In this 197th in a series of live discussions with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying (both PhDs in Biology), we discuss the state of the world through an evolutionary lens.In this episode we discuss the WHO’s proposed amendments to their 2005 International Health Regulations. It’s not good, as lawyer Philipp Kruse, and John Campbell, have already pointed out. These amendments, should they be approved, will mark the end of science, of democracy, and of justice. Then we discuss complexity, how ...
*music* Hey folks, welcome to the Dark Horse Podcast live stream number 197.
I am Dr. Brett Weinstein.
This is Dr. Heather Hine.
No, I did not stumble on your name.
I stumbled on whether or not to say the next thing, and it just happened to come right before I delivered your name.
But believe me, your name, I got this one wired.
I can't even spell it.
Yeah, I know.
I know.
Yeah, yeah.
So anyway, we are here.
I was laughing at your timing, at the at the intentional halting nature of the timing, which is actually an indicator that things are very far off in the universe and that I am doing extra processing so that I do not end up removed from the discussion.
Indeed.
Yes.
Here we are.
197.
197.
Prime.
Prime number.
Prime number.
You can look for factors as much as you want.
You're not going to find them.
There are two, and we know what they are.
Indeed.
Please join us on Rumble, and if you're watching live at the Watch Party at Locals, join us at Locals anyway.
We've got a private Q&A that we just did a couple days ago.
We're going to do some AMAs from our travels upcoming, I think, at least one.
This is the last live stream that we're going to have for a little over three weeks, actually.
We're not going to be back until November, but there will be some amazing guest episodes dropping on Dark Horse between now and then.
And immediately after today's live stream, we will do a Q&A.
We're going to have to keep it a little bit brief, but we're going to do that.
And today we're going to talk about some of The stuff that is going on in the world as we always do, my goodness!
One thing to say more before we go on to our sponsors is that we've got some great new merchandise at our great new store.
We've talked before about Jake's Micro Pizza.
Which is delicious, as I keep pointing out.
It's really, it's not the only selling point, but it is one of I will put on my mask when I'm done eating.
Yes.
But we also have now blueberries, because oxidants happen.
Yep.
I really am thrilled with this.
We work with this just wonderful, wonderful artist, and he created this from an idea that Brett had.
Many, many, many years ago.
I've wanted to create something of this sort for the longest time, and I have lived to see it.
You have lived to see it.
Congratulations.
Thank you.
So that's at... I don't even have the store.
DarkHorseStore.org.
You can get those and Jake's Micro Pizza and all the rest.
Epic Tabby, Dire Wolves, Pfizer, where the breakthroughs never stop.
One of my favorites.
In light of their stock price, it's a good week to remind people about Pfizer's role in the world.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So you can get that and more at darkhorsestore.org.
But for now, before we launch into the main part of the podcast, we have, as usual, three sponsors right at the top.
We choose them carefully.
We say no to many who approach us just because they're not a fit or we don't feel like we can really be honestly vouching for their products or their services.
So you know that if you are hearing us talk about it, and we provide absolutely zero sponsored content except for these three ads at the top of the show.
If you're watching, you will always see that green perimeter on the screen when we are reading ads.
And the beginning and the end of the ads are marked by a tone, so that's how you know that we are reading ads, but they are ones that we truly, truly vouch for.
So, without further ado.
Our sponsors this week are The Wellness Company, Hillsdale College, and Un-Cruise.
We are so pleased to have as our first sponsor this week, The Wellness Company.
World-renowned experts like Dr. Peter McCullough have partnered with The Wellness Company to create real change in healthcare.
They offer a wide variety of supplements and services, including telehealth, emergency medical kits, which include ivermectin, and teams of medical professionals that can assist in helping patients kick the pharmaceutical habit with their Freedom from Pharma program.
Hypo in there.
A little editing on the fly here.
Okay, now they are awesome.
The script that I wrote based on what they sent me, not so much, but that has nothing to do with them.
Teams of Medical Professionals, as I said, this is the wellness company that can assist helping patients kick the pharmaceutical habit with their program that they call Freedom from Pharma.
The wellness company has all sorts of useful and important products.
Personally, I'm a fan of their Mito support.
Mito is in mitochondria, which is formulated to provide energy, both physical and mental.
And their Spike Support Formula is their most popular product.
It's useful not only for those who have been vaccinated, but for anyone who may be suffering from long COVID as well.
As the wellness company says on their website, if you're looking to, quote, get back to that pre-COVID feeling, their Spike Support Formula can help.
Spike Support is made with a combination of natural ingredients like natokenase, dandelion root extract selenium, black sativa extract, irish sea moss, and green tea extract.
These ingredients all contain immune-boosting capabilities, and the natokinase specifically has been used by Japanese people for decades because of its ability to dissolve blood clots.
But more recently, natokinase has been shown to be able to break down spike proteins in the bloodstream and even block them from binding to cells.
Dr. Pakola says, quote, Out of all the available therapies I have used in my practice and among all the proposed detoxification agents, I believe natokinase and related peptides hold the greatest promise for patients at this time.
End quote.
Whether you've taken the vaccine or just had COVID, if you're concerned about circulating spike proteins, go to TWC.Health slash Dark Horse and use code Dark Horse to save 15% on your first order.
That's TWC, stands for The Wellness Company.
TWC.Health slash Dark Horse and use code Dark Horse to save 15% off.
Such an interesting moment that we have people formulating bad stuff that gets into us, either because it's contagious or because they inject it into you, and then we have other people figuring out how to undo the harm.
Wow.
Not a battle I saw coming.
Creating antidotes for medicine.
Yeah.
Creating antidotes to medicine.
That's an interesting way to put it.
And the wellness company is doing just that.
Our second sponsor this week is Hillsdale College.
Another kind of antidote to its existing structure that it appears to be part of, creating an antidote to standard higher ed.
To the gain of function that is taking place inside the academy.
Oh man, um, yeah.
Since 1844, Hillsdale, Hillsdale College, has been providing an education that focuses on freedom and character.
At Hillsdale, they believe that a virtuous citizen is the best defense for liberty, and now they've taken some of their core classes and made them available online for free for anyone who wants to learn.
So many people look back on their college education, whether it was yesterday or decades ago, and wonder what they learned.
Some people wish they had focused on the things they were interested in, rather than what they were told they needed for a successful career.
Hillsdale's new online courses allow people to do just that.
Time and technology have changed a lot of things, but they have not changed basic, fundamental truths about the world and our place in it.
Hillsdale College's online courses range widely.
There are several on the Constitution, and on Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court.
There are great books courses, as well as courses focusing on the works of C.S.
Lewis, Mark Twain, Shakespeare, and Jane Austen.
There are history classes from ancient Christianity, to the rise and fall of the Roman Republic, to the Second World War, and even classes on math and logic, from Euclid to modern geometry, and one on the great principles of chemistry.
And they've got a few more online around what it means to be a good citizen and how that has changed over time, which are looking really interesting.
There are 39 free courses to choose from.
They're self-paced, so you can start whenever you want.
You can start right now.
It's everything you need all in one place with no long-term commitment.
Learn when and where you want.
Enroll now in Hillsdale's not-for-credit online courses program.
It's free, it's fun, and it will change the way you understand our country, the world, and your place in it.
Go right now to hillsdale.edu slash darkhorse to enroll.
There's no cost and it's easy to get started.
That's hillsdale.edu slash darkhorse to register.
Once more, hillsdale.edu slash darkhorse.
It's a great moment to take a course on the Constitution with the political party in power persecuting their enemies using the courts and then getting gag orders to prevent those who are being persecuted from discussing their persecution.
It's really a moment to remind yourself of what might be in that Constitution and what it is supposed to do to prevent moments like this.
It would seem that many view it as a fair weather document.
To be invoked only when things are good and no one really needs its protections very much.
Yeah, it's a parasol, not an umbrella is what they're saying, and frankly, I don't think that's true.
Okay, our final sponsor this week is UnCruise Small Ship Adventures.
UnCruise explores by sea and by land.
They have boats that hold orders of magnitude fewer people than most cruise boats, and they take their passengers to some of the world's most magnificent places.
Panama and Costa Rica, Galapagos, the Sea of Cortez in Mexico, Alaska, and even our own backyard, the San Juan Islands.
When UnCruise first approached us, we were skeptical.
Our standards for travel, and especially anything bordering on adventure travel, are very high.
We have years of experience leading trips to the scablands of eastern Washington and the Columbia River Gorge, as well as the Andean Paramo, Galapagos, and the Amazon.
We know most trips do not meet expectations.
UnCruise, in contrast, exceeds expectations spectacularly.
The small boats of UnCruise allow passengers to get real deep experience.
Their largest boat can accommodate a mere 86 guests.
The boats of UnCruise take small groups of people to places that larger boats can't go, and excursions are designed to bring people into deep nature without destroying it.
When we spoke to the CEO, Dan Blanchard, we discovered that we shared an ethos, the value of wild roadless nature of exploration and observation.
We took an uncruised week-long trip through the inland waters of southeast Alaska in early May and were blown away by what we saw and what we were able to do.
We saw sea otters with their pups, mountain goats, eagles in their nests, brown and black bears, puffins, orcas, humpbacks, arctic terns, too many species to list, and mile after mile of the most breathtaking scenery.
Each day we got off the boat to hike or kayak and the crew and naturalist guides were to a person kind, knowledgeable, and enthusiastic.
The food was surprisingly good, and food preferences and sensitivities were handled perfectly.
Every sailing with UnCruise is all-inclusive.
Transportation, drinks, farm-to-table cuisine, daily excursions, everything is included.
UnCruise understands that the boat is just a tool.
Their small ship cruises take guests through communities and locales on the ground so that they can have actual experiences.
UnCruise is giving Dark Horse listeners a fantastic deal.
500 bucks off their current cruises.
An offer that you can combine with other offers.
So, start thinking about winter in the tropics now, or spring trips to Alaska.
Plan a trip with UnCruise today and take advantage of this great offer.
Go now to uncruise.com slash pages slash darkhorse.
Remember to save $500 on your trip.
Go now.
uncruise.com slash pages slash darkhorse.
Again, that's U-N-C-R-U-I-S-E dot com slash pages slash darkhorse.
Awesome.
So we're going to spend a little bit of time first today, I think, maybe largely, maybe entirely, discussing a UN
No, a WHO document that is being proposed to amend a 2005 document that has long been in existence, which John Campbell, awesome John Campbell, recently did a 20-minute video discussing, which is how you came to be aware of it, which is how I came to be aware of it.
I was aware of it before from a number of people's work, Meryl Nass included, but I Drawn rapidly back to a consideration of where this process was and what its implications were by John Campbell's excellent video in which he largely turns over the mic to a member of Parliament, I believe, in the EU.
Yeah, so we're going to end up going through this document a bit, but you can show my screen here for a moment.
And this is, again, out of the WHO, the World Health Organization, an article-by-article compilation of proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations, which, again, were official as of 2005, submitted in accordance with Decision WHA 75, parenthesis 9, 2022.
So this document, which we're going to go through some, lists not the entire 2005 International Health Regulations as produced by the WHO, but just the proposed changes, both deletions and additions, to those 2005 regulations as recently proposed by WHO-associated countries.
So I wanted to say something.
It's a strange thing to say in light of the fact that we haven't even talked about what's here yet.
But I want to, I'm going to make the argument that you are supposed to be having a reaction to this already.
That the presentation, the name, all of it is supposed to cause you to think.
This is boring.
This is remote.
This probably doesn't have a meaning because the ability of the Who to do things that actually result in some important distinction in what I do and don't have to do at home is pretty unlikely.
And so anyway, you're supposed to decide that you don't have the bandwidth for this because it's probably somebody else's job, you don't have the expertise, it's not interesting, and there's too much going on.
And that is masking what I would argue is one of the two most important things taking place in the world at this moment.
One of them, obviously, on everybody's mind, which is the crisis in the Middle East and what implication it has for the globe, frankly.
But the other one is this, and if that surprises you, that's something you may not have even heard about, or if you've heard about it, you've already put it aside because it doesn't sound important.
Then, you've got another thing coming, because what's actually here is spectacular in terms of the proposal to planet Earth that it really proposes.
Yes, indeed.
So, let us begin first with just a couple of statements that are in the video that John Campbell largely shows in this video.
So, this is a speech by Philip Cruz.
So I think I aired.
who was involved in the Citizens Initiative reacting to this.
He was speaking at the European Parliament for the ECI Citizens Initiative to challenge the WHO on their pandemic treaty.
So I think I erred.
I think I said he was a member of Parliament, but he's a lawyer speaking in Parliament.
Yeah, he's a lawyer speaking in Parliament at the Health and Democracy Conference on the 13th of September of this year, so this is a month ago now already, at the EU Parliament in Strasbourg.
And we will of course share the link to the John Campbell video.
But before we get to what the proposed changes are, let's jump to Lawyer Cruz's arguments about what these proposed changes lead to, in which, quote, he says, the result is already predefined by one sole authority on the planet, that one sole authority being the WHO.
If these amendments are accepted, which at the moment it looks like they're going to be.
We have six, seven months before the vote actually happens in May of 2024, I believe.
The timeline having been radically shortened, that's one of the messages in this speech, is that the timeline went from 24 months to 12 months and we're already a couple months into that.
Well, if you cared about not having this happen, you would have found the document in the basement below the stairs that are broken with the light off and the rats and the pit of vipers and such.
Yeah, your reference to the Hitchhiker's Guide is well taken.
So at 9.28 in the video from John Campbell, Cruz, the lawyer, says again in September at the EU Parliament meeting, without open debate, without the possibility of having different opinions, different hypotheses, different methods, there will be no science.
There will be ultimately no democracy and there will be no legal court proceedings and no justice.
He's not speaking narrowly.
He is speaking as broadly as he could possibly speak.
He is speaking about no science, no democracy, no legal court proceedings, no justice in the world if these amendments to this 2005 WHO document are accepted.
Now, I would advise people to think about that claim and imagine what would have to be true in this document for that claim not to be a preposterous exaggeration.
That's the key.
Yes.
Further, he says, quote, We will not be asked, we have not been informed, and there will be a process of automatic enactment of the international health regulation.
This is about a severe violation of the principle of informed consent as possible.
This principle doesn't exist only on the individual level, it exists also for democracies as a whole.
The self-determination of the people is one of the founding principles of the United Nations in Article 1 of the Founding Charter of 1946.
And finally, one more short quote from, again, this is the lawyer, Philip Cruz, speaking at the September 2, 2023 EU Parliament meeting in Strasbourg.
Quote, it will be the WHO that determines under which legal status we have to live.
That means that the power will not be anymore in the hands of the people.
Therefore, these regulations have to be stopped immediately.
And we haven't walked through yet what they may include, but we're going to do a bit of that here.
Yeah, maybe we should talk a little bit about that and then we can try to put it in context.
Do you want to talk about the provisions?
Sure.
Okay, so here again, and you can show my screen now, Zach, this is the WHO document, the Proposed Amendments to the International Health Regulations, which were accepted, ratified, I guess, in 2005, which have been submitted to be voted on in May, I believe, of next year of 2024.
So this document does not include everything that would be in the resulting document.
It only includes Recommended deletions, which are strikethroughs, and recommended additions, which are in bold, and then they use ellipses.
They use three dots where they are skipping over parts of the document that have not changed from the original 2005 document.
So let's just start with Article 1, which is a place that John Campbell also spends some time.
Article 1, definitions, in which we are defining what health products are, which later on the WHO wants to grant itself the right to force these on nation states and the people therein.
Health products include medicines, vaccines, medical devices, diagnostics, assistive products, cell and gene-based therapies, and other health technologies, but not limited to this course.
And although we don't have all of the text here, The standing recommendation, as originally reflected in the 2005 document, means non-binding advice issued by the WHO for specific ongoing public health risks.
And the temporary recommendation means non-binding advice issued by the WHO pursuant to Article 15, etc., etc.
But in the proposed amendment, the word non-binding is deleted.
So the WHO would add specificity around what health products include—cell and gene-based therapies, vaccines, etc.—and render their advice binding.
Because if it's not non-binding, it's binding.
So, let me just fill that in in English, right?
Because they're obviously, I mean, you know, okay, so they want to delete a couple words, non-binding, that means binding, okay?
Binding what?
Binding recommendation.
A binding recommendation for what?
Well, there are two things on the list that you ought to be paying attention to.
One, I mean, you ought to pay attention to them all, but in particular, vaccines and gene therapies.
What this document means is that the who, at its sole discretion, would like the ability to mandate information be uploaded to your immune system via vaccines, and I mean true vaccines, or potentially the borrowing or potentially the borrowing of your cells to produce materials that they were not built to produce, as in the mRNA vaccines, or potentially included within gene editing, they are talking about a right to actually edit
they are talking about a right to actually edit your genome that would be in the hands of the who through a binding A binding piece of advice.
That means that your nation would be required to facilitate your genome to be edited or your immune system to be updated, even if there were very good arguments for not doing it.
And frankly, the only argument you should need is, that doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
I don't want it.
Right?
Informed consent is sacrosanct.
As I pointed out here, as we pointed out months ago, we literally hung seven doctors for violating this principle even though it had not yet been codified.
It's that clear.
Yep.
And yet here the WHO wants the power to force edits onto your genome or to force updates into your immune system.
This is beyond insane.
This could not possibly be more dystopian.
And that's just Article One.
And that's just Article One.
Article 2, which is about scope and purpose.
I'm going to try to read it in its original and then read it in its updated form here.
What's on screen, you can show the screen here, has both interwoven.
Let's see if I can do this.
The original from 2005 of Article 2, Scope and Purpose of the WHO's document.
Reads, the purpose and scope of these regulations are to prevent, protect against, control and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to public health risk and which avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade.
The recommended changes
Article 2, Scope and Purpose of the WHO's document reads, The purpose and scope of these regulations are to prevent, protect against, prepare, control, and provide a public health response to the international spread of diseases, including through health systems readiness and resilience, in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to all risks with a potential to impact public health, and which avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic, livelihoods, human rights, and equitable access to health products and health care technologies and know-how.
The big change there is we went from public health risk to all risks with a potential to impact public health.
Who will be the ones deciding whether or not there's a potential to impact public health?
Well, I imagine that would also be the who, wouldn't it?
The who, and I would point out that the nature of public health, which we will get back to here at some point, is such that it's almost inconceivable that anything could be excluded.
Everything has the potential to affect public health.
Anything that can affect individual health can affect public health.
And so the vagueness of this definition, the addition of the word prepare, which I'm not even sure why they need it because they've got prevent in there.
But anyway, they're thinking something.
They want the ability, even when it's not happening, to say, here's a mandate because we are going to be prepared that it will happen, which I would tell you should echo.
You should now think of that paragraph that these gain-of-function maniacs always use to justify their work about the fact that increased human contact with nature is meaning that the likelihood of a zoonotic disease leaping out of nature and causing a major human pandemic.
Is blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Therefore, we must get ahead of this thing by studying the X, Y, and Z in the laboratory and enhancing the pathogenesis.
Pathogenicity of these things so that we know what to do if they ever become really pathogenic, right?
That bullshit paragraph that they use to, you know, to hoodwink people or to excuse themselves or whatever it is that they do, fits exactly with this justification.
The point is, oh, well, we better, maybe they want to mandate some genetic edits now for a pandemic that they, that it isn't, but that they can talk themselves into imagining could happen, right?
There's nothing here to prevent them from doing that.
No, there is nothing here to prevent them from doing that, and I actually wanted to point out that the very first paragraph of this document, which I just scrolled by and didn't even show you guys, specifies that what this document is, is an article-by-article compilation of the proposed amendments as authorized by the submitting member states in the six official languages, without attribution of the proposals to the member states proposing them.
So we have a number of changes to this document, which has been effectively, again, I don't know if ratified is the right word, but I'll use it here, by The Who in 2005, a number of member states have proposed, you know, everything from banal to insidious changes, and we can't see who made what suggestions.
So we have no idea what is actually moving behind the scenes.
We know what we've got in front of us, but we don't know, you know, it would be very useful To know if all of the proposed changes of a type were coming out of a particular country, for instance.
Actually, that's a great point.
I think this eluded me entirely, but the idea that one of the evergreen portions of our failure Globally involves things driving things that are supposed to be controlling it.
The regulatory capture always looks like this, where the regulator is doing the bidding of the regulated.
And because everything is labeled in some way, it's misleading.
You can't tell that the FDA is downstream of Pfizer, for example.
And in this case, the point is, okay, so maybe some state is actually staging a coup on other states through the WHO.
The WHO is going to carve this thing out, and it sounds like the WHO is this rogue agency, but the point is maybe, you know, the WHO belongs to somebody, and this is state A capturing the right to manipulate the citizens of state B via the WHO, right?
In the same way, you know, we see with You know, these global financial organizations that manipulate through loans and debt.
Right.
And anonymity can be an important, indeed necessary, tool when it comes to things like whistleblowing.
But transparency in a document like this would seem to be far more important.
And even if you don't want to have it in this document, there should be a parallel document wherein we, the people, can see who it is has proposed the various changes.
It's really even hard to construct a valid argument.
It's easier to read.
I mean, you don't want to be bothered with those things, Brett.
Yes, I do.
Like, immediately.
But really, honestly, I struggle to find an argument for anonymity in this context that isn't laughable on its face.
I agree.
Okay, we're not actually going to go through all, however many dozens of principles there are, but we are going to go briefly touch on many of them and As you might expect, at the top of the document there, the changes are bigger and grander and more outstanding than down lower.
So, Article 3.
Read before.
The implementation of these regulations shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms of persons.
Now, it is being proposed that it shall read, the implementation of these regulations shall be based on the principles of equity, inclusivity, coherence, and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities of the state's parties taking in consideration their social economic development, yada, yada, yada.
New Article 3.5.
The state party shall implement these regulations on the basis of, once again, equity, solidarity, as well as, and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities, respective level of development of state parties.
Equity, inclusivity, coherence.
I don't know how they define that.
Solidarity.
They use the word solidarity.
So, and we will see the very last article that I will point us to, after we go through some number of those of these, we will see how their focus on equity will manifest, one of the ways that they are actually admitting that it will manifest.
Utterly extraordinary that, and this was again a point that John Campbell made in his video, that
Anyone would look at a document that says that the implementation of regulation shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms of persons, and take out that phrase, and replace it with something that is understood by all, whether or not they think it's awesome or the opposite, to be reflective of a new social movement, of an ideology that is, it has its own acronym, right?
That diversity, equity, and inclusion is a new thing.
Whereas dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms of persons, this is ancient, and this is necessary, and who would have us get rid of it?
Inalienable is the thing, and yet they are alienating it from us.
Yes.
So I see a couple things there.
One, I find it insane that diversity, equity, and inclusion would rear its ugly head in this place.
I guess I can't be terribly surprised because everything awful is going to be included here.
But I also see The Game Theory, and it's terrifying.
Right.
Because if you think about what it is, let's go back to the days in which those of us who refused the shots were being witch hunted, being accused of actually grandma killing and all of this.
And also cryptically in those shots, because obviously everyone's smart.
Because of course, yeah.
Whatever that witch hunting phase was, the underlying argument that these people were making, which is one that we have to confront, there's a component of it that's true, but the extrapolation is dead wrong.
The component of it that's true is that in an epidemiological context, the individual who opts out of the shot, if you're one individual and you opt out of a shot that actually works, you get the benefit of everybody else having taken the risk of the shot and you don't take the risk and you get the benefit of the immunity because the population is immune.
So let's just take that as an abstract hypothetical.
Using this argument, they can override informed consent directly because the idea is you don't have the right to opt out because other people from disadvantaged groups or whatever it is opted in.
So we are going to force you to take a risk that actually is not matched with any benefit that you might personally get because you're obligated to roll the dice.
You're obligated to play this game of roulette with the others, right?
And That is the most obscene abuse of the idea of equity, but yet they're setting us up for it.
It's clear that that is available to them as an argument, and that the argument, if you say, no, I don't want that shot, it's not good for me, this is a disease I'm not in danger of, and that shot is not nearly well enough, understand, the point is, guess what?
Those things are all irrelevant because everybody else picked up the gun and pointed at themselves and pulled the trigger.
Your turn.
Yes.
Right.
And I'm sorry.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
No.
Kind of the era, isn't it?
Yeah.
Yeah, it is.
It's very California.
Yeah.
No.
Yeah.
No.
Okay, Article 5 is devoted to surveillance, which it always was, I guess, but even just the title of it... So, those of you who are multitasking, A, multitasking is impossible, please be careful, and B... Yes, that's what I said.
Pay attention, okay?
Surveillance.
What the hell is surveillance doing in a document about public health?
Well, you can see where this is going, can't you?
So, the following sentence remains unchanged from the original 2005.
1.
Each state party shall develop, strengthen, and maintain, as soon as possible, but no later than five years from the entry into force of these regulations for that state party, the capacity to detect, assess, notify, and report events in accordance with these regulations as specified in Annex 1.
There's a lot here.
It's all about surveillance.
Some of which would be warranted by a actually healthy and functioning and not evil public health apparatus.
Wait, wait, wait.
It depends what you mean by surveillance.
If we're talking about... So they are not using it in the sense that we are understanding it.
They are not trying to use it in the sense of... Well, it's there.
It may not be under that heading, but it's there as we will get to.
So just one, because there's a lot we could be spending many, many hours on this document.
The one that I chose to highlight here is their new paragraph five of this, this was amendment five, to strengthen the central role of national health authorities and management and coordination with political, intersectoral, inter-ministerial, and multi-level authorities for timely and coordinated surveillance and response in accordance with the international health risk indicated by the IHR Thereby consolidating the central role of national health authorities in multi-level management and coordination.
What could go wrong?
Yeah, they're commandeering control of your nation's public health apparatus.
So the point is they are decapitating the apparatus that is supposed to be protecting the population, and they are putting it under WHO control.
Yes.
No nation shall be sovereign and no human being shall be sovereign.
This is a direct attack on sovereignty in the most profound ways.
Your constitution is subordinate to this document, which overrides it.
Yes.
Okay, next is a ways down here.
We've got Article 6 Notification, Information Sharing, Consultation, Other Reports.
Let's see, what was the next?
Again, I mean, everything that you're seeing that's in bold or struck out are changes to the proposed changes to the original document.
I believe Article 13 is the next place that I was going to show you something.
Yeah, okay, so Article 13 is broadly on public health response.
Again, the original, which is not proposed to be changed, the original first sentence reads, Each state party shall develop, strengthen, and maintain, as soon as possible but no later than five years from the entry into force of these regulations for that state party, the capacity to respond promptly and effectively to public health risks and public health emergencies of international concern as set out in Annex 1.
Again, how is it that public health risks and public health emergencies are being determined?
It is not any longer entirely by the states.
It is by the WHO.
And here we have one of the changes, one of the many, many changes to Article 13 as described in this document.
3.
The World Health Organization shall, in its allocation plan for health products, inter alia identify and prioritize the recipients of health products, including health workers, frontline workers, and vulnerable populations, and determine the required quantity of health care products for effective distribution to the recipients across states parties.
But who would decide?
How much of the health products, again which includes everything from presumably actually important and necessary medicines to gene therapies, how much of each goes to individual states?
And the rubrics that they are using are now not human dignity and individual freedom, but things like equity and inclusion.
So you have a provision here that actually speaks to, this is going to sound overwrought, but I think probably as people are detecting the number of sneaky and very important provisions here, maybe people are catching on, there's a kind of Implication of a need for medical communism here.
So you can imagine a circumstance in which your nation, let's say, it stockpiles materials that would be necessary in case of a something.
Yep.
And then the Who decides that those materials are better applied elsewhere in the globe and the fact that you have paid for them and voted for wise people who have collected them or whatever doesn't matter because the Who decides that, you know, somebody else deserves them more.
Now, of course, there's no mechanism for preventing the capture of this apparatus so that those materials might end up to, you know, those who have Corrupted the system, that's where they're likely to go.
So this can happen in both directions.
They can mandate bad stuff onto you.
They can take good stuff from you.
And just think, you know, we have now a history in which, for example, I learned from Zev Zelenko, before he died, that the Netanyahu government destroyed a warehouse of hydroxychloroquine at the early stages of the pandemic.
Now, imagine that the idea was hydroxychloroquine was not desired to be available for some reason, and the idea is, oh, well, we can just simply transfer it away to where it's more useful.
We can decide that there's the danger of a malaria outbreak somewhere, and we can arrange to have it all stockpiled somewhere that you can't get access to it.
The ability of provisions like this To rearrange the materials of the world so that you just simply can't defend yourself is utterly profound.
Yeah.
I don't know.
I don't have any idea of what the implications are for a nation-state that creates the goods themselves.
Are they to be required to share them under the equitable rules decided by the WHO, or are they to be allowed allowed to keep what they make for their own citizens.
I don't know.
Let's put it this way.
The MO of the authoritarians who are arranging to reorganize the rights that we have according to their new rules, what they are doing is they are hoarding discretion.
They are carving out provisions that allow them to dictate anything at any moment, and the basic point is they would like every liberty, and they would like you to have none.
What they will do is they will then give you as a privilege what was once your right, so you won't detect that this is happening.
Life will go on like normal until they need something, and then the point is, oh, well, But you signed up for this Who Treaty.
No, I didn't.
Yes, you did.
You did because your nation agreed to it.
Really?
They did?
Why didn't I hear about it?
And the answer is you didn't hear about it because it was too boring for anybody to report.
And it was designed to be too boring for anybody to report.
And so you just didn't know.
But yeah, you did sign up for this.
This is actually your representatives let this happen.
And in terms of day-to-day life, you said it, but it will be invisible to people until it's not, but at that point it will be too late, precisely because the change will not register, because what is now your right will, by accepting, if these changes are accepted in May of 2024 by the nation-states who would vote on them,
then what are currently your rights have become privileges which are granted by the beneficence of the WHO, as opposed to which are yours because you have autonomy as a free human being.
I'm speechless.
It's awful.
Yeah, if this document doesn't leave you speechless, you haven't read it carefully enough, all these proposed changes to the document.
Go ahead.
Well, I was going to say, I was just going to go to the next one, Article 18, which actually, it's not the changes that surprised me.
It's worth noting how many things the WHO already had In the original 2005 document.
How much sovereignty we gave up without ever knowing it happened.
Exactly.
Can we go there next?
So, Article 18, Recommendations with Respect to Persons, Baggage, Cargo, Containers, Conveyances, Goods, and Postal Parcels.
We'll just stick to one, which is Recommendations Issued by the WHO to States Parties with Respect to Persons, and it's almost identical list to the one, to number two, which is Baggage, Cargo, Containers, Conveyances, Goods, and Postal Parcels.
But with regard to persons, recommendations may include the following.
No specific health measures are advised.
Obviously, it seems a strange thing to have to mention.
Review travel history in affected areas.
Review proof of medical examination and any laboratory analysis.
Review medical examinations.
Review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis.
Require vaccination or other prophylaxis.
Place suspect persons under public health observation.
Implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons.
Implement isolation and treatment where necessary if affected persons.
Implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons.
Refuse entry of suspect unaffected persons.
Refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas.
And implement exit screening and or restrictions on persons from affected areas.
And we've experienced some of these, right?
We have traveled in places where we have been required.
Actually, I'm not sure.
No, at national boundaries as well, but more actually at a military checkpoint in the Amazon where we were required to show proof of yellow fever vaccination within the nation state of Ecuador.
And given what we at least understood then about the prevalence of yellow fever and the safety and efficacy of the yellow fever vaccine, and what I am still certain of, the direness of the disease that is yellow fever, that seemed legitimate.
But that actually was outside the purview of what this is anyway, because that wasn't a state border.
I wanted to just, as an exercise, get people to start thinking.
People who write constitutions, Have to think very carefully about how that document functions in a world that they cannot know because it hasn't happened yet.
This document?
No.
People who write a good constitution.
Oh, okay.
The founders.
And, you know, our founders screwed some stuff up.
They put priorities on some things that were looming large in their mind that were less of an issue in the future.
They did really, really well.
They did much better than one would imagine.
They beat the odds substantially.
So I'm not giving them any hard time.
I'm just saying it's inherent that you will have A misprioritization just based on where you are in history.
The exercise involves saying, okay, what scenario can I imagine?
And what would it do with this provision, this right I'm carving out?
How will that thing go wrong in an environment that I can't know anything about?
And we have to do that with a document like this.
We have to say, well, what could fall under this that you would not see coming?
And I just want to point something out.
Good.
You have certainly heard rhetoric about gun violence being a public health matter.
And we all understand the argument, right?
That's not a clever turn of phrase.
That is an argument to exert a kind of control that unhooks the Second Amendment in the U.S.
The idea that there is a priority that requires a central coordination in which your normal rights would not apply.
Now, so far, the Second Amendment has effectively held, but in this document we are talking about giving the modifications document we're talking about giving the who sweeping powers to define a public health emergency there is nothing that i see that prevents them from saying oh yes gun violence is a public health emergency and
And I would also point out that if you think about what happened at the beginning of the pandemic as the George Floyd riots happened, right?
There was a debate.
Everybody will remember it.
You've got people gathering at a moment where you are told gathering is immoral.
And the response that came back was that racism was the real public health emergency.
Gathering was immoral under protest if what you were protesting was lockdown.
Right.
Gathering was moral if what you were protesting was racism, and racism was actually the true public health emergency.
And there we have it again.
Right.
Guns and race, racism, are both potentially public health emergencies, we've already been told, so what couldn't possibly fall under this purview?
And what happens if you've got somebody over in WHO headquarters thinking, well, public health emergency, oh, guns, racism, and they have the right to redistribute whatever they want on the basis of the greater good for public health and equity.
Can they, you know, let's say that the idea is That there is a war in which everybody has been caused to wave the right flag and they need some guns and we really don't like the population having guns because there's a public health emergency involving them.
Can they transfer guns to a foreign battlefield from your gun safe?
On the basis that your government gave away its right to object to the WHO deciding what is and what isn't a public health emergency and in what way things might be redistributed?
Sounds preposterous to me.
On the other hand, the number of things that are actually real facts today that I would have said five years ago sound utterly preposterous is too many to count.
Yeah.
And if you signed on to this document, you signed on to the Who being able to decide what marks the equitable distribution of something yet unspecified.
Right.
So anyway, I guess the other place to realize this, I keep trying to tell people, when somebody invokes terrorism, you hear a linguistic turn of phrase, you might hear a claim that you say is overblown or isn't.
You don't understand that they are invoking a huge body of law that you have never seen.
The idea that someone, if they say, you know, Malinformation, terrorism.
That sounds like they've gone stupid and they're saying silly things.
No, they're actually defining people as not entitled to constitutional rights because of some definition about information that's true but causes you to distrust your government.
You're now a terrorist, right?
What they are saying is, actually we now have the right to do anything to you based on our sole judgment that you fall in this category that we made up.
Right?
That's what's going on.
The game is they create perfect discretion for themselves and they rob you of rights that you are sure you have and couldn't be relieved from you if without your notice.
You're wrong.
They're doing it in documents.
We don't know who.
We know the who, but we don't know who is actually behind this.
And we don't know what their objective is.
So we're always behind in terms of figuring out What the game is but nonetheless if you just simply extrapolate from what they are saying This is a direct hit on the sovereignty of whatever nation you live in.
It is a direct hit on your individual right to refuse things like medical treatments and technologies that you don't want a right that You know, we had a hanging offense, and now the point is that right is going to be quietly relieved from you, and the reason that you're not going to know is that this is being done in such a boring process that nobody, even people who would in principle be interested in talking about it, aren't going to, because it's just too much.
Yeah.
So, there are a number of ways that this is terrifying, honestly.
Article 23, the next one I wanted to mention, is about health measures on arrival and departure, and so this is about what they can require of you and about showing your papers.
And, you know, papers please.
Show your papers.
Is a trope which everyone recognizes.
And even though everyone recognizes that now, and everyone has always recognized that, we know that we're going to have to show our passport when we cross international borders.
And we have known, as anyone will have if they crossed international borders to particular places or from particular places, that we would also have to show that yellow vaccine card, right?
Demonstrating that we had been vaccinated against a few things that were required to go into a few countries.
Which didn't strike me until recently as obviously problematic.
It does now.
But it's not only because the people who are asking us to show our papers aren't trustworthy, which they have completely demonstrated that they're not, in terms of when they will use their authority for good or ill, but also what has been clear forever, but which COVID put into stark relief.
The would-be health products, again, which includes everything from medicines and vaccines to gene therapies and cellular therapies, are built on a system, a medical system, that does not understand what humans are, or what evolution is, or what it would mean to actually diagnose and treat to cure, as opposed to to keep you a patient for life.
So given these two sets of perverse incentives, well, the first is a potentially perverse incentive.
The people who are getting to decide whether or not you have to show your papers may have an interest in you showing your papers when it's really about their benefit and not yours.
But then the fact that the medical system is so broken that there is no reason that we should assume that they actually know what they're doing.
The papers and then the products that we would be asked to be forced to reveal that we have taken on the papers that we have to show are not a legitimate ask.
They're just not.
Well, I wanted to come back to this at the end, and maybe we will again.
But I think as true as what you said is, and as profound as it is, it's The truth is so much more extreme.
If you use COVID to diagnose the quality of the evaluation inside the global public health apparatus, how much did these people get right?
Right?
The answer is even, we could imagine a world in which the who Had done a great job.
Had really reduced the amount of death and suffering on Earth.
Had reduced the spread of the virus.
You can imagine a world in which you had a well-functioning global public health apparatus.
If you handed that thing, this document, It would still be an unmitigated disaster for sovereignty and individual rights.
Yes.
The idea of handing this document to an apparatus that has just proven it doesn't, either doesn't, give a shit about people suffering and dying, or is incapable of protecting them, even if it did.
I mean, why not both?
I think it doesn't have the capacity because we can see, everyone can now see, Like, most doctors don't know what they're doing.
They don't understand diagnosis, they don't understand what disease is, they don't understand that actually the health of the body pre-exposure to the disease is going to affect how sick you get.
It is simply unthinkable that you would take an entity that had That had failed as badly as the Who failed and award them any more powers.
This makes no sense.
Quite the opposite would be the right reaction.
What capacity does this organization have that we should remove from it in light of the fact that it appears to be incompetent or worse?
There is something about the contrast between what we just lived through, which tells us everything you need to know about what these people do with power, and the idea that we are going to hand them, you know, Levels of power that are, until now, unthinkable.
We are talking about global power over the citizens of the world, this organization which has served us so poorly.
So, again, I, like you, I don't know what to think about vaccine cards and nations requiring you to take these things in order to go to x, y, and z place.
At least I know I have the right to decide not to go there.
Right.
Right?
I do retain the right not to take a yellow fever vaccination if I deem that dangerous.
You're right.
The very fact that we allowed this, it's not that there's no way it could work that would make sense and protect your rights, but the idea that we just simply accepted it, like so many things, right?
I accepted vaccination, we accepted vaccination for our kids, and it's not that there's anything wrong with the idea.
Not COVID.
Right.
We accepted it in a general sense before we understood the problem of adjuvants and the role they were playing in these corner-cutting vaccine technologies.
And, you know, it's a warning.
We should have scrutinized this stuff a long time ago.
And we didn't in part because they did such a good job of portraying people who did scrutinize them as morally defective demons.
That's right.
So that mostly covers what I wanted to say about Article 23, health measures on arrival and departure, but there are a couple of interesting things here.
Including documents containing information for a lab test.
So things that you might be asked to show upon arriving or departing from some sovereign state, but not sovereign anymore if the WHO is declaring what it can tell the sovereign state to require.
Of people visiting, including documents containing information for a lab test in digital or physical format, including documents containing information on a laboratory test for a pathogen and or information on vaccination against a disease.
This is a new paragraph in the proposed revisions.
So I include that.
This is a new paragraph in the proposed revisions.
Documents containing information concerning traveler's destination should preferably be produced in digital form with paper form as a residual option.
So I include that.
If I can have my screen back here, I just want to scroll through and not make people dizzy.
They are talking about requiring all sorts of things.
Here you can show my screen again here.
This is article 35, several down.
Health documents may be produced in digital or paper form.
So they want your arrival, the documents saying where you're going to preferably be in digital form.
Why do they care particularly about that?
Health documents may be produced in digital or paper form.
Is that just a nod to the fact that Generally, if you're traveling, where you're going exists in electronic form, and so if you can, you should show it in electronic form.
And in many parts of the world, your health documents don't exist in the paper or digital form.
Or is this them going, okay, we understand this can't happen yet, but really, we want everything digital.
We want to move everything digital.
Everything has to be electronic, which, you know, again, sounds easier.
It sounds traceable.
It sounds like you end up with a common place where everything lives.
And paper makes more sense under a lot of circumstances and is preferable for the human being, but not for the entity who would track that human being.
Well, there are a couple things in this document.
I think you're going to bring some of them up here shortly.
There are a couple things in this document that appear to work in the direction of people's rights.
And I must tell you, given what's in this document, I don't trust it for a second.
My guess is these things will be potentially used to get people to relax, and then they will quietly be changed in the next iteration or whatever it is.
But my interpretation of the Desire for electronic form.
Obviously, any person can recognize that there's a lot of advantage in the electronic, just at a practical level.
You know, if it's a card in your electronic wallet, you're not going to lose it in the way that you might lose an actual card.
But my expectation is that so many of these mechanisms of control come down to things that they can revoke.
And you can imagine if you need documents that demonstrate your status relative to their mandate in order to cross borders, that they can imprison you by, you know, if they can close your bank account because you say things that they decide are intolerable, Can they freeze you in place?
Can they effectively lock you personally down by invalidating your electronic certificate?
You maybe can't lose the card in your electronic wallet, but they could.
But they can't lose the physical card in your physical wallet.
These people are so hell-bent on their right to extrapolate from simplistic conclusions about who is good and who is bad and who is putting the world in jeopardy that they feel entitled to do it.
Look, hey, if you are the son of a bitch spreading information that is causing the world to be in jeopardy of Pathogen X, Then we obviously have the right to do anything to stop you because you're typhoid Mary.
So, you know, what does that include?
Well, it includes messing with you.
It includes interfering with your ability to earn.
It includes interfering with your ability to keep your money safe, to spend it as you would like.
to move from one place to another.
The point is, once they decide that because you are an unacceptable person, they have any right that they wish in order to control you, then we have to start getting imaginative about all of the ways in which they might control us because really this is our only hope for retaining our individual sovereignty.
Yep.
Yeah.
And as you alluded to, there are a couple of bones that we've been thrown in this document.
Here we have one in Article 36, Certificates of Vaccination or Other Prophylaxis.
Other types of proofs and certificates may be used by parties to attest the holder's status as having a decreased risk of being the disease carrier, particularly where a vaccine or prophylaxis has not yet been made available for a disease in respect of which a public health emergency of international concern has been declared.
Such proofs may include test certificates and recovery certificates.
Recovery certificates!
I read that and thought, there's one little bone.
Right?
There was a lot, there was a lot, sort of mid-pandemic, about how just because you've had COVID doesn't mean you can't, you don't need to show proof of vaccination in order to get into, you know, fill in the venue of your choice here.
And, um, While COVID does seem to be remarkably adept at changing out from under us and eluding both natural immunity and vaccine-induced immunity to the degree that it exists, natural immunity has always been the best form of immunity to disease, and here we are, recovery certificates.
Thank you, I guess.
Well, so here's the problem, and let's just be straightforward about this.
I am engaging in an exercise In which I am allowing my imagination to spot how these things will be turned against us, because obviously the alteration to this document is hostile to our interests as individuals.
Right.
So, in that vein, I do not believe it is paranoid to think, how might this, what appears to be a concession to natural immunity, be a weapon?
And here's what I'm wondering.
given all of the other provisions that we've talked about, their ability to redistribute tests and materials and-- - Health products. - Health products as they wish.
And given that there's no way that the sons of bitches who are going to mandate that they are allowed to edit our genes or force updates on our immune system, there's no way those people are going to accept the same for themselves.
And so by creating this, if I can't get a test that says I've recovered from pathogen X, but they can get a test that says they've recovered from pathogen X, and therefore they are excluded from their mandate, but I am not, right?
They win.
So Whereas the first time that you read that provision to me, I thought, yeah, okay, they'll pull it later.
Now I wonder if it's not part of a shell game where the idea is they actually want a way out because they know they can keep me from accessing it and they can use it so that the explanation for why they never got their so-called vaccine, well, they'd recover from the disease, right?
It's right there in the document.
Yeah.
Okay, two more.
Article 43, Additional Health Measures.
From the original, these regulations shall not preclude states parties from implementing health measures in accordance with their relevant national law and obligations under international law in response to specific public health risks or public health emergencies of international concern.
I'm going to read the original that I've got highlighted here and then read the modifications.
Such measures shall not be more restrictive of international traffic and not more invasive or intrusive to persons than reasonably available alternatives that attain the no sorry okay I'm going to try to read the original again.
Such measures shall not be more restrictive of international traffic and not more invasive or intrusive to persons than reasonably available alternatives that would achieve attain No, I think it's an error.
It's an error.
Attain should be in bold.
Yeah.
Right.
OK, so I'm sorry, guys, I'm going to try again.
Such measures shall not be more restrictive of international traffic and not more invasive or intrusive to persons than reasonably available alternatives that would achieve the appropriate level of health protection.
Achieve the appropriate level of health protection, as it read in the original 2005 document.
Proposed amendments.
Such measures shall be based on regular risk assessments, provide a proportionate response to the specific public health risks, be reviewed on a regular basis, and shall not be more restrictive of international traffic and not more invasive or intrusive to persons than reasonably available alternatives that would attain the highest achievable level of health protection.
Ouch.
Yeah.
So I don't know what you see there, but I see lots of games that they played during COVID for which they are now stacking the deck to make those games more effective.
And that would achieve the appropriate level of health protection.
Appropriate is also gameable, right?
It's subjective, but would attain the highest achievable level.
Right.
Oh, yes, I know you've tried.
But you haven't gone as high as you can.
And we are here to tell you what the highest achievable level is and to enforce that.
Well, I take it as a little bit more specific.
If the point is appropriate protection could be achieved by a great many approaches.
Highest is by definition one.
And in a world where they can game the statistics and the academic publications to make things look highly efficacious through tricks like the one that Martin Neal and Norman Fenton pointed to, then the point is all they have to do
is make some claim that they can point to that this is the most effective way to deal with pathogen x and then the point is well it doesn't really matter what else you got going because it ain't the highest no we got we got to get to the highest so they can shove any alternative off the map by just simply setting a thing that says only the highest and then they can game that one Which, of course, is also, once again, not how evolution works, not how pathogens work, right?
No thing in an evolving system is going to be now and forever be the most effective treatment against a pathogen that will evolve out from under your treatment, right?
It is impossible.
And so they are imagining, they are trying to implement a static set of top-down authoritarian rules in a world which everyone knows is not static.
What's more, so they've set a remedies, come in a variety of whatevers, but there's a highest, it belongs to us, and you'll take it because you don't have anything that's the highest, do you?
And then the other thing that they do is they say regular risk assessments.
Well, what the hell did they do with risk assessment in this pandemic?
They completely gamed it to the point that people died in large numbers from their protocols, which they then counted as deaths that followed from the disease rather than from their reaction to it, which then caused the disease to look a great deal more deadly than it actually was.
And so the point is, what they're carving out is, hey, we would like to define a set of standards.
The only standards we will accept are the ones that we are expert at gaming, that we have completely rigged to the point that there is nothing you could possibly come up with that would deviate our course.
We want to be able to rationalize a policy on the basis of a risk assessment that will be nonsense and the set of remedies which will be narrowed to one.
That's what that paragraph says.
And that paragraph alone is a direct hit on your medical sovereignty and informed consent.
And it's, you know, one of dozens here that are being altered in dramatic and dire ways.
Yes, indeed it is.
Okay, one more.
Article 48.
Article 48.
Terms of Reference and Composition.
Unchanged from the original.
The Director General shall establish an emergency committee that, at the request of the Director General, shall provide its views on a. whether an event constitutes a public health emergency of international concern, b. the termination of a public health emergency of international concern, and c. the proposed issuance, modification, extension, or termination of temporary recommendations.
Okay.
Who shall make up the Emergency Committee, do you think?
Again, unchanged from the original 2005 document, the Director General shall select the members of the Emergency Committee on the basis of the expertise and experience required for any particular session and with due regard to the principles of equitable geographic representation.
Proposed modifications?
The Director General shall select the members of the Emergency Committee on the basis of the expertise and experience required for any particular session, and with due regard to the principles of equitable age, gender, and geographical representation, and gender balance, and require training in these regulations before participation.
In an emergency, they need to form a committee that is gender balanced Because that's what the world looks like.
Because having a committee that thinks it's a small world ride at Disneyland is more important than actually getting the best possible people together in a room to figure out what is going on.
Maybe all the best people to figure out a particular health risk that is happening, maybe because it's actually affecting mostly women, are all women.
Maybe it's mostly men.
Either way, the idea that an equitable age and gender distribution, and then specifying gender balance, is part of this?
They just revealed even more of their cards.
This is unbelievable!
It's an unthinkable priority.
It's unthinkable!
The idea that you are going to prioritize the rights To be in the room over the rights of planet Earth to get the best possible expertise that it could possibly gather is, it's batshit crazy.
And I don't even know what they got hiding over in age space.
Like, are they going to ask five-year-olds?
Like, it's one thing to point to, you know, the U.S.
and the politicians be like, for, you know, for sake, boomers move along, right?
But it's quite another thing to say equitable age.
From what to what?
What are your max and min on that?
So, again, hoarding discretion is what they're doing.
Right.
So imagine that you're going to put a bunch of parameters... Do you remember when George Bridges created a committee to do his bidding?
President Evergreen, President George Bridges.
Evergreen, President George Bridges.
And he handpicked the members of a committee that then turned the college upside down on his behalf.
Handpicked the members of a committee who had the most grievances against everyone.
Right, but imagine that you had a list of characteristics that sounded very noble that was going to dictate who might be on this committee and then somebody proposes somebody inconvenient for the committee and it's like, well...
The problem is we have too many people in this age demographic, or too many people who are, you know, between five foot six and five foot nine, and whatever it is... And this is kind of directly relevant, but not exactly on point here.
I had this happen when I was chairing the provost committee at Evergreen some years before.
We had someone come in from HR and say, But you don't have any applicants from the South Pacific, I kid you not!
South Pacific!
And I'm like, huh, that's amazing that that's the group that we now have to care about the most.
It was South Pacific Islanders.
And then we then had to put ads out in the relevant places.
Unbelievable!
Right.
But the point is, it's just like, look, if you need a bespoke obstacle at a moment because your attempt to create a committee that will rubber stamp whatever garbage you're putting together, then the point is you want a long list of things to which you might appeal at the relevant moment.
And that's what they're doing.
It just doesn't stop.
It just doesn't stop.
I mean, I'm going to stop now, because that's... Well, so you're done with provisions?
I'm done with articles and provisions, and I mean, it goes on and on and on, but I'm going to stop now.
There's a whole level of this... Oh wait, the Compliance Committee shall be authorized.
Okay.
There's a whole level of this document that we're not getting to, which involves the who's right to control what we talk about.
Okay?
So, I'll make this point simply.
A lot of what this document means can be understood just simply by rerunning the COVID pandemic under these new provisions.
Now, of course, Goliath, whatever he is composed of and whatever his game really is, Goliath is livid that his narrative collapsed under the pressure of people who weren't supposed to be listened to.
He had accumulated, he had hoarded tools with which to ruin the reputation of anybody who had expertise, who stood up, anybody like you and me who managed to figure out How to talk about these issues in real time, to simplify them so that people could understand what was being said, right?
He knew that he owned all the properties needed to ruin us, and it didn't work.
And what happened is, his narrative completely collapsed.
And I will point out, we have currently something like a 2% acceptance rate of the new boosters for COVID.
Two?
I believe so.
Wow.
And Pfizer's stock price is in collapse.
Okay?
He doesn't want to live through that again.
Maybe they'll sacrifice Pfizer.
Frankly, maybe they've even shorted Pfizer, and they're going to allow Pfizer to capsize, and we're all going to imagine that the Wicked Witch is dead, but the Wicked Witch is just the other pharmacist now.
So, who knows?
We beat their narrative with basically what I would argue are grassroots institutions that sprung up to discuss the failures of the established institutions.
That's what happened.
It happened in places it shouldn't have happened.
It happened on podcasts, which are not the appropriate place to be discussing science at this level, but nonetheless it had to be done somewhere.
So speakeasies happened, they were on podcasts, it allowed discussion of the relevant things, and Goliath is pissed.
So, Goliath has arranged that next time the public health emergency will allow the who to dictate what is discussable and what isn't and by whom.
And so there are a lot of direct attacks on our sovereignty as individuals capable of having a conversation about what our interests might be and our informed consent.
So I would just ask people To pay attention to that whole other line of attack, because if you think about the WHO being in a position to define people as unforgivably mal-informed because the public health demands it and, you know, to have the, you know, what would it be to have their, I don't know, their right to think squeezed right out of them, then
This is the document, and it's actually two documents.
There's a treaty-level thing and a much more structural-level thing.
You don't mean that we have only been looking at one of the two documents.
You're talking about it's working at two levels.
It is a pair of sets of provisions that function differently under WHO rules.
So anyway, let's leave it at that.
You can go and you can look at the John Campbell video.
It covers this.
We have a whole, an attack across the entirety of the places where we actually succeeded under COVID, and it is going to, if we don't derail it, it is going to be a disaster going forward.
They will define emergencies that may not be emergencies, or they will capitalize on emergencies that are emergencies, and we will discover what all of this stuff is for then.
And I guess the final thing I would say is, The real public health emergency is this treaty change, right?
This is a public health emergency.
People are going to die as a result of the powers that these people are carving out for themselves.
They have their own objectives.
We don't know what they are, but from the point of view of the public health, this document is the public health emergency and we should treat it as such.
Yes, indeed.
Well, um, Should we stop there and go to our Q&A, or do you want to touch a few more things?
A couple more things that we should talk about.
All right.
One, in thinking about a great many issues in the last week, I came up with something that I thought was useful, and people will find it irresistible to map it onto the current crisis.
I would be lying if I didn't think it did map onto the current crisis, but it is much more general and much more useful because it is not specifically about the current crisis.
So, Zach, would you show my tweet of this?
Okay, so I said, the formula, colon, a complex story suddenly becomes the irresistible focus of public attention.
Most people have no background knowledge about the relevant influences, technical aspects, or hidden stakeholders.
The story has an intuitive human element, a moral dimension that forces everyone to react.
Complexity is artificially reduced to a binary choice.
Those who explore extra dimensions, notice inconsistencies, or apply historical lessons are publicly punished for an inferred moral defect.
Those who have fallen for the false dichotomy pile on, intimidating and isolating those who reject the simplification.
Now I think that this is actually a A pretty good map of their playbook.
There are forces that want us to do things.
They are incapable of manipulating us individually.
So what they do is they get us to do their bidding for them.
We are swept into things.
Or reasons that we think we understand and we do not understand what else is in play and I just want to I do want to point out one thing about the Barbaric Hamas attacks and the way that they fit with this and I'm a little hesitant to do it because I don't really want to pollute the observation about this pattern with the particulars of any story but one thing that I think is
Causing people not to think carefully in the current crisis is that there is one layer of it that is actually, unusually, perfectly clear.
Right?
There is no ambiguity whatsoever about the evil of Hamas.
Hamas made certain that we would understand that.
They bent over backwards to make sure that we saw it with our own eyes.
And they were so over the top in their barbarity that any person who doesn't get it, any person who is not perfectly horrified at the idea of the way some of the victims died is just simply an incomplete person.
There's no way you could understand what took place at the hands of Hamas.
There's no nuance there.
None.
They made sure of it.
And on the other hand, the victims were overwhelmingly just citizens, right?
It wasn't even, there was no parsing, it wasn't even that they went after men, right?
These were just citizens.
Men, women, children, innocent people going about their lives who came into contact with absolute monsters.
And it is that simplicity, that layer, that has no need for nuance.
There is no nuance.
Anybody who's arguing for nuance at that layer is just... I mean, I don't even know how to describe the failure of anybody who is attempting to apply nuance to that layer.
But my point is, the human mind is not good at dealing with a situation in which there is a layer that is so black and white, and then seeing the layers in which there is something else, whatever it is.
And I am watching with horror people react to the one layer that is so clear, and because of that they are losing their capacity to think about layers that are not perfectly clear.
And it is frightening, frankly.
It is frightening.
I have the sense that whatever we learned about Mass formation.
I don't think we fully get it yet.
Different people are bewildered by different crises.
Some people get one crisis and they miss the next.
I'm not quite sure how it all fits together, but the number of people who, because there is one crystal clear layer, cannot figure out that the other layers are not something to skip over.
That they all have to be dealt with.
Can I actually read something about this moment that is relevant to what you were talking about?
You can show my screen here, Zach.
What I posted on Natural Selections today is a short piece that I call A Kind of Winning, the shape of this moment in time, an allusion to the Pink Floyd lyrics that we talked about on the last episode of Dark Horse.
I'm not going to read the beginning.
We are being played.
Yes, there will always be conflict.
Yes, resources are finite and far too many people have far too few of them.
Yes, people will come to different conclusions about what to do based on what their priorities are, who they know, what they are being told, what lives they themselves have lived.
But there are forces that profit by keeping us confused, wary, and at each other's throats.
Those forces are profiting now.
So, the chaos and hysteria that is downstream of the barbaric attacks by Hamas on Israeli civilians on October 7th was predictable.
People in both camps are willing to conflate civilians with the terrorist organizations or governments that claim to represent them.
Israelis are not their government.
Only one Israeli is Benjamin Netanyahu.
Palestinians are not Hamas.
A large fraction of people in Gaza are children.
But while condemning the rape, murder, and kidnapping of festival-goers should have been easy and obvious for everyone, it was not.
Many instead are celebrating the brutality of Hamas.
My friend Holly has pointed out that we got here in part by ignoring far too many warning signs.
Welcome to the world of intersectionality, she writes.
Anyone with any identity characteristics that rank high on the oppression scale is due respect, trust, deference, and entitled to have their feelings catered to to the fullest extent possible.
The forces that profit from our exquisite rage only need convince us that having dark skin or being Palestinian, for instance, are the most deserving identity characteristics.
Add the divisive ideology of the moment and voila!
Bickering on a scale to end civilization.
That post-modern inflected identity politics would spill off campus in explosive and awful ways was predicted in 2018 in testimony before Congress by you.
And I encourage people to click on that and watch that testimony.
It's 15 minutes long.
It's extraordinary.
This was not long after he and I were rejected, you and I were rejected, from our own campus for objecting to racism that was passing itself off as the opposite.
Now, finally, the wealthy donors that so heavily fund our elite institutions have woken up and are beginning to pull their funds.
And now, finally, the institutions are beginning to listen.
What the left has become in recent years is a vengeful, hateful ideology that prioritizes immutable characteristics and would have its way through authoritarian means.
Black Lives Matter is racist at its core, but many liberals were fooled by the name it gave to itself.
The footnote there is, I was too at first.
Some of those liberals erected Don't Hurt Me walls to protect themselves, others spilled out onto the streets.
There is some truth to horseshoe theory.
Yasmin Mohammed is a prominent human rights campaigner who, at 19, was married off to a member of Al-Qaeda by her mother.
She had an interview published this week which I hope has reach.
In it, she reports that her father, now dead, was from Gaza.
Gaza was his homeland.
He was also a loving man, a generous man, and his heart broke for the inability of the region to find peace.
He blamed Hamas for this failure.
Muhammad's mother, in stark contrast, is filled with hatred for Jews, but also for apostates.
When Yasmin left Islam, her mother told her that she would have Yasmin killed.
The anti-Semitism of sheltered white Western liberals does not have the same origins as the anti-Semitism of Yasmin Muhammad's mother.
But hatred finds common ground, and from there, it grows.
But all is not lost.
And I go on not too much longer.
It all fits together in ways that we have not fully figured out, but resisting the would-be tyranny of the who is another place where reading the abstract and saying, I'm sure it'll be fine, is not going to be sufficient.
Reading, not even reading the abstract, just taking one of, I said this to you the other day, it's like We have been tricked into believing that life is a multiple-choice test, and that we are being constantly handed multiple-choice answers to issues and questions as they arise.
And when those of us who were never interested in multiple-choice tests because we knew it didn't reflect reality, it could not reflect any kind of complexity, Say, not A, not B, not C, not D, none of those, but not any of what you have offered is not sufficient.
I want to figure out what, yes.
Then we get back to what you were saying.
We are engaging in some sort of awful, awful behavior that cannot be... no one will stand for it.
Because how could we not stick to the Scantron?
How could we not just take the multiple choice test as it's offered?
So I want to speak to what I think is the upshot of what you're saying.
There is a pattern of history.
It is relentless.
There is the modern version of that pattern, which is new in some ways and familiar in others.
It seems obvious to me that the proper response, that is to say the only response that actually, in my opinion, leaves human beings on a tolerably intact planet 500 years from now, is going to involve making deeply counterintuitive moves.
To the extent that there are answers, it involves not becoming reflexive and doing what it is that seems obvious that you must do in the moment.
Which doesn't mean that reflex is never the right thing, but it means, as you point out, that our reflexes are being utilized.
to control us.
And that has put me in what I regard as a very unpleasant position trying to make certain points that I believe are vital in this context.
In other words, I'm trying to not see the clarity of that very clear layer and be forced to embrace a set of things that are unclear because I want to proclaim just how on the right side I am.
Right?
So, there is some set of things that we have to address, complexities that are real, that have nothing to do with the innocence of the victims or the monstrousness of the villains.
Right?
They really don't.
But they do have to do with our collective well-being, they have to do with the long-term well-being of Israel and, frankly, Palestine.
Both of those things are tied up in this, and we have to behave counter-intuitively, which is...
So desperately unpleasant to attempt because what happens, as I described in my formula for how this game works, people who are good people who do not know that they are participating in it are trying to turn up the heat so hot that you are forced to bail out into the established camps.
And what that means is that if you try this, you try not to be forced, Then what you end up with is accusations that you are falling flat with respect to the morally unambiguous stuff.
The deepest parts of your character are called into question.
And it doesn't matter that you know that this is a bad rap.
The point is even just seeing yourself portrayed that way is so unpleasant that That it works.
That people jump.
And, um, I would... I don't know what I'm asking people to do, but just think about whether or not, because there's a part of your mind that sees something very, very clear in front of you, and you want everybody else to see it too, whether or not you are actually reducing the dimensionality of a puzzle.
At the bottom level, perfectly clear.
At other levels, Strange and everything is riding on it and we you know, there is no in a circumstance where there is the world has so much riding on what happens a rush to any conclusion.
Is a mistake and it is it is the desire not to leave a conversation in which we are, you know Questioning the innocence of the victims that is causing people to say no Actually, this is the moment to rush and that is I swear to you.
It's a mistake.
It's a terrible terrible mistake for the world there there are forces out there that There are forces out there, frankly, that like war for economic reasons, right?
Are you certain they're not in play here?
Really?
How could you be?
How could anyone be?
So we have to, we have to, we have to engage this better and it's significant.
Can we end on what normally would be really a very dark note, but I think in this context is actually a lighter note.
I have no idea where we're going.
Can you want to play that video from the, what is it, the Democratic Party of Canada?
National Democratic Party of Canada.
Yeah.
All right.
So take a listen.
A reminder that we will enforce gender parity at the mics and Adrienne explained the process with the yellow card as well.
So please remember to give space to those who face systemic barriers and discrimination, including women, black, indigenous, and racialized folk in particular, people living with disabilities, and 2SLGBTQIA plus folk.
Our convention has special speaker priority for gender equity.
If you identify with a gender other than men for the purpose of the equity seeking rule, you will have received a piece of yellow card stock during the registration process.
So please raise this piece of yellow card stock when you arrive at the mic so that myself and Adrian as chairs can identify you easily.
If you don't have one, there will be additional cards available at the mics.
As always, if you require support, please flag a volunteer and they will be happy to assist you.
As New Democrats, we strive to create inclusive spaces where everyone gets a voice at the table.
There is also a roving mic for anyone with accessibility needs.
So please, you know, I think we have set up almost everyone who's got accessibility needs, but if not, please raise your hand and someone will come and help you.
What about the agoraphobiacs?
Who couldn't go out to the conference in the first place?
Do they have a roving mic that roves into people's homes?
I hope!
I mean, and what is a racialized person?
Also, they started the LGBTQ acronym begins now with 2S, which just now it's 2S, it stands for two spirit, which just in case people don't know, and I've written about this before my subject, is literally an invention from a conference in the 1980s.
in the 1980s.
Okay.
So, who are these people?
It's actually, we got it wrong.
It is the new Democratic Party of Canada, I'm not sure.
Doesn't matter.
Okay.
Speaks for itself.
She does anyway.
Yeah, she does.
Well, so there are a couple of observations.
First of all, this is now?
Yes.
I couldn't resist.
God.
This caused me to want somebody to put on a comedy routine.
A comedy routine would involve A set that looks exactly like that, with a person that looks exactly like her, and would say exactly what she said, in exactly the way she said it.
And I think it will be hilarious.
But I mean, and my other thought was, what is this?
How will you find the talent to pull that off, though?
Impossible, but nonetheless, I can dream.
That's a thought experiment, so, you know, it's got a big budget.
I hope so.
But it strikes me that, what am I looking at?
This seems like, this seems like the orientation to Utopia.
That's what the orientation to Utopia would sound like, right?
Unless you're a, what was it, a gender identifying as male?
Or a something, something gender male?
Yeah, if you identify as a gender other than male, then you can speak, and it involves something about a yellow card.
Papers?
Papers!
Right.
My other thought, which it occurred to me as I was watching, it was reminding me there was something in the back of my head I couldn't get out of, like, this reminds me of something.
What does it?
The movie Brazil, maybe?
No.
Okay.
It's the movie Bananas.
Oh.
So for those who don't know, I feel like I must have spoken about this somewhere, but back in the early days when we got our first VCR, we had a few tapes.
I don't know where they came from.
One of them was the movie Bananas, and so I must have seen it a dozen times.
But You're talking about your childhood home?
Oh yeah.
Okay.
Yeah, yeah.
Anyway, Bananas was a Woody Allen movie in which Woody Allen, the Ned Bushy... Same character he always plays.
Yeah, same character he always plays, is trying to get laid.
And the woman that he encounters, who becomes the focus of his intentions, is a deeply committed liberal who is impassioned about a revolution in a fictional It's Dianne Keaton in bananas?
I think so.
And so anyway, he ends up through a series of events in San Marcos, the country, and drafted in, he becomes a highly placed person in the revolution, and the revolution does manage to eliminate the dictator.
The revolution about which he cares not at all, he's just trying to get into Dianne Keaton's pants.
Just trying to get laid.
Anyway, there's a scene where the general, who is a decent character until the revolution wins, is addressing the population of the country in the aftermath of his victory.
And he says, uh, by the way, please forgive me for this.
It's even worse than my singing, but he says, citizens of San Marcos, I am your new president.
From this day on, the official language of San Marcos will be Swedish.
Silence!
Nobody has said it.
He says that.
All children under 16 years old are now 16 years old.
All children under 16 years old are now 16 years old.
Citizens may be required to change their underwear every half hour. - I know.
Underwear will be worn on the outside so we can check.
And then his second in command says from off camera...
Power has driven him mad.
Well, that is what even the cadences of this woman describing the rules of whether or not you get to talk at this conference of New Democrats in Canada reminds me so.
It just sounds like this speech.
Power has driven them mad.
Yeah.
Oh, man.
Underwear will be worn on the outside.
So we can check.
Yep.
That's where we are.
That is where we are.
I'm terrible.
But somehow... Well, actually, you know what?
I mean, Forgive me for this too, but because of a very dire multi-millennium history of oppression and genocide and anti-Semitism, Jews are weird.
And the ability to Laugh in the most dire of circumstances is important, and one doesn't want to abuse it, but I think the recognition that this is a terrible, terrible moment in history for many reasons that are some obvious and some less so.
But anyway, we need every tool at our disposal to get through it, and that includes humor.
I hope I'm an honorary Jew for the moment, then.
Well, one of these days, we are going to get to a discussion about the way culture works, and you're not an honorary Jew.
You have picked up many Jewish characteristics, and frankly, most modern Jews have picked up characteristics from other populations, too, that have altered the fundamental rules of how we interact with each other.
This is the nature of being human.
I guess I will say one more thing.
I spoke this morning with my oldest, dearest friend, who, like you, is Ashkenazi Jewish, and she has family in southern Israel near Gaza, and they're alive.
But one of the things she said to me was, without having heard anything that you had said, or I had said, you know, she's been staying out of media, which I think is healthy.
It was so much like what we were talking about on the last show.
She said, I was talking about our upcoming travels on business and I have to just flip a switch.
I have to do something different.
And she said, Yes, this is all.
What is happening in Israel is all that many of us can think about, and many of us have loved ones who are in danger, or who have actually been harmed.
But if we allow ourselves to only do that, then they have won.
And so there are other things that we need to do in the world, there are other things that we are about in the world, and if we Imagine that the only work that we can do right now is hold that space for the people who are suffering and think about nothing else.
Then Hamas won, and no one wants Hamas to win.
No.
Hamas must be ended.
It must be destroyed, and the world will be better off.
And I hope it happens soon.
Indeed.
All right, we are going to do a Q&A today.
It's going to be somewhat brief, but we'll be back in 15 minutes, and then we're not going to have another live stream for a little over three weeks.
Three weeks from tomorrow we'll be back, but we'll be showing up on locals at least At least once or twice from other places.
And there will be some great guest episodes dropping in the interim, so tune into those.
And if you have not, listen to the – I never remember her whole name.
Ephrat Phenixon.
Phenixon.
Ephrat Phenixon episode.
The conversation that you had with Ephrat last week.
Please consider doing that.
It's very, very powerful.
Check out our new store, Blueberries, because oxidants happen.
Jake's Micro Pizza, I'll put on a mask when I'm done eating.
Yeah.
Pfizer, breakthroughs never stop.
And much others as well.
That's darkhorsestore.org.
You can ask questions for the upcoming Q&A at darkhorsesubmissions.com.
And we've got lots of places to find us, My Natural Selections, my sub stack, but really the place that we'd love for you to come if you're looking for a place to be able to find us and help support us.
is join the Rumble Channel and join us on Locals.
And on Locals, there's access to a lot of stuff.
We've got a private monthly Q&A.
We do AMAs from time to time.
We're releasing the guest episodes a day early on for, no, sometimes.
Sometimes, I'm told by our producer.
And you can access the Discord channel there.
So lots of great stuff.
And I feel like I'm forgetting all sorts of things.
Consider our sponsors this week, The Wellness Company, Hillsdale College, and Un-Cruise.
And remember to like, subscribe, share, and talk.
Talk with one another.
Talk with people you think you're going to disagree with.
Talk with people you think you're going to agree with.
And maybe find that the opposite is true in both cases, and that you can learn from one another regardless.
So until we see you next time, be good to the ones you love, eat good food, and get outside.
