be manipulated. Finally, a gaming experience without compromise! Jungle Casino strives to maintain the lowest possible profit margin (1% on some games), which is really very low compared to most existing platforms, meaning you have better chances of winning. Everything is detailed transparently in Jungle Casino's Gitbook. Jungle Casino focuses only on cryptocurrencies as blockchain provides players with absolute financial discretion with fully anonymous processes. Thus, it is possible to play without registering, no banking information is required, your money stays in your wallet. Each game only involves the staked sum, and winnings are paid instantly. How many players have been denied the right to retrieve their funds stuck in their accounts? With Jungle Casino, no need for documentation or to comply with puzzling conditions to recover your funds, everything is automated and the platform does not have access to it, your money stays in your wallet. The site is accessible here. For more details, you can join the community on Discord, follow them on Twitter, Medium, Reddit, or Telegram to stay informed, or use the Live Support in case of questions. All project details are in the Gitbook, with complete documentation revealing the platform's operation from a technical point of view in minute detail. #crypto #blockchain #casino #nft #gambling #bet #slot #dice #junglecasino

https://reclaimthenet.org/spending-bill-tech-platforms-verifiy-id/ A massive, $1.7 trillion funding bill was approved in the US Congress last Friday and will become law once signed by President Biden. And once that happens, it will bring into force proposed legislation introduced last year, INFORM Consumers Act, designed to regulate a sensitive segment of online marketplaces, delving deep into and disclosing sellers’ personal data under some circumstances. Namely, the Integrity, Notification, and Fairness in Online Retail Marketplaces (INFORM) for Consumers Act will require e-commerce companies to collect, verify, and disclose “certain information from high-volume, third-party sellers.” #new #politics #amazon #leo #cent #sme #waiv #bro #choism #vyb

Flying PAL or AirAsia to and from Manila once or twice a week is the norm for me. In all fairness, walang delay at kung meron man few minutes lang at kayang ioffset ng flying time. CebPac? That’s the least of my choice when it comes to domestic travel. It’s the king of delays.

One thing that I am really proud of is that I have high success in predicting successful coins and tokens in the mid-term. During the start of 2021, I predicted Avalanche AVAX, Terra LUNA, Cosmos ATOM, Algorand ALGO, Cardano ADA, Solana SOL, Near NEAR, Elrond EGLD, Celo CELO and Polygon MATIC will perform well. SOL, AVAX, LUNA, ATOM and ALGO broke into the Top 20. Solana, Avalanche and Terra even broke the Top 10. When Trader Joe JOE and Osmosis OSMO launched, I also made more than 10 posts telling how great these projects were. From the price of 3 cents, JOE was able to reach an ATH of more than USD 5.00. On the other hand, OSMO has grown from USD 1.50 to USD 10.00. With the ongoing uncertainty in the market, OSMO is performing well in keeping its support levels. This year, I am looking at Juno JUNO, Oasis Protocol ROSE, Velas VLX, Karura KAR, Acala ACA, Secret SCRT, Neta NETA and EvmOS EVMOS. These are very promising projects with strong technology, real use cases, team, community, and exciting features based on their roadmaps. In addition, I am still looking at LUNA, AVAX, ATOM, CELO and ALGO. I am not keen on getting more ADA, SOL and EGLD. ADA currently has scalability problems and only a layer 2 could fix it. I am not really a fan of L2s except for MATIC. SOL which is still in beta has suffered big time from a string of downtime. EGLD has created a lot of issues among its community especially when it comes to fairness and transparency. This is not financial or investment advice. Kindly do your own research diligently.

The clueless technocrats are about to discover that unfairness and exploitation can't be measured like revenues and profits, but that doesn't mean they're not real.