Introduction
While global war is the greatest threat to human liberty, central world government comes in a close second. Like all forms of government, the United Nations (UN) world government has for decades been used as a tool by the powerful to sustain that power through social, economic, and military control or coercion. Through the adoption and implementation of regulations, which guide the advancement of national laws and other policies, the UN’s noose of globalist control has become progressively tighter around the necks of nations, states, counties, companies, and individuals who would otherwise choose to opt out.
Later this month, the UN World Health Organization (WHO) decision-making body, the World Health Assembly (WHA), is set to vote on a Pandemic Treaty as well as amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR). The wording of the treaty’s draft text has many fearing that it will undermine national sovereignty, while the legality of IHR compliance and networks of non-state and intergovernmental partnerships are so complex and confusing they are hardly commented on in the media. As the world awaits the late-May votes, it would be prudent for anyone interested to read the latest draft text of the treaty and become familiar with the facts involved.
“Vaccines for everyone, everywhere.” –WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus (has a PhD in Philosophy; is not a medical doctor)
The White House has indicated that Biden Administration delegates will approve of the Pandemic Treaty. Going further, last month the administration enacted the 2024 Global Health Security Strategy, with the purpose of achieving the goals of the 2022 National Biodefense Strategy & Implementation Plan as well as the Global Health Security & International Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness & Response Act of 2022- neither of which were passed by Congress but rather sneakily inserted into the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act. The new strategy claims that human health globally is a matter of national security, and commits resources to “strengthen global health security,” implement the IHR, and work towards G7 Pact for Pandemic Readiness Global Health Security Agenda targets.
The UN has for decades been used by eastern nations and the global south to facilitate soft power competition, and also by western nations as a tool to facilitate hard power competition. Within each nation there has existed a power struggle between nationalists and globalists, for control over their nations’ citizens. Through partnerships between governments, intergovernmental agencies, and corporations with a profit motive, national political and legal processes have been almost entirely circumvented. With nations competing to dominate each other’s respective populations, and representatives beholden to foreign and special interest groups competing to control their own constituents, liberty for individuals seems farther away today than it has ever been. To regain human liberty, individuals should remain steadfast in their resistance to tyranny, work together to separate from those seeking to control or coerce them, and achieve decentralization and independence through the re-establishment of self-determination and personal power.
“‘Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded – and once they are suspended it is not difficult for anyone who has assumed emergency powers to see to it that the emergency will persist.” -Friedrich Hayek
Social Control & Coercion
The UN has been used by eastern nations and the global south to gain an advantage in soft power competition, in the form of social control or coercion. In 1945, the same year the UN was founded, representatives from Brazil and China pushed for the establishment of an international health organization. Within 3 years an interim organization rolled into the establishment of the WHO, for the alleged purpose of maximizing the health of every person on earth and coordinating member-states’ health policies. The WHO Constitution Articles 21 and 22 say that it may create regulations, including those regarding “sanitary and quarantine requirements” which “shall come into force for all Members after due notice.” As per Article 20, members that reject WHO guidance must “furnish a statement of the reasons for non-acceptance.”
In 2005 the IHR was established, which is a legal instrument requiring WHO-member nations to detect, assess and report, and respond to pandemics and other declared health emergencies. One regulation from page 54 of the document’s most current (3rd) edition specifies that a person “may be required” to show proof of vaccination for various diseases as a condition for entry into a nation’s borders. Implementation of the IHR is “guided by the Charter of the United Nations and the Constitution of the [WHO].” This appears to mean that nations can refuse to implement IHR regulations, but many nations such as the US have chosen to implement them.
“The US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has assumed the lead role in carrying out the reporting requirements for IHR (2005). The Health and Human Services’ Secretary’s Operations Center (SOC) is the National Focal Point responsible for reporting events to WHO. CDC works with other federal agencies to support IHR (2005) implementation.” US CDC
In December of 2021 the WHA established an Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB)- a collection of “WHO Member States, Associate Members, Observers and regional economic integration organizations, as well all relevant stakeholders” who have met and rapidly negotiated in secret- for the purpose of drafting a contract establishing global “consensus, solidarity, and equity” regarding future pandemic response (SOURCE). In 2022 the WHO executive board and the WHA created the Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (WGIHR) for the purpose of recommending amendments to the IHR. Both the INB and the WGIHR intend to have their recommendations ready for the 77th World Health Assembly late this month, where unelected technocrats pretend to have the authority to decide for every person on earth what actions are healthy and permissible.
The Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO), a regional office for the WHO, has since 2021 called for the adoption of a global “One Health” policy. The WHO has set up a team to advocate for the same, and both organizations have tied in control over the environment with the concept of human health. Their websites offer littler more than vague language, calling for a “comprehensive” and “close collaboration across sectors, stakeholders, and countries.” Their and the WHA’s use of the word “stakeholders” indicates an alignment with the World Economic Forum (WEF) fascistic goals of eradicating shareholder capitalism and replacing it with a global, scientific management of all human populations.
Another advocate for global tyranny, the Director of the AHF Global Public Health Institute at the University of Miami, recently said he thinks pharmaceutical companies who would refuse to voluntarily withdraw their patent protections are “greedy,” that all emergencies should be met with a “whole of society approach,” and people “cannot be allowed” to use personal property so long as others are in “need” of it. These arguments ring hollow considering the existence of scarcity means it is not possible for everyone’s needs to be met, and they sound similar to those made by past communist dictators responsible for mass famines and other failed policies and atrocities.
Interestingly, IHR Article 3.1 says, “implementation of these Regulations shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.” Many things the US and other nations did during the last four years clearly violated this fundamental principle, but unfortunately no consequences have arisen for those acts. The US pushed laws which took a person’s job if they refused an experimental new drug and has used its Justice Department and private companies to censor dissenting free speech. China implemented travel restrictions by putting green, yellow, and red lights in public places, restricting the travel of persons with symptoms monitored by a smartphone app. Australia implemented hard lockdown rules, used its military to forcibly round up people who didn’t answer their phones when called or tried to leave a 3km geofence around their properties, and remained unaccountable in the end. India’s police resorted to physically beating “curfew violators” with batons, killed the poor with its policies, and used the pandemic as an excuse to violate the rights of minorities. These and other actions were horrifying human rights abuses, and yet there is astoundingly no accountability for nations which implement WHO and IHR policies with extreme prejudice.
Some politicians and people across social media are rightly terrified by this attempt by the UN to push policies which, if implemented, could amount to an attack on free speech and human rights such as that of informed consent and personal choice regarding one’s own health, wealth, and property. While many advocates for such policies claim people’s fears are unfounded since their implementation is not mandatory, the fact remains that nations have implemented them, and it has resulted in economic instability and the loss of fundamental human and constitutional rights.
“We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” Statement by James Warburg at the US Senate, 1950
Economic Control or Coercion
Where military intervention is infeasible, hard power is applied economically. The practice of sanctions has become increasingly common. Sanctioned individuals could be banned from travel, restricted from trading, or have their assets frozen, for things such as sharing information the government calls disinformation. The UN Security Council calls on member nations to apply sanctions on nations, organizations, and individuals considered “threats,” and since 1992 has held committees and kept its own sanctions list. The UN list currently holds 682 individuals and 193 entities.
World Trade Organization (WTO) members, in June of 2022, agreed that they would collaborate on pandemic measures including information sharing and restraint on export controls. As the last link explains, “ministers agreed on a waiver of certain procedural obligations under the TRIPS Agreement which allow for the swift manufacture and export of COVID-19 vaccines without the consent of the patent owner.” It is unclear how legally enforceable the WTO agreement is, but this act is one of many ways global intergovernmental organizations have sought to undermine independent economic decision-making.
In February of this year the UN launched yet another way to circumvent national law called the Transformational Governance Corporate Toolkit, which aims to push stakeholder capitalism and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) policies directly to companies which would in turn enforce those on their employees. ESG policies have become popularized in recent years, and articles such as these from the Frasier Institute and the Foundation for Economic Education point out that ESG “creates an executive aristocracy” or “economic fascism.”
Military Control or Coercion
The UN has been used by western nations to gain an advantage in hard power competition, in the form of military control or coercion. After WW2 the USA, for example, has not formally declared war, but has mainly acted upon UN Security Council resolutions, beginning in 1950 with the Korean War. The United States and its allies appear to have used their places on the UN Security Council to facilitate their war machines, supposedly to keep at bay eastern encroachment on their independence. On the other hand, they have also developed international coalitions and warfighting capabilities that would be useful to any centralized world government of the future. So, it remains to be seen whether they will fight for independence or will hand over the keys of power to the UN once the time is right.
In 1961 the US Department of State was given a thesis called “A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations,” written by MIT Professor and Council on Foreign Relations member Lincoln P. Bloomfield. In it, Bloomfield envisioned a world where the UN could use an imbalance of military force to control every person on earth. He described how this might come about, including ideas about how to finance a world government and how to enforce its dictates. Enforcement, he showed, could be achieved through disarming many nation-states, replacing militaries with police forces, building “consensus,” and developing the capacity to defeat threats such as guerrilla forces. On global government Bloomfield speculated, “in theory it could come about in the short, medium, or long run by a brink of war — or a war — combined with the development of evolutionary trends that might favor it as the time span stretches out.”
The War on Terrorism could be used to achieve the military scenario Bloomfield envisioned. Since 2001, the USA has passed anti-terrorism legislation for use against its own citizens, in what at times appears to amount to a struggle against dissent. The US has also made deals with other nations to ensure they create their own laws and use their militaries to kill and control dissident populations within their own borders; Pakistan is a prime example.
A massive international effort now develops the rule of law globally through the enactment of counter-terrorism operations. The World Justice Project admits that these “may sometimes blur the line between human rights protections and human rights violations,” but seeks to fix those blurred lines rather than eliminate the problem of governments, with cultural, ethnic, or ideological motives, murdering their citizens. The failure of the International Criminal Court has left many nations to use lawfare or claim universal jurisdiction for what may be manufactured crimes. The US is a prime example.
The history of biological and chemical warfare shows that governments have no problem with unethical human experiments on even their own citizens. One treacherous example is Japanese Unit 731, many of whose researchers were brought into the US and had their crimes against humanity whitewashed in trade for their research, like with Operation Paperclip and Nazi scientists. Project Artichoke was just one of hundreds of US experiments. The US in 1972 signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, which outlaws the development of offensive bioweapons, but does nothing to stop the stockpiling and study of biological agents for so-called defensive purposes. The US use of New Investigational Drugs, such as the Anthrax Vaccine, on its own soldiers without so much as monitoring for or recording of adverse events, demonstrates at the very least that something very suspicious has been going on.
The origin of the covid pandemic possibly indicates intentional biowarfare. While the US government and media falls back on the fact that there is no consensus on what happened, the US, WHO, and Chinese have done almost nothing to seriously investigate and conclude definitively on whether the virus was engineered and released from a lab in Wuhan. Putting aside the relentless gaslighting on the topic, evidence does appear to indicate that covid has been purposefully engineered and released by one or more nation-state actors. If true it may be that a collaboration of elements within western and eastern militaries and governments have used biowarfare to the end of enacting globalist control.
Conclusion
There are vast problems with the claim the WHO acts in the interest of everyone’s health and security. The WHO was created at the request of China in the first place, at a time when General Mao was coming to power. The WHO allowed China to lie about the origins of the coronavirus outbreak, and applauded its draconian policies despite them being utter failures that were unscientific. The American government then adopted dystopian policies for its own citizens, including the overly simplistic red-, yellow-, and green-light designations put on counties as a way to implement lockdowns and travel restrictions.
WHO policies definitely sound a lot like global socialism. Its private donors such as globalist Bill Gates stand to profit from the implementation of its policies, creating a cycle of corporate-government collusion that undermines human health for the sake of profit and control. Those perpetuating the cycle now seek to continue it through the adoption of ESG, stakeholder capitalism, the Pandemic Treaty, and amendments to the IHR. The WHO, CDC, intergovernmental agencies, their partners, and many governments globally are becoming enemies of the very people they pretend to represent.
Individuals interested in liberty must resist such tyranny if they plan to continue making their own choices for their health, wealth, and property. Ideally, the CDC and DHHS should be defunded, and the US should withdraw from WHO and WTO membership. Regardless, individuals should take power over their own lives and nullify the power government has over them through peaceful resistance. They should come together and take power over their local governments and states, nullifying the power federal and state governments have over their areas. If state and federal governments refuse to grant basic human and constitutional rights, divorce them through the process of secession. If people in your area will not help achieve this, move to a place where people will. If just one place exists where people resist tyranny it would be a beacon of light for all of humanity. There must be those who carry the torch of liberty and justice for all, in this dark, post-truth era.
*This article was featured in the May 2024 Michigan Libertarian newsletter.
*Some links fixed and updated 11/15/24.
Joshua Ray Jongema 