Les hele artikkelen her.
"UN report pushes global government to “prevent future pandemics”Global surveillance, “financial independence” and power to override national governments headline WHO’s recommended “reforms”.
A new report, published by the United Nations, has claimed the covid19 “pandemic” would have been prevented had the UN – and specifically the World Health Organizaion – been given more global authority.
The report is titled Covid19: Make it the Last Pandemic and are the published findings of the Independent Panel on Pandemic Preparedness and Response, which focuses on how the world can look to prevent “pandemics” in the future.
This “independent” panel is chaired by ex-New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark, ex-President of Liberia Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, and other political figures (including noted globalist David Miliband), and was established last May by WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. (How a report commissioned by the WHO , calling to give more money and power to the WHO can be called “independent” I don’t know.)
You can read all about it on the reports own website. (Why a single report from the WHO needs an entire website of its own, again, I don’t know). Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (left) and Ellen Clark (right) two lead authors of new WHO report. There’s a lot to unpack in the report’s eighty-six pages of bureaucratic double-talk, but their main conclusions are:
- Elevate leadership to prepare for and respond to global health threats to the highest levels to ensure just, accountable and multisectoral action
- Focus and strengthen the independence, authority and financing of the WHO
- Invest in preparedness now to create fully functional capacities at the national, regional and global level
- Establish a new international system for surveillance, validation and alert
- Establish a pre-negotiated platform for tools and supplies
- Raise new international financing for the global public goods of pandemic preparedness and response
- Countries to establish highest level national coordination for pandemic preparedness and response
All of which can be generally summed up as “give the WHO (and their cronies) more money, and more power”. Each section of their recommendations contains several bullet points of its own, far too many to go through all of them, but there’s definitely some paragraphs that should cause any attentive reader to raise an eyebrow:
WHO to establish a new global system for surveillance, based on full transparency by all parties, using state-of-the-art digital tools to connect information centres around the world and including animal and environmental health surveillance, with appropriate protections of people’s rights.
…Which means essentially legalising global surveillance programs on a massive scale, with – of course – “appropriate protection of people’s rights” (and shame on you for thinking otherwise).
And then there is:
Future declarations of a PHEIC by the WHO Director-General should be based on the precautionary principle where warranted. …Which calls for the Director-General of the WHO to have the power to declare a global “pandemic”, not because there definitely is a new disease killing people, but because they think there might be .
Essentially handing the Director-General of the WHO the power to simply create a pandemic whenever they feel the need. Somewhat ironically the panel for “pandemic prevention”, is recommending making “pandemics” far more likely. Further, the report goes out of its way to praise the countries which engaged in the most authoritarian “anti-Covid” measures.
Specifically, China is praised both for their “fast identification” of the virus, and their incredibly stringent lockdown measures. Another country held up as a good example is New Zealand, which was likewise very strict. Conversely, the countries with allegedly “poor results” in dealing with Covid – though never named – are universally criticised for “denial of scientific evidence” , “eroding trust in healthcare measures” and having leaders who “appeared sceptical or dismissive” of the pandemic.
It goes on and on in that fashion. Every step of the way praising centralisation, globalisation and totalitarianism at the expense of sovereignty, individualism and liberty. And while the report itself may couch its agenda in soft diplomatic language, the authors behind the report have been far more forthright about what they really mean. In a clear attack on national sovereignty, Helen Clark is quoted in the Guardian as saying: The pandemic was compounded by a lack of global leadership and coordination of geopolitical tensions and nationalism weakening the multilateral system, which should act to keep the world safe".
De siste årenes hendelser viser at en verdensregjering har vært planlagt i lang tid av den globale storkapitalen. World Economic Forum og Forente Nasjoner ble slått sammen til en organisasjon for noen år siden, uten at det førte til til en debatt i MSM selvfølgelig. Folk skulle ikke stille spørsmål om hvorfor WEF som er en organisasjon for flere tusen av de største multinasjonale storselskapene i verden, ble slått sammen med FN, som liksom skal være en “ideell” organisasjon skal bringe nasjoner sammen. Så følger Event 201, en generalprøve noen måneder før “pandemien” starter i Wuhan, nøyaktig som de gikk igjennom i Event 201.
Snart er også vestlige land så forgjeldet av enorme lån for å finansiere nedstengningene at kreditor, bankkartellene, kan omforme økonomien som de vil. Omrisset av New World Order blir mer og mer tydelig. En verdensregjering blir nevnt oftere og oftere, og når det nå kommer i FN rapporter er det for at folk skal begynne å venne seg til tanken, og like det også.