Great Reset
The fundamental crisis with the WHO’s new international pandemic agreement
The WHO’s Managerial Gambit
From the Brownstone Institute
The WHO is now proposing a new international pandemic agreement and amendments to the International Health Regulations. These proposals will make next time worse. Not because they override sovereignty, but because they will protect domestic authorities from responsibility. States will still have their powers. The WHO plan will shield them from the scrutiny of their own people.
On Friday, Bret Weinstein warned of impending tyranny from the World Health Organization. “We are in the middle of a coup,” the evolutionary biologist and podcaster told Tucker Carlson on X. The WHO’s new pandemic management regime will eliminate sovereignty, Weinstein said, and allow it to override national constitutions.
He’s right about tyranny and coups. But not about sovereignty or constitutions.
Technocrats learned a lot from Covid. Not how to avoid policy mistakes, but how to exercise control. Public authorities discovered that they could tell people what to do. They locked people down, closed their businesses, made them wear masks, and herded them to vaccination clinics. In some countries, people endured the most extreme restrictions on civil liberties in peacetime history.
The WHO is now proposing a new international pandemic agreement and amendments to the International Health Regulations. These proposals will make next time worse. Not because they override sovereignty, but because they will protect domestic authorities from responsibility. States will still have their powers. The WHO plan will shield them from the scrutiny of their own people.
Under the proposals, the WHO will become the directing mind and will of global health. It will have authority to declare public health emergencies. National governments will promise to do as the WHO directs. Countries will “undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations.” WHO measures “shall be initiated and completed without delay by all State Parties…[who] shall also take measures to ensure Non-State Actors [private citizens and domestic businesses] operating in their respective territories comply with such measures.” Lockdowns, quarantine, vaccines, surveillance, travel restrictions, and more will be on the table.
That sounds like a loss of sovereignty, but it is not. Sovereign states have exclusive jurisdiction in their own territory. WHO recommendations cannot be directly enforced in American courts. Sovereign nations can agree to follow the authority of international organizations. They can undertake to tie their own hands and to fashion their domestic laws accordingly.
The WHO proposals are a shell game. The scheme will provide cover to domestic public health authorities. Power will be ubiquitous but no one will be accountable. Citizens will lack control over the governance of their countries, as they already do. The danger that confronts us is still our own sprawling discretionary administrative state, soon to be boosted and camouflaged by an unaccountable international bureaucracy.
When countries make treaties, they make promises to each other. International law may regard those promises as “binding.” But they are not binding in the same sense as a domestic contract. International law is a different animal from domestic law. In Anglo-American countries, the two legal systems are distinct.
International courts cannot enforce treaty promises against unwilling parties in the same way that a domestic court can enforce contractual promises. International law is formalized international politics. Countries make promises to each other when it is in their political interests to do so. They keep those promises on the same criteria. When they don’t, political consequences sometimes follow. Formal legal consequences rarely do.
Nevertheless, the idea is to persuade the public that their governments must obey the WHO. Binding recommendations legitimize the heavy hands of domestic governments. Local officials will be able to justify restrictions by citing global duties. They will say that WHO directives leave them no choice. “The WHO has called for lockdowns, so we must order you to stay in your home. Sorry, but it’s not our call.”
During Covid, authorities tried to censor dissenting views. Despite their best efforts, skeptics managed to speak out. They offered alternative explanations in podcasts, videos, declarations, research papers, columns, and tweets. For many people, they were the source of sanity and truth. But next time things may be different. Under the new pandemic regime, countries will commit to censoring “false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation.”
As Weinstein put it, “Something is quietly moving just out of sight, in order that we will not have access to these tools the next time we face a serious emergency. … What [the WHO] wants are the measures that would have allowed them to silence the podcasters, to mandate various things internationally in a way that would prevent the emergence of a control group that would allow us to see harms clearly.”
The WHO documents will not override constitutions in Anglo-American countries. In the United States, the First Amendment will still apply. But the meaning of constitutions is not static. International norms can influence how courts read and apply constitutional provisions. Courts can take account of developing international standards and customary international law. The WHO proposals would not replace or define the meaning of constitutional rights. But they would not be irrelevant either.
The WHO is not undermining democracy. Countries have done that over time by themselves. National governments must approve the new plan, and any can opt out as they wish. Without their agreement, the WHO has no power to impose its dictates. Not all countries may be keen on all the details. The WHO proposals call for massive financial and technical transfers to developing countries. But climate change pacts do too. In the end rich countries embraced them anyway. They were keen to virtue-signal and justify their own climate boondoggles. Most can be expected to sign on to the WHO gambit too.
Countries who do so retain the sovereignty to change their minds. But leaving international regimes can be hellishly difficult. When the UK belonged to the European Union, it agreed to be subject to EU rules on all manner of things. It remained a sovereign country and could decide to get out from under the EU’s thumb. But Brexit threatened to tear the country apart. Having the legal authority to withdraw does not mean that a country is politically able to do so. Or that its elites are willing, even if that’s what its people want.
Numerous critics have made the same allegations as Weinstein, that the WHO’s regime will eliminate sovereignty and override constitutions. Brownstone writers have done so, for example, here and here. These allegations are easy to dismiss. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the Director-General of the WHO, has repeatedly said that no country will cede sovereignty to the WHO. Reuters, the Associated Press, and other mainstream news outlets have done “fact checks” to debunk the claim. Saying that the WHO will steal sovereignty allows critics to be discredited as conspiracy theorists. It distracts from the game that is afoot.
The WHO proposals will protect power from accountability. National governments will be in on the plan. The people are the problem they seek to manage. The new regime will not override sovereignty but that is small comfort. Sovereignty provides no protection from your own authoritarian state.
Author
From LifeSiteNews
Even the UN has described Canada’s assisted suicide program as ‘state-sponsored eugenics’ and called upon the government to curtail plans to expand euthanasia access.
In Canada, we kill the disabled. Over 90 percent of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome in the womb are aborted; pre-born children diagnosed with other disabilities usually meet the same fate. But for decades, our Nazi-style lethal ableism was limited to those not yet born.
With the expansion of euthanasia eligibility to those suffering solely from disability or mental illness scheduled to come into effect in 2027, that is slated to change. Disability groups have been nearly unanimous in their condemnation of this plan, which has been delayed twice by the Liberal government due to pushback from across Canadian society – but not cancelled entirely.
Even the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, examining Canada’s compliance with the U.N. Conventions on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities earlier this year, concluded that Canada was embarking on “state-sponsored eugenics” and called on the Canadian government to scrap these plans and roll back the expanding euthanasia regime. The disability rights group Inclusion Canada, as well as several others, had written to the body to sound the alarm about Canada’s euthanasia policies.
Canadians with physical disabilities have been attempting to get the government’s attention for years, with stories of those who seeking euthanasia because they cannot get the support or care they need periodically dominating international headlines. (This ugly reality is best encapsulated in a famous cartoon showing stairs leading to a healthcare provider, with the only wheelchair ramp leading to “euthanasia.”) These stories have not yet been heeded by the government.
A story recently posted to X by Samantha Smith, a victim advocate and survivor of the grooming and rape gangs in the U.K., highlights Canada’s grim slippery slope. It is worth reading in full:
A family member of mine is a nurse in Canada. They performed several assisted dying procedures at the care home they worked at, before refusing to continue. In one case, the family of a mentally disabled man decided they wanted him to be euthanised. He didn’t want to die. But my family member was legally forced to end his life. They held his hand while he told them “I’m hungry” and “I’m thirsty.”
That poor man didn’t understand what was happening to him as he was pumped full of medication that would end his life, and my family member wept for the soul that was being lost unnecessarily. He wasn’t terminally ill. He wasn’t particularly old. He wasn’t dying. He didn’t want to die. But he didn’t have a choice. Because his life was deemed dispensable by his family, and the Government gave them the power to end his life regardless of his needs or wishes.
And when my family member told their workplace that they couldn’t continue performing these procedures – that their conscience wouldn’t allow it – they were told that it was their “legal duty” as a nurse. They still refused. But not everyone will have the moral fibre or bravery of my family member.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and this is exactly what the Assisted Dying Bill opens the door to. It starts with “choice” and “dignity.” But suicide isn’t only done “when the patient wants it.” And the countries where it is already legalised have shown us the grim reality. In the Netherlands, 40% of euthanasia deaths occur without patient consent. In Canada, it has been offered to Paralympians who only asked for a mobility aid. If it can happen there; it will happen here. People will be killed against their will.
When asked for public corroboration, Smith stated: “No, my family member will not ‘go public.’ Yes, I trust his testimony. No, he is not a horrible, awful person. Yes, this is really happening. The black letter law vs. the grim reality are two very different things. Just because the law was supposed to protect against coercion or non-consenting procedures … doesn’t mean it is.”
I wish I didn’t believe her, but I do. I believe her because euthanasia providers have ended the lives of people like Alan Nichols, who was taken to the hospital by family members after a psychiatric episode and euthanized days later. I believe her because leaked documents show that Ontario’s euthanasia providers have tracked 428 cases of possible criminal violations without a single case being referred to law enforcement. I believe her because Canada’s medical establishment already embraces lethal ableism, and our government does too.
Canada is already killing those with disability or mental illness; thus far, euthanasia practitioners are forced to come up with other reasons for doing so (the written reason for Alan Nichols’ lethal injection was “hearing loss”). But once eligibility requirements are expanded in 2027, the floodgates will open. There is still time to stop this expansion, and we must doing everything we can to do so. The lives of people with disabilities depend on it.
From LifeSiteNews
By Dan Frieth
In his letter dated July 9, 2025, addressed to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Trump ties new U.S. trade measures directly to Brazilian censorship.
U.S. President Donald Trump has launched a fierce rebuke of Brazil’s moves to silence American-run social media platforms, particularly Rumble and X.
In his letter dated July 9, 2025, addressed to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Trump ties new U.S. trade measures directly to Brazilian censorship.
He calls attention to “SECRET and UNLAWFUL Censorship Orders to U.S. Social Media platforms,” pointing out that Brazil’s Supreme Court has been “threatening them with Millions of Dollars in Fines and Eviction from the Brazilian Social Media market.”
Trump warns that these actions are “due in part to Brazil’s insidious attacks on Free Elections, and the fundamental Free Speech Rights of Americans,” and states: “starting on August 1, 2025, we will charge Brazil a Tariff of 50% on any and all Brazilian products sent into the United States, separate from all Sectoral Tariffs.” He also adds that “Goods transshipped to evade this 50% Tariff will be subject to that higher Tariff.”
Brazil’s crackdown has targeted Rumble after it refused to comply with orders to block the account of Allan dos Santos, a Brazilian streamer living in the United States.
On February 21, 2025, Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered Rumble’s suspension for non‑compliance, saying it failed “to comply with court orders.”
Earlier, from August to October 2024, Moraes had similarly ordered a nationwide block on X.
The court directed ISPs to suspend access and imposed fines after the platform refused to designate a legal representative and remove certain accounts.
Elon Musk responded: “Free speech is the bedrock of democracy and an unelected pseudo‑judge in Brazil is destroying it for political purposes.”
By linking censorship actions, particularly those targeting Rumble and X, to U.S. trade policy, Trump’s letter asserts that Brazil’s judiciary has moved into the arena of foreign policy and economic consequences.
The tariffs, he makes clear, are meant, at least in part, as a response to Brazil’s suppression of American free speech.
Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on Brazil for censoring American platforms may also serve as a clear signal to the European Union, which is advancing similar regulatory efforts under the guise of “disinformation” and “online safety.”
With the EU’s Digital Services Act and proposed “hate speech” legislation expanding government authority over content moderation, American companies face mounting pressure to comply with vague and sweeping takedown demands.
By framing censorship as a violation of U.S. free speech rights and linking it to trade consequences, Trump is effectively warning that any foreign attempt to suppress American voices or platforms could trigger similar economic retaliation.
Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.
Before Trudeau average annual immigration was 617,800. Under Trudeau number skyrocketted to 1.4 million annually
FDA requires new warning on mRNA COVID shots due to heart damage in young men
Blackouts Coming If America Continues With Biden-Era Green Frenzy, Trump Admin Warns
Canada’s euthanasia regime is already killing the disabled. It’s about to get worse
-
Fraser Institute1 day ago
Before Trudeau average annual immigration was 617,800. Under Trudeau number skyrocketted to 1.4 million annually
-
MAiD1 day ago
Canada’s euthanasia regime is already killing the disabled. It’s about to get worse
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy1 day agoNew Book Warns The Decline In Marriage Comes At A High Cost
-
Business1 day agoPrime minister can make good on campaign promise by reforming Canada Health Act
-
Addictions1 day ago‘Over and over until they die’: Drug crisis pushes first responders to the brink
-
International1 day agoChicago suburb purchases childhood home of Pope Leo XIV
-
Daily Caller1 day agoUSAID Quietly Sent Thousands Of Viruses To Chinese Military-Linked Biolab
-
Energy1 day agoLNG Export Marks Beginning Of Canadian Energy Independence