As requested, I am posting screenshots of my new slide deck and typing out what I said or meant to say about them

HOWEVER, you will have to go to the substack website to read the full post as it is too long for email--you will only receive part of the post--click on the title above in your email to get there

I want to update you since last year when I told you about the WHO’s proposed treaties and the globalist attempt to centralize power through the WHO and UN.

The WHO’s 194 member nations met last May, could not come to agreement about either treaty, but at the 11th hour accepted a watered down version of amendments to the existing International Health Regulations (IHR).

We beat them back, but the WHO and globalists are still trying to implement their biosecurity agenda, also known as PPPR: Pandemic Preparedness, Prevention and Response.

The WHO lied about its intentions, we exposed them, and people got angry when they learned the real purposes of the biosecurity agenda. Congressmembers were forced to change their boilerplate letters about the WHO agenda that were being sent to constituents before the WHO meeting, which was personally rewarding for me.

________________

Lacking a common plan for what the Pandemic Treaty should do, the nations agreed to continue negotiating it for up to one more year, and if they had not come to an agreement by then to forget about the proposed pandemic treaty.

As far as the IHR amendments, nations will have until approximately next August 1 to reject the new amendments. If they do not reject them, they will become bound by them. I recommend that all nations reject them. Some nations already anounced that they will, though I imagine that, like last year, the WHO will try to keep all rejections far away from the media and public scrutiny. (We discovered 4 nations that rejected the 2022 IHR amendments, one by one, but there are likely others. Probably many will reject the 2024 amendments.)

How much will the proposed pandemic treaty and the WHO biosecurity agenda cost the world, if implemented? The WHO and other organizations asked for a cost analysis, and the analyses were compiled below. The Brownstone Institute has sponsored the REPPARE group at University of Leeds to look at the costs and cost-effectiveness of the proposals. With “One Health” included it will cost an estimated $40 plus billion dollars yearly, with more expenses at first to build out the program’s infrastructure. This amount will almost definitely require some transfer of funds from existing public health programs and NGOs that currently benefit tuberculosis, malaria and HIV patients. If that happens, the effect on overall planetary public health is likely to be net negative.

I posit that the efforts of the WHO are merely part of a much larger project: a hidden class war to remake our societies using a web of UN treaties, guidelines, recommendations and laws at the international and national levels.

The UN “Pact for the Future” reveals how confusion is deliberately sown by UN agencies about its intentions. Fortunately, some of its worst proposals were dropped in the final draft, such as this one, which would have allowed the Secretary-General to declare global emergencies and then manage them, without any standards and without any requirement for involving the nations where the emergency takes place to have a say in the decision-making. I could not resist placing UN Secretary-General Guterres’ face in these slides so you can recognize him when you see him.

After the Pact was adopted “by consensus” without a vote, the UN claimed in a press release that the member nations had given their 0approval to “transform global governance” and made other assertions about what had been agreed in the (ambiguous) Pact’s adoption, below.

The globalists simply try to push through their agenda whether or not there is a legal framework to support it.  Patrick Wood explains this in his book Technocracy Rising.

The globalists are creating structures that dodge existing laws, and one way to accomplish this is to coerce the heads of state to go along with UN documents.  Things like the Pact can become common international law when approved by heads of state, as explained to me by Professor Francis Boyle. This may be why the UN tries to get heads of state to attend certain of its meetings.

It is important to note that the UN partnered with the World Economic Forum back in 2019 to accomplish Agenda 2030, also known as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Is the Great Reset just a scheme to take over resources, pick new economic winners and losers, and centralize control of the world’s population, using nature, pollution, and the fear of species extinction (aka biodiversity) as Trojan horses?

Here are some of the pieces of the Great Reset:

The Club of Rome began pushing the idea that the planet could not support more people in 1972. Simultaneously the UN and US attention to problems from pollution and species loss (“biological diversity”) came to the fore. The UN founded its Environmental Program agency in 1972 as well. Some don’t know this UN agency exists, but I think it was created to foster the globalist agenda facing us today, 52 years ago.

Maurice Strong was the Secretary-General of both of the UN Environment/Earth conferences of 1972 and 1992 and worked the environmental angle for over 40 years. He was also an adviser to the 2012 Rio UN Environment conference and the first head of the UN Environmental Program, among many other roles at the WEF, Club of Rome and UN. He almost single-handedly brought forward the globalists’ environmental plan and placed it front and center on the world agenda. The following 3 treaties established (or were claimed to establish) climate commitments as binding international law, starting 32 years ago.

I mention the UN’s original 3 pillars (The UN was established at the close of WW2) to provide yet another example of how the UN and its agencies lie. Its third pillar was development, and development was defined (above) as we might expect.

Below is a current screenshot from the UN’s website, with everything in red added by me. Today the UN claims its first pillar is Sustainable Development (including “climate action”)—yet sustainable development is a term that was not invented until the 1980s and means something completely different than the original term “development.” The Sustainable Development Goals were created as a benign-sounding cover to hide the massive changes in the world that are being imposed on us, which are intended to impoverish us, grab our resources, control us and possibly reduce our number.

Below we can read a rare UN admission that their plan is to “change the [world’s] economic model”—whatever that statement, full of foreboding, really means.

Now we move on to pandemics. The problem for the globalists is that it is hard to predict what a virus is going to do in the real world, outside a lab or a bat cave. How will it spread? How will it mutate? You can create something deadly in the lab, or grab something deadly in nature, but you cannot predict (yet) what it will do once unleashed. How many will be infected before it peters out, as they always seem to do?

I want readers to be aware that none of the 5 viruses below, those that have been hyped over the past couple of years, is currently any kind of threat. I have listed the most germane facts about each.

However, there is always a future risk of a lab-made pathogen, and this is why we need to shut down so-called Gain of Function labs and research, worldwide.

By my calculations, the US government contracted for 10 covid vaccine doses per person by mid 2021, and presumably contracted for the newer boosters since then.

Why did the US, Canada, EU, Australia, and probably New Zealand sign agreements for roughly 10 doses of COVID vaccine per person, before it was known if the vaccine were safe or actually worked? 

I don't know the answer but I think it is important to find out.

One reason to hype a virus is so the US Executive Branch can get more funds appropriated by Congress to fight the virus. In the case above, the Biden administration lied, because the US government had already bought millions of frozen vaccine doses years earlier (for over a $billion dollars) that were sitting in a freezer in Denmark, where the manufacturer was located.

________________

Moving on to food and globalism:

Yes, the WHO Director-General really did announce that we had to transform our food systems because of global warming. This is already taking place, in a myriad of ways you may have never noticed. I only have time to mention a few here.

Remember that UN agencies have been working on this plan for 50 years?  Here is how it is playing out now, via deliberate mission creep.  Diplomats negotiated an agreement 2 years ago to put 30% of the earth's land and water under the control of conservationists... whose authority over your private property can increase over time.  You will be paid a fee to place your land in this program, and according to Margaret Byfield of American Stewards of Liberty, landowners are signing contracts, designed by the federal government, that they think mean one thing, but in fact give other entities (like conservation NGOs or the federal government itself) the right over time to decide what can be done with your land.

Below is a map of designated areas in Europe (which include at least 30% of the land and water) that are already under a similar conservation easement.

And above is part of this project rolling out in the US.

Below is a page from a 2019 report funded by the Wellcome Trust and carried out by the Lancet with a small army of nutrition experts, including Harvard’s esteemed Walter Willett. These “experts” were delighted to call for a complete overhaul of our food system, and claimed that 5-10 $Trillion dollars in benefits (to whom?) could be generated as a result.

Now, I do NOT mean to imply that the ultraprocessed, cruel, chemicalized food system that exists today is what we want. Huge problems in the current food system were discussed in our two symposia: The Attack on Food and Farmers of 2023 and 2024, and I invite readers to have a look at those (roughly) 20 minute talks at the links provided, of which there are over 50. Hopefully we will have a chance to turn some of this around, now that attention is focused on it.

What we do not want is for further centralization of food production and processing. Food should be produced locally and under local control, as much as possible. We need to eschew factory food and choose the highest quality ingredients to restore the health of ourselves and our families.

Yes, those yellow and green circles are real insect “farms” or processing facilities, supported by your tax dollars, and designed as part of the food system transformation. They thought if they built it, we would be forced to eat it.

But wait! There is some good news!

Above is the start of a real letter sent to President Biden in May by 24 US Governors. Below are some of the points the letter made. Later, 2 additional Republican governors joined them to say they would not comply with the WHO agenda.

The Attorneys-General from 22 Republican states wrote a similar letter to President Biden, saying they would not enforce any WHO edicts in their states.

And two states, Louisiana and Oklahoma passed laws to deny jurisdiction to the WHO, UN and World Economic Forum in their states.

The final slide is one I used when I came to Alaska to speak last year. The black and white is the original slide. The red and yellow I just added to update the audience on what we accomplished, and what we still need to do.

There have been considerable wins.

49 Senators urged President Biden to drop the WHO pandemic traty negotiations, and if not, subject them to Senate confirmation, where they would fail, since treaties require a 2/3 vote for adoption.

And as far as the WHO and UN go, when the other nations saw that half the US was not going to go along with the WHO's pandemic preparedness agenda, which the Biden administration had been pushing, it became unlikely they would go along with it, either.

There is plenty of work left, but our educational efforts have been very successful. Working together, we have stopped the most egregious WHO and UN plans.