After Covid, WHO envisions a new world order


Monkeypox is pushed into the media. The World Health Organization is negotiating a pandemic treaty that could affect just about every country in the world, including the United States This is the world we live in now (a acceptable, according to much of the expert class and scientific technocratic clergy) as it continues to be reshaped by Big Covid.

The prospect of a pandemic treaty should provoke a global response to save the last vestiges of the democracies we once thought inhabited, but there is an incredible level of ambivalence about the negotiations, among both mainstream media and the public. Conveniently for the WHO now meeting in Geneva, there is plenty to distract us – Ukraine, for starters; Moreover, many ordinary people are busy thinking about how to afford to fill up their car, or buy the usual amount of groceries needed to feed their family, or pay their mortgage without sinking.

This treaty would essentially empower the WHO to declare pandemics whenever it wants and push for the exact same restrictions it has endured for the past two years: locking down selected countries (regardless of whether whole swaths of the population become impoverished or not due to economic consequences), stopping air travel, deploying repeat vaccines. Given that the jury is still out on the effectiveness of such measures compared to their harm this last round – with many saying it was an absolute disaster – it is disconcerting to see all the caveats again. ignored.

“As more studies and real-world evidence emerge on the damage caused by lockdowns and the rushed global rollout of a new type of vaccine, politicians seem oblivious,” writes Alex Klaushofer in a recent try from Substack. “The rush to devise a new global agreement on the management of the pandemic without leaving time for reflection or evaluation of the experimental approach that has prevailed since the start of 2020 shows that governments have not pulled the lessons of the past two years.”

There are, Klaushofer notes, clear conflicts of interest at the heart of the treaty. This would require an increase in WHO staff and offices around the world to monitor – read: more global monitoring – for outbreaks. Increasing capacity makes sense, but those jobs and salaries would depend on being seen to be doing something. Hence Klaushofer’s fear that the treaty will bequeath “a global pandemic industry with up to 10,000 specialized employees in businesses funded by governments, corporations and other organizations that must demonstrate results.”

Which of course is in the Big Pharma aisle. We have just seen how a pandemic can lead to calls for several new vaccines that make fortunes for the industry. In addition to this, Bill Gates leads the organization which is the second largest contributor to WHO funding. There is a lot of money in all of this.

We don’t hear a backlash against such entanglements from public health experts, because those same experts are plagued by the same conflicts of interest. They are part of a “highly dependent workforce,” notes Klaushofer, in which wages and the ability to support families, health care and pensions depend on outside organizations that provide funds endorsing this. what the experts say and do. It is the same kind of “institutional capture” that has fundamentally corrupted, at least in terms of the ability to speak openly and honestly, if the last two years are to be believed, much of the global health industry .

At the same time, much of the general population seems to be caught up in a psychological form of institutional capture: Covid has exposed how astonishing the level of conformity and compliance is these days. The complex reasons behind this have yet to be fully unpacked. One theory calls it “mass formation” and explains it as a reaction to a sense of insignificance, fear and general anxiety that saturates modern societies.

Whatever the reasons, even governments have been surprised by the scale of compliance and the resulting compliance: So we can actually do that, shut down entire societies regardless of the terrible consequences, tell everyone to dehumanize themselves – especially obnoxious little children – by wear masks and not touching loved ones or having sex, and people accept…. Huh, I wouldn’t have thought it would be so easy.

And you didn’t help – I’m talking about you, America, the apparent bastion of representative democracy. While you remain “the leader in the struggle for freedom”, in the words by Sherelle Jacobs, UK columnist The telegraph of the day who recently toured the southern United States, a country that “pulsates with a visceral love of freedom and a raw faith in individual fulfilment”, since 2016 the world has been witnessing a “particularly little intellectual battle edifying rage in America on the very meaning of freedom itself.”

This has included, according to Jacobs, “a significant shift from a ‘negative’ idea of ​​freedom, which emphasizes individual freedom from outside interference, to a more ‘positive’ conception which aims for a higher state of collective enlightenment”. But that’s the kind of “positive” freedom we’ve experienced for the past two years, in which freedom has taken the form of a “socio-economic outcome to be designed by a benevolent state” while “empowering to bureaucratic elites” and “using terrifying levels of state surveillance and control.

As Alexander Zubatov describes in his recent essay on TAC, “America’s LGBTsQewingthe complex interplay of environment, changing social mores and societal examples help shape how each of us perceives, reacts to and behaves in the world. And the United States has given the world some particularly un-American examples of the classic definition of freedom on which it was hitherto assumed to be based.

Does the pandemic treaty really pose such a risk, given that dealing with a global pandemic clearly requires cooperation and coordination? As Klaushofer notes, analyzing the real risks is not easy given that coverage of the treaty ranges from news articles that “make the deal trivial and technical” to “screaming about a Imminent World State by the World Economic Forum”. “At this time, she says, legal experts disagree on the status of what might be agreed; most of the terms of the treaty appear to be non-binding, and the good people behind this treaty recognize “national sovereignty” as a limitation of the effect of the treaty, whereas any treaty takes time to negotiate and ratify.

But the critical underlying point remains. Like Michael Senger, lawyer and author of Snake Oil: How Xi Jinping Shut Down the World, Put the“His passage is a ratification and endorsement of all that the world has experienced over the past two years during Covid-19. By signing the Pandemic Treaty, our leaders are signaling their approval that all of this – and more – be redone.”

james jeffrey is a freelance journalist and writer who divides his time between the US, UK and beyond, and writes for various international media. Follow him on Twitter: @jrfjeffrey and on his website:


Comments are closed.