There are no real world wide health emergencies caused by viruses and other health related events. The real pandemics and emergencies are caused by toxic big pharma drugs, vaccines and mRNA substances.
A simple interpretation is that the WHO seeks to be the world's regulator, and each member state seeks to do what they always do; engage in successful regulatory capture.
We already witnessed this in action over the last three years, but have escaped some of the worst-case scenarios because national sovereignty took precedence. We would have no comparitors, no control groups if the WHO succeeds in breaching sovereignty.
Considering the mounting death toll resulting from WHO errors and manipulations, we have more than enough evidence that allowing them any further concentration of influence and authority is extraordinarily ill-advised.
Supposedly if member states sign on, they waive their sovereignty & (in our case), the Constitution. You know LGB-FJB, Obummer & their minions are salivating @ the thought, having done everything else to destroy the country.
That is an important question, Mimi, one that takes a bit of cross-referencing to answer. The World Health Organization is an agency operating under the aegis of the United Nations.
In order to understand waivers of sovereignty, the place to begin is the U.N. charter, and work outward from there.
I think you're very astute to have phrased your question with the qualifier "exactly." If you're going to obtain an answer, though, be prepared to review a long litany of U.N. and W.H.O. activities, advocacy and intervention. As you proceed, you will, of course, do so in the context of your understanding of human behavioral psychology.
In much the same fashion that millions were placed under a form of house arrest and prevented from earning a livelihood because of a "recommendation" by the US Center For Disease Control (largely influenced by the WHO,) sovereignty is abridged by means of interlocking agreements and lateral integration of hierarchy between and within agencies.
Perhaps it would be best to review definitions as you consider the matter. Brittanica has a pretty nuanced definition:
The mechanism of abdication is a matter of treaty. As with any other type of "binding" agreement, treaties vary in their text and substance. It's a heck of a "rabbit hole," this discovery of exact mechanism. I think it may be more helpful to conceptualize it as paradigm or praxis, rather than as a methodology.
I used the lockdowns, not as a direct comparitor, but more as a metaphor to illustrate the intersection of behavioral psychology with lateral integration of hierarchy.
Are you quite sure that you really want an answer? I ask that because the study required, is likely to generate one heck of a migraine. I'd like to suggest keeping a bottle of aspirin close at hand.
What you say makes perfect sense, but my point is that the WHO only has the authority that people give it. When this issue is discussed, there is an awful lot of fear with people insisting that the WHO is going to take over the world whether we like it or not.
But the crap that governments In American law pulled during Covid was justified by changes in American law that probably were unconstitutional. Mostly, we managed to beat that back. But yes, if something like that happens again and people fall into line, we have a problem, regardless of where the orders originate.
My problem with this whole thing is not that the WHO wants to do these things but that so many people are scared to death that the WHO will succeed in this and we will be forced to comply. Well, it's not going to be the WHO who forces us, because they really have no enforcement arm. It will be our own governments again and that is where I think more attention needs to be paid. And also trying to figure out how to stop people falling into line because they don't think they have the right to disagree.
Mimi, I think you've described the situation perfectly.
A lot of this seems a matter of learned helplessness, a sort of "Stockholm Syndrome."
As I worked my way through Stoddard's "Adaptive Learning and Behavior," I was struck by how advanced behavioral science has become (and there've been a LOT of advances since Stoddard first published.) Such readings have induced me to keep repeating a sort of mantra; "remember to be compassionate" is that litany.
It was our government who insisted upon that. Those agencies can do nothing unless American automatons decide to obey them. My point is that even without the WHO our government would have wanted to shut us down. You can argue about the role of the WEF in that, though.
I still can't figure out how the CDC was allowed to suspect rent payments. Obviously that should have been out of their jurisdiction but the fools in the courts let them get away with it.
I understand & agree. Had WuFlu twice but no way in hell would I take the jab & I wore a mask under my nose only when it was completely unavoidable (e.g. unavoidable surgery). I’m lucky to live in a very red part of a very blue state & for the most part, the whole town refused to comply w/ closures & masking, etc. & I defied as I could. But that doesn’t mean everyone wasn’t forced into various levels of compliance (including red states at 1st) @ the behest of government & governmental & global entities.
There are several things to consider here (correct me if I am confused about anything):
1) There's the issue about how treaties have to be approved by Congress
2) I understand that the vote on these changes won't happen until 2024. The WHO has been lobbying the African countries who derailed this nonsense last time, but since they are waiting until next year, the lobbying probably hasn't been going that well.
3) We already had our own Federal, State and local government pull this sh*t. Will anything the WHO says make things worse next time?
4) If everyone ignores this, what is the WHO going to be able to do about it?
"The WHO has been lobbying the African countries who derailed this nonsense last time, but since they are waiting until next year, the lobbying probably hasn't been going that well."
After they kill off a few more African leaders and replace them with more like minded politicians, the "lobbying" will be easier...
Treaties are ratified by the Senate, a small subset of Congress, that was originally the states' voice in Congress. We need to be prepared to shoot at blue helmets upon arrival.
The Blue Helmets of the UN are worthless. The Pope forced the Swiss Guard to take the vax so he probably won't get a lot of support from them at this point (although the 2 men who refused the shot had to quit). The Knights of Malta serve food at nursing homes and such so I wouldn't expect much from them either.
There are no real world wide health emergencies caused by viruses and other health related events. The real pandemics and emergencies are caused by toxic big pharma drugs, vaccines and mRNA substances.
Cruz, & caused by corrupt, greedy politicians & other power-mad useful idiots
You left out poor sanitation.
Poor sanitation is good exercise for a healthy immune system.
Absurd nonsense.
I can only hope that you aren't passing yourself off as a competent immunologist.
I can only hope your delusional state eventually passes
No competent immunologist would agree with your nonsense.
You are conflating the result of spraying everything with Lysol and having a microbe free life with living like a pig.
There is no more validity to you insane contention here than there is to any of the other crapola you have clogged this page with, Ya Feckin' Idjit!
That's Yiddish, right Chucklehead?
A simple interpretation is that the WHO seeks to be the world's regulator, and each member state seeks to do what they always do; engage in successful regulatory capture.
We already witnessed this in action over the last three years, but have escaped some of the worst-case scenarios because national sovereignty took precedence. We would have no comparitors, no control groups if the WHO succeeds in breaching sovereignty.
Considering the mounting death toll resulting from WHO errors and manipulations, we have more than enough evidence that allowing them any further concentration of influence and authority is extraordinarily ill-advised.
Supposedly if member states sign on, they waive their sovereignty & (in our case), the Constitution. You know LGB-FJB, Obummer & their minions are salivating @ the thought, having done everything else to destroy the country.
How exactly does anyone waive their sovereignty just because the WHO says so?
That is an important question, Mimi, one that takes a bit of cross-referencing to answer. The World Health Organization is an agency operating under the aegis of the United Nations.
In order to understand waivers of sovereignty, the place to begin is the U.N. charter, and work outward from there.
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CTC/uncharter.pdf
I think you're very astute to have phrased your question with the qualifier "exactly." If you're going to obtain an answer, though, be prepared to review a long litany of U.N. and W.H.O. activities, advocacy and intervention. As you proceed, you will, of course, do so in the context of your understanding of human behavioral psychology.
In much the same fashion that millions were placed under a form of house arrest and prevented from earning a livelihood because of a "recommendation" by the US Center For Disease Control (largely influenced by the WHO,) sovereignty is abridged by means of interlocking agreements and lateral integration of hierarchy between and within agencies.
Perhaps it would be best to review definitions as you consider the matter. Brittanica has a pretty nuanced definition:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/sovereignty
The mechanism of abdication is a matter of treaty. As with any other type of "binding" agreement, treaties vary in their text and substance. It's a heck of a "rabbit hole," this discovery of exact mechanism. I think it may be more helpful to conceptualize it as paradigm or praxis, rather than as a methodology.
I used the lockdowns, not as a direct comparitor, but more as a metaphor to illustrate the intersection of behavioral psychology with lateral integration of hierarchy.
Are you quite sure that you really want an answer? I ask that because the study required, is likely to generate one heck of a migraine. I'd like to suggest keeping a bottle of aspirin close at hand.
What you say makes perfect sense, but my point is that the WHO only has the authority that people give it. When this issue is discussed, there is an awful lot of fear with people insisting that the WHO is going to take over the world whether we like it or not.
But the crap that governments In American law pulled during Covid was justified by changes in American law that probably were unconstitutional. Mostly, we managed to beat that back. But yes, if something like that happens again and people fall into line, we have a problem, regardless of where the orders originate.
My problem with this whole thing is not that the WHO wants to do these things but that so many people are scared to death that the WHO will succeed in this and we will be forced to comply. Well, it's not going to be the WHO who forces us, because they really have no enforcement arm. It will be our own governments again and that is where I think more attention needs to be paid. And also trying to figure out how to stop people falling into line because they don't think they have the right to disagree.
Mimi, I think you've described the situation perfectly.
A lot of this seems a matter of learned helplessness, a sort of "Stockholm Syndrome."
As I worked my way through Stoddard's "Adaptive Learning and Behavior," I was struck by how advanced behavioral science has become (and there've been a LOT of advances since Stoddard first published.) Such readings have induced me to keep repeating a sort of mantra; "remember to be compassionate" is that litany.
How exactly did we waive our bodily autonomy & liberty for 3 years on WHO, CDC, FDA say-so, Mimi?
It was our government who insisted upon that. Those agencies can do nothing unless American automatons decide to obey them. My point is that even without the WHO our government would have wanted to shut us down. You can argue about the role of the WEF in that, though.
I still can't figure out how the CDC was allowed to suspect rent payments. Obviously that should have been out of their jurisdiction but the fools in the courts let them get away with it.
I understand & agree. Had WuFlu twice but no way in hell would I take the jab & I wore a mask under my nose only when it was completely unavoidable (e.g. unavoidable surgery). I’m lucky to live in a very red part of a very blue state & for the most part, the whole town refused to comply w/ closures & masking, etc. & I defied as I could. But that doesn’t mean everyone wasn’t forced into various levels of compliance (including red states at 1st) @ the behest of government & governmental & global entities.
That's why Trump pulled us out.
What do you think that Trump pulled us out of?
Do you know how to operate a search engine?
Instead of making idiotic claims and clogging my inbox with stupid questions, why not research and learn something real?
Your objectivity just disappeared in a cloud of ad hominem attack.
Ooh! Latin! And from such a tiny mind!
Objectively, you are an ill bred and poorly raised Halfwit.
Better now?
If you can't tell the difference between Latin and French, you should avoid displaying your ignorance, which I will henceforth ignore.
There are several things to consider here (correct me if I am confused about anything):
1) There's the issue about how treaties have to be approved by Congress
2) I understand that the vote on these changes won't happen until 2024. The WHO has been lobbying the African countries who derailed this nonsense last time, but since they are waiting until next year, the lobbying probably hasn't been going that well.
3) We already had our own Federal, State and local government pull this sh*t. Will anything the WHO says make things worse next time?
4) If everyone ignores this, what is the WHO going to be able to do about it?
"The WHO has been lobbying the African countries who derailed this nonsense last time, but since they are waiting until next year, the lobbying probably hasn't been going that well."
After they kill off a few more African leaders and replace them with more like minded politicians, the "lobbying" will be easier...
Treaties are ratified by the Senate, a small subset of Congress, that was originally the states' voice in Congress. We need to be prepared to shoot at blue helmets upon arrival.
Mobilize UN Troops and the Catholic Military--the Knights of Malta-2 Billion dollar annual budget, not one cent from the Vatican.
But they are the private forces of the Demon Francis...
The Blue Helmets of the UN are worthless. The Pope forced the Swiss Guard to take the vax so he probably won't get a lot of support from them at this point (although the 2 men who refused the shot had to quit). The Knights of Malta serve food at nursing homes and such so I wouldn't expect much from them either.
Au contraire, blue helmets are good for target practice.
Outlaw Bikers give away Teddy Bears at Christmas.
They are still Outlaw Bikers, and they still kill, rape and rob.
Thinking K of M serving seniors is pertinent shows logical thinking is not your strong suit.
That probably explains how you came to imagine One Worlders have conspired for generations , but plumb forgot about enforcement.
The Knights of Malta showed up at my mom's nursing home. They didn't look dangerous to me and a 2 billion dollar annual budget is chicken feed.
Anyone foolish enough to don a UN blue helmet needs to understand that they are good for target practice in the patriotic parts of the US.