All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 21, 2023 - Stew Peters Show
42:29
Uncensored: James Roguski - The WHO PLOWS Ahead While World is Distracted!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
We'll be right back.
We'll be right back.
Of course, we should be.
The loss of human life is never, never acceptable, especially when it's constantly promoted by those who seek to gain from it.
But in the meantime, the key players of the ones who plan to continue to perpetuate the loss of human life, I'm talking about the World Health Organization and the various three-letter agencies, are plotting right ahead.
In fact, we just had a World Health Summit where Karl Lauterbach The German health minister just said that basically we have an infodemic against us.
Social media is full of information against us.
Yes, it is.
And for a good reason.
And he says that the gentleman speaking after him says that essentially the only voices that are allowed to be heard and that should be heard are the scientists, the experts.
Take a look at this clip.
If we do not support these 40 countries with money and institutions that they govern themselves, then we will not be better prepared, but maybe worse prepared, because we now have also the info and then a pandemic against us,
where, let's say, everything that we do is basically questions by a social media war, which will make it way more difficult to organize a response The other issue, as we are with the virus, is communication and disinformation.
And this is such a complex issue.
There are many media people here who exactly know what I'm speaking about.
This is really the intervention in the beginning of a pandemic.
So there are two interventions that are really efficient before we have a drug or vaccine.
This is diagnostic testing and then it's political decision-making.
And once this political decision-making is influenced and contorted by disinformation and propaganda, we are lost.
And there are roles that are not being fulfilled by the media themselves.
They really have to look in the mirror.
And there is another role that's sometimes ignored a little bit, which is the role of science itself.
So we shouldn't have anybody who has some academic degree talking about the heart of the issue in the middle of a pandemic.
We have to address the institutions of science to make some selection to set up panels of experts who are really experts and who wouldn't push into the media but who are somehow qualified to Summarize the state of knowledge and this can only happen via the institutions of science.
These institutions have to offer this function to society.
And these institutions of science, they are actually consisting of scientists, of top scientists, and it's really about being a little bit less opportunistic as a scientist, being a little bit more of service to society.
Only the scientists should be speaking.
No one that is carefully assessing what we're actually saying in the heart of the issues should have a voice.
It should only be the experts because we're getting way too much criticism on social media and people actually dissecting what it means to give over every single individual's medical decisions to the WHO. Unbelievable.
Well, James Rogoski is going to join us in a moment to discuss the December 1 deadline, what this means, the new CA Plus draft that's come out.
Here's James Rogoski.
James Rogoski, thank you so much for joining us today.
We appreciate your time and all of your efforts, previous time and future time.
Well, you know, it's always a pleasure, Maria.
Thank you so much.
There is so much going on.
I'm going to have to learn how to talk faster.
So let's pack in as much as we can into the time we have.
Absolutely.
Well, I think that you've done a tremendous job raising the awareness about what the WHO is up to, what the medical dictatorship that they are trying to set up worldwide.
A lot of people are starting to pay attention.
More podcasts are talking about it.
But there is still a lot of confusion around timelines, treaties, pandemic accords, amendments to the IHR. You and I have done a broadcast to clarify this in the past, but now we have a new draft of the CA Plus in the mix as well.
So I thought, let's get this clarified so that as public awareness grows, we can be sure of the facts.
You know, I appreciate the fact that you said CA+. And I'm going to guess that most of the people in the audience said, what did she say?
Because that's actually the name that the WHO uses to refer to it.
And it comes from Article 19 of their constitution.
They're allowed, they're authorized to negotiate a convention or agreement.
That is not the same as a treaty.
And that is probably all anybody really needs to know about this new document, which interestingly is smaller than the previous version.
And so they just published and they're circulating quietly an unedited draft, so it'll probably change a little bit.
They're hoping to give us a trick-or-treat around Halloween and give us the official version.
Most people call this the pandemic treaty.
And I've done it in the past, so okay, I'm guilty too.
But there's a difference between a treaty and a convention.
And so a treaty is something that people say, well, you put words on paper, you agree to it, you sign off on it, you're done.
A convention is way worse.
It is so nefarious.
I honestly think the concept comes straight from Satan himself.
It's evil.
What it does is it says, We're going to agree to a bunch of words on paper that nobody's really going to pay any attention to.
Let's whittle it down and whittle it down so that we get an agreement, because what we're really agreeing to is in Chapter 3.
And in Chapter 3, it sets up a Conference of the Parties, or COP, C-O-P, Conference of the Parties.
A bunch of bureaucrats who every year would meet at the same time that the World Health Assembly meets, either before, during, after, whatever, and they would get to write all the detailed protocols year after year after year after year.
And you or I will not have anything to say about that.
But it's like you were signing a contract with somebody and they put a bunch of blank pieces of paper in and said, don't worry about that.
We'll have our people fill that in later.
Just go right ahead and sign.
That is what they are tricking nations into doing.
And they did it numerous times before, not the least of which is the Framework Convention on Climate Change from 1992.
Ask yourself, how's that working out?
You put a bunch of people in charge.
You give them authority to write detailed rules.
At the beginning of December, they're going to be having Conference of the Parties 28 for climate change.
And so you sit back and you wonder why the world is so crazy.
It's because our dumb politicians back in 1992 were all proud.
Oh, they made an agreement to save the climate, you know, treat climate change and save the world.
Oh, we'll work out the details later.
And now we're paying the price for what they agreed to back then.
Don't do that again with pandemic prevention.
It's disastrous.
I agree with you.
And the problem is people will say, oh, well, we don't care what they say.
You know, they can make whatever agreements they want over there.
No, no, no.
Every government, every legislation, every policy is driven by what these people agree inside these conventions every time they meet.
Every time they meet, every year, climate change is a perfect example of that.
You know, we then have, for example, like here in Victoria, we're just going to ban the gas for all new buildings because of climate change.
These are the kinds of policies and legislations that are introduced as a result of what these psychopaths are discussing in these meetings.
You're absolutely right.
The convention is worse because they will continue to make it up as they go every single year or as often as they meet.
And every time, James, this is just a wild guess, but every time it'll get more and more extreme.
And it's really, if you look at it, you know, the details that they have in there.
It's not about health.
It's a venture capital perspective.
It's an investment deal.
And so all of the players want in because what they want are the wealthy nations to put money in.
They want the corporations to put money in to fund the build-out of what I call the Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex.
They want more manufacturing of mRNA jabs.
They want more testing and biological laboratories all over the developing world because they only got about 25% of the people there to take the jab this past four years.
They've already gotten three quarters and the people in, you know, The developed world, many of them, I saw that the uptake on the latest jab was like 2%, but the news media is saying it's upside of 50%.
It's actually 2%, per the CDC. They're having a hard time pushing their products on people who've already been tricked a couple of times, and they see a whole brand new market.
They're trying to build out a new sector.
They want investment into that industry so that they can go look for pathogens, do all kinds of testing, bring them into the lab, Work on them, turn it into drugs and jabs, medical countermeasures, which is really a biological weapon, so they can scaremonger people.
Oh, we found something.
And literally one of the definitions, and I know you've read through it because we were talking about it, is a pathogen with pandemic potential.
Let's go out into nature and see what we can scare people with, bring it back into the lab, make it scarier, and then sell them products to protect them or trick them into thinking it protects them while it's actually making them more sick or more dead.
More dead.
It's a real simple no.
Yeah.
Okay?
No to any convention.
Yes, I want people to read the details so they know what's going on.
But all you got to do is go to Chapter 3, Article 21, I believe it is.
They shuffled all the numbers on me.
It sets up a conference of the parties and empowers them to decide protocols in the future that we won't have anything to do with.
We won't have anything to say about it.
The answer to anything like that is just no.
I'm going to bring it up on the screen right now for the viewers, James, because I want them to know what you're talking about.
Here it is.
Article 21.
Conference of the parties is hereby established.
The conference of the parties shall be comprised of delegates representing the parties to the WHO pandemic agreement.
only delegates representing parties will participate in any decision making of the conference of the parties.
And which delegates do you think that they'll pick?
Nobody that we're going to get to vote for, that's for darn sure.
Well, that's exactly right.
If you scroll down a handful of articles, you'll see where all the protocols are.
And here's where I want to have a little bit of fun and shift gears with you, because I think I'm going to get a good answer from you.
So we're done talking about the WHOCA+. That's what we've been talking about up until this point.
That's one issue.
And the answer is just a simple no.
It doesn't matter what the details are.
No.
Right.
So let me ask you a question.
Have you heard this story that three men from Earth went up in a spaceship in July of 1969, landed on the moon and came back and splashed in the Pacific Ocean?
Have you heard that story?
Yes.
Where were you when that happened?
I was not even planned yet.
There you go.
I was sitting on a couch watching TV, right?
Fuzzy screen.
Something was going on there.
I was nine years old.
Other people, you know, looking up at the moon, wow, isn't it amazing?
Did you know that at that same moment in time, they were having the 22nd World Health Assembly in Boston, Massachusetts?
And that's where they adopted the original version of the International Health Regulations.
How many people listening have read the 1969 World Health Assembly's International Health Regulations?
No, right?
Well, it's not what's in there that's an issue.
And I see my lighting is kind of crazy right now.
I'll try to make it a little bit better.
What's not in that document is a situation where they said, well, if you adopt these regulations, send them back to your nation to be properly ratified.
No, no, no, no.
That wasn't something that they did.
And who was our president back then?
Well, President Nixon.
Who was he advised by?
Henry Kissinger.
Hmm.
Look it up.
Then, what they also didn't do was put in there, well, off in the future, if you make any amendments, send them back to your nation and have them properly ratified.
No, no, no, no, no.
If you could envision...
Imagine a big round table where there's 196 delegates because there's two nations that are party to the regulations that are not in the WHO. Imagine a big table with 196 people around it and standing behind each of those delegates is the head of state of that nation.
Back then it would have been Nixon.
196 leaders or heads of state with 196 delegates and then around them envision an impenetrable wall that they're in their own little circle.
And we, you and I, and our members of parliament or congress or senate are on the outside wondering what they're doing in there.
That's what they created in 1969.
They set up basically a council of heads of state to make all of these decisions and that's when we lost our democratic representation.
We got cut out in 1969.
We didn't lose our sovereignty because our head of state is in the mix.
But there's no feedback to the people.
And so if you're wondering, you know, it's like the Matrix.
You got this little splinter in your mind that something is wrong.
Well, blame Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger and everybody else involved in 1969 because they set up a structure that cut us out of the deal.
And so all of the details with all of the amendments, happy to talk to anybody.
You can call me.
My number is 310-619-3055.
I'm in the U.S. Please, if you have any questions, give me a call.
I'd love to try to answer your questions for you.
But it's not about the details.
It's about the structure.
What happened last year Is that Biden tried to ram through some amendments.
And there's a reason why he submitted them.
He wanted to shorten the time period that he or any president would be able to reject those changes.
He wanted to shorten it from 18 down to six months.
That would have taken it from next May to next December.
Well, he's not going to be out of office until the next January.
So he wanted to shorten it so he would have complete control over the time period after which it would be legally binding.
Well, those negotiations didn't go so well, and it got pushed out to 10 months.
So 10 months from the end of this May 2024 will be about April 1, 2025.
So our next president will be able to reject whatever amendments they're talking about now.
But it gets even more interesting because the 18-month period still is in place because it hasn't gone past yet.
We're almost 17 months into that 18 months from the end of May last year until December 1st this year.
So wherever you live, send a letter to your head of state and say, look, Biden was trying to shorten the time period so that he would be able to ram that through.
There is absolutely no benefit to shortening the time period from 18 to 10 months to consider this big old pile of amendments that we're going to reject anyways But you want to shorten it?
That doesn't make any sense.
It doesn't save any lives.
And I'm really looking forward to whatever I might find around December 2nd in the news.
Maybe the 11 nations that sent a letter to the United Nations and told them to go take a hike, at the very last minute, they said, nope, we're not doing it.
So I have my fingers crossed and I'm working really hard to raise the awareness of all of the people and then hopefully all of the leaders around the world.
You have the right to just send a letter to the WHO and say, you know those amendments that Biden slammed through last year?
Nope, not for us.
Now, on December 2nd...
So just for anyone who isn't aware, the United Nations political declaration that was held last month, where basically Guterres said, I want you to all agree that I can become the dictator of the world in any sort of crisis and, you know, make COVID measures permanent.
Temporary COVID measures make them permanent.
11 nations said no to that.
Unfortunately, Australia and the United States were not part of those 11 nations.
But sorry, go on, James.
They basically called them out on their charade.
And so I have every hope that those 11 nations have diplomats who are wise enough to know the rules with the international health regulations.
And I suspect at the end of November, when most Americans are recovering from a food coma and watching too much football after Thanksgiving, we're going to have a surprise where Probably not our leader, probably not Canada's leader and the UK and Australia and so forth.
But I think that there will be a number of small nations who say, why would we do this?
It doesn't make any sense.
Let us express ourselves and say, no, we will stick with the rules as they currently are.
We don't want to have less time to consider more changes.
It doesn't make any sense in the world.
Now, I'm saving the best for last because what we've talked about so far Our small batch of amendments that were adopted on May 27, 2022.
Before that, we were talking about the new version, the negotiating text of the WHO convention agreement.
But the big pile of stuff that everybody gets confused and they call it a treaty, even though it isn't.
Our 300-plus amendments that they've been negotiating for more than a year, they were all submitted back on September 30th, 2022.
Are these amendments to the IHR, James?
These are amendments to the International Health Regulations.
And on October 2nd, they had their fifth meeting.
And Abdullah Asiri, who's one of the co-chairs, surprised me.
He said, well, you know what?
Pretty much everybody here agrees.
We're not going to meet the deadline.
And they very clearly said that they knew that they were supposed to present their package of targeted amendments to the international health regulations four months in advance of the next World Health Assembly, which is May 27th.
So by January 27th, they have to have submitted it and given enough time for Tedros to, you know, tell all the other nations.
They're not going to make their deadline.
So if they were honorable, they would say, well, look, you know, we're having trouble agreeing.
It took them 10 years last time to negotiate the changes to the IHR 2005.
They're trying to do this in a year and a half.
They should say, sorry, but we just didn't make it.
We'll catch you next year.
We'll keep working, but we'll shoot for 2025.
It's not what they said.
They went and talked for an hour.
And explained the plan that they're going to use to break the rules.
Then they discussed the details of it, took a coffee break, came back in, took out all of the details, and put two or three sentences in this one little paragraph that if all you read was that paragraph in their final report or their press release, you would have no idea that they are conspiring to take out that four-month period, which is when we're supposed to get a look at what they've proposed.
They're going to submit something but they're going to keep working on it to change it and then submit it at the last minute without any real feedback because at the moment they don't really have agreement because they're all fighting over money.
And so I'm trying to raise everybody's awareness that they're lying and they're cheating and they're planning to break the rules because they have failed.
Yes, I've just brought up your substack, James, for everyone.
It is the openly plotting to break the rules, and if you scroll down, you will find the reference that James made to this working group on amendments.
The whole video is there, but basically he says that the extensive details of the plot to break the rules that were discussed in the one-hour video above were summarized by the working group with the following brief and deceptive language.
So basically that...
The co-chairs noted that in reference to decision WHA 75 in brackets 9, excuse me, it appeared unlikely that the package of amendments would be ready by January 2024.
In this regard, the working group agreed to continue its work between January and May.
The Director General will submit to the 77th Health Assembly the package of amendments agreed by the working group after the January deadline.
So, James, do you know what this reminds me of?
We just had...
We just had the government here in Australia proposing that we vote yes to this voice, this constitutional amendment, and they'll tell us all the details later.
Vote yes first and we'll give you all the details later.
This is the same tactic that the World Health Organization is using right now uh for this I also just wanted to note really quickly because you brought up sovereignty of of states this is in the uh advanced unedited version of the negotiating text of the WHO CA plus and it says here sovereignty states have in accordance with the charter of the united nations and general principles of international law the sovereign right to legislate and implement legislation in pursuance of their health policies now that may sound Really,
really great.
But what we're seeing is no, the policies are driven by this little elite roundtable like James so wonderfully described before.
And then that gets implemented anyway.
On top of that, do you notice the language?
We've been talking a lot about UNDRIP and how ultimately Article 46 of UNDRIP says, oh yes, Indigenous people have all these rights, but they're subject to the United Nations.
That's the same thing that this thing says.
Oh yes, they all have their individual rights subject to the UN Charter.
And what just happened last month?
The UN said, basically, we're the head honchos here.
So there is no...
They can write about sovereignty all they want.
Ultimately, there is none because the ones who are driving the policy are up there and our local governments just go, yep, okay, whatever the WHO wants.
So this is, you know, I've had MPs reply to me saying this doesn't give up our sovereignty.
Yes, it does.
Yes, it does.
Because we have unelected people who gain to profit financially and for other nefarious reasons.
They want to harm the human population sitting in there making decisions and then you're voting yes to all these bills based on their decisions.
It does give up our sovereignty.
And so I just wanted to draw that point, James, because As much as they say, no, no, no, that isn't what it is, as much as our Prime Minister during this campaign for The Voice said, no, no, no, it's got nothing to do with the United Nations, when it clearly does, it always is the opposite of what they're saying.
I absolutely agree, and I just want to add a little something to that.
This is a big multinational business deal.
People are allowed to engage in contracts.
If you engage in a contract and you give away some of your rights to get something in return, maybe you sign an NDA and you engage in business, but you can't say anything about it.
Well, you're voluntarily giving up some rights and freedoms for some benefit.
What we're seeing here is them saying, well, we're going to put a bunch of blank pieces of paper in here to be filled out at this conference of the parties and the next conference of the parties and the next and the next and the next.
And if our nations are dumb enough, like they have proven to be dumb enough before in the past, To sign a blank check or a blank contract and let somebody else, you know, would you sign a blank check and let someone else fill in the amount?
Why would you join into an agreement where you know that the details are not worked out?
And so interestingly enough, because I know you've been paying attention to this, the previous version was 43 pages long.
This one's only 29.
But yet a lot of nations had a lot that they wanted to say.
How did it get smaller?
Well, it needs to get smaller still so that they can agree to something, make you look at all of the details.
And you're missing the forest because you're looking at all the little details.
The problem is you're agreeing to some stupid stuff.
It's horrible.
But they're trying to work out an agreement, get all of your attention there, and you're missing the future.
Yes.
You're signing away your soul to get some agreement.
And politicians love that.
Oh, we're saving the world.
We signed the convention agreement for climate change, framework convention for climate change.
We're going to save the world.
No, you're not.
You're trying to take over the world by agreeing to a bunch of nothing.
Except you're agreeing to put all your lackeys in charge so they can oversee a bunch of pandemic profiteering, build a cabal of oligarchs who are in control of it to have a cartel of laboratories where they can go searching the countryside for pathogens that they bring back to the labs, manipulate, get the genomic sequences, make some jab that they then tell you, oh, Potentially, this could be very, very dangerous.
You need to get more jabs or more drugs or whatever it might be to make you sicker and sicker and sicker.
So they want to build out the pharmaceutical industry.
They want more hospitals, more healthcare workers, more pharmacies, more manufacturing plants for more mRNA jabs, more laboratories.
I would argue, James, that they're trying to obliterate pharmacies altogether and hospital workers.
I think that we're moving to an age, as they paint, of AI being the pharmacist, AI being the doctor, you know, telehealth appointments with your AI consultant who apparently knows what's best.
And that's actually even worse than more pharmacies, more doctors, more hospitals.
They're not interested in...
In fact, you know, you've already got examples of how doctors have had their income slashed here in Australia.
Pharmacies are shutting.
They've decimated the health industry, the very industry that they weaponized against the people, So that they could bring in their new health industry, which is AI knows best.
And, you know, they've openly spoken about how it'll be AI telehealth consultations, no more doctors, these things.
So that's the real industry they're building.
The complete loss of human interaction and human life.
It's absolutely terrifying.
I want to clarify with you quickly because we have the December, the 1st December cutoff date.
What is that date for and what happens after that date?
That is the last date that heads of state of 196 nations, the 194 members, plus Lichtenstein and actually the Pope at the Vatican, can send a letter to the WHO rejecting the amendments that Biden tried to shove through.
They were adopted ultimately in May 27th of 2022.
That shortens the time period to review the next batch of amendments.
There's no reason for that.
It doesn't save anyone's life.
It doesn't make anybody healthier.
He tried to get it to six months so that it would be short enough that his administration would still be in office.
But it got pushed out to 10 months, so it doesn't really serve his purposes.
And it's just a show of power.
Oh, we adopted some amendments, and every leader of every nation is afraid to push back.
Is the December 2023 date only about the timeline of that particular future timeline, shortening the timeline?
There's a total of five amendments.
They made some additional changes to reservations to, you know, you can reject or you can have a reservation to, you know, nitpick the little details.
But it's not the big package of amendments.
It's not the WHO CA+. It's really, I see it as a beta test, as a wake-up call.
If you can't even have a discussion about shortening a timeline, and it's been kept secret for 17 out of 18 months, and 18,973 people in Canada signed a petition to have a discussion about it, and 110,000 people in the UK and 55,000 in Australia said, we want to talk about this.
And parliaments in those nations are so impotent, they're so castrated by that story I told about the wall around the, you know, the IHR around the leaders and their delegates.
If they can't have a discussion about shortening the time period from 18 to 10 months and why that makes sense, you think they're going to want to discuss 300 amendments to take over the world?
So this is a test case to wake us up So that we go, wait a minute, there's something wrong here.
I didn't see parliament voting on it.
I didn't see a prime minister or president sign it.
That's not how it's supposed to be.
Well, when everybody was up looking at the moon or looking at their TV station back in 1969, They changed the rules and they set up a leadership council that runs the international health regulations and kicked us out of the picture.
That's why I've been an advocate for exiting the WHO. In Australia, you can go to AustraliaExitsTheWho.com.
In the United States, you can go to ExitTheWho.com.
And around the world, you can go to ExitTheWho.org.
And give me a phone call if you have any questions.
310-619-3055.
I know this is confusing.
That's what they want it to be.
All you really have to remember is nobody's asking you to vote or give your opinion or your Member of Parliament or Congress.
They want to be in charge of all of the details of your health And the only thing that you really need to remember is, oh, hell no.
That is not going to happen.
We're getting out of here.
And the more people around the world that wake up and pay attention, quite frankly, they're like a bunch of cockroaches.
You know, they might be having fun in the kitchen or wherever in your garage.
But when you come in and you shine a light on what they're doing, If you go and you look at the page where the picture is liar, liar, pants on fire, and you watch the five minutes of their lawyer, Stephen Solomon, explaining the rules, they know the rules.
There's no Wiggle room in the law.
But yet they're squirming, you know, out of it because they're very weaselly.
And they detailed, took them an hour, but they talked about how they're just going to break the rules.
And so anybody can break any rule.
And if you let them get away with it, when you see that they're planning to do it, Maria, you know, we're going to get branded as conspiracy theorists because we're showing people evidence of a conspiracy to break the rule.
So it doesn't sound as good, but, you know, I'm a conspiracy evidencer or whatever you want to call it, because they published the videos.
I was so surprised.
I figured they would have done that in quiet, you know, in the back room.
Yes.
But they're so damn cocky that they just did it in public.
Because they think nobody's watching.
Well, I got news for you.
A lot of people watch you, so a lot of people now know about this.
We need to keep our eyes on what they're doing, shine a light on it, speak up about it, share this information, take this video and share it with every other media outlet you possibly can and ask them, you know, bless you, Maria, I sent you the...
New document like, I don't know, a couple hours ago and boom, here we are talking about it because some people actually read the damn documents, right?
And so I know it's hard, but if you're in the media, this is one heck of a story.
This is a blatant plot to break the rules To cut out the four-month period that we, the people, are supposed to have an opportunity to give our public comment about what they were supposed to submit by the end of January.
And they want to run it up right up to the last minute and drop it in and adopt it.
Because once it's adopted, we're cut out of the picture.
And no, the answer is no.
It's always been no, and it's still no.
But people have to stand up.
If you just sit back on the couch and think it's all going to go away, well, that's not how it works.
No, it's certainly not and I think that the timing of certain world events coinciding with the cut-off dates of some of these agreements and negotiations that are happening are very, very interesting.
I'm not saying that the current conflict in the Middle East isn't horrible.
I'm not saying that That it's only to distract us from this.
But what I am saying is that definitely between now and December, you will have no mainstream media talking about this.
I mean, they haven't the whole time.
And sadly, a lot of independent media will forget about this very, very important topic in this time as well.
So I'm so grateful that you're still focusing on it, James, and still sounding the alarm.
While it doesn't matter what happens in the world, the controllers...
Are still pushing ahead with Agenda 2030, with the Great Reset.
I encourage everyone to go to James Rogoski's substack.
This is where he details everything that we've spoken about today, openly plotting to break the rules.
And ultimately, James, the answer has always been the same.
We want to exit the WHO. There's no more, you know, we want to reject these amendments.
We want to do this, that, that.
No, no, no.
We want to exit the WHO. This is what the people want.
This is what they demand.
The current politicians Allegedly work for us.
Certainly our taxpayers, taxpayer dollars are paying for them and we want this.
Simple.
And there's no more fluffing around with details and what they want to do.
No simple.
We just don't want to be part of this.
I think that's the point that we're at.
They're trying to take over the world and what they're going to get is a big fat nothing.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I agree.
James Rogoski, thank you so much for all of your time and for everything.
We'll see you again soon, I'm sure.
Thank you very much.
We are living in great, great times of deception, people.
I think that's evident to everyone with a brain, and the viewers of this broadcast are included in that group of everyone with a brain, or at least I hope so at this point.
I mean, the world has gone mad.
What I've been very encouraged by is people's ability to refocus on the things that really matter, the fact that there are Maniacs out there who are trying to destroy us.
It hasn't changed.
And as we see the increase of conflict around the world and the unstable multi-crisis that Klaus Schwab talks about, we know that times become more dangerous for us.
This is why I've been for three years straight talking to people about all the various different ways that you can prepare for absolutely any situation.
That includes alternative communications, that includes food, It includes water and all of the things that you hear me talk about all of the time.
If you're in the United States, head to heavensharvest.com.
Use promo code Z with three E's for 5% off your order.
This is very high quality, long-term food, emergency survival food, budgets for every budget, buckets for every budget.
And they're just a great, great group of people.
Had some feedback recently in Telegram about how great their products are.
And so I encourage everyone to support them.
Also, if you're in Australia, Stockman Steaks have a very, very great, great offer for the month of October exclusively for Z Media viewers.
If you spend $200, you'll receive four free sizzle steaks.
If you spend $450, you'll receive a free 450 gram ribeye steak plus four free sizzle steaks.
It's a great, great time to stock up and freeze some food.
They've also got some new products including ribeyes, sizzle steaks, pure beef fat and unflavoured beef sausages.
So whatever you decide to buy from them is honestly delicious.
I eat exclusively from there now knowing that they're antibiotic free, hormone free, all of the above.
But it's a great time to take advantage of the extra goodies that you'll get when shopping with Stockman Steaks.
Use promo code MARIA at the checkout to receive your free goodies.
Thank you so much for everyone that tunes into these broadcasts and pays attention to the information that really matters.
I'm not saying that only the things that I talk about are things that matter, but I think that what we need to do as a world And I've been echoing this over the past couple of weeks, is really just focus on those that are orchestrating our destruction.
The enemies haven't changed.
You still have the UN at the head.
You still have the WEF at the head.
You still have the WHO at the head.
And we want to completely decouple from these agencies.
And so I think that that should remain our focus throughout the next however long until we get rid of these organizations and their involvement in our countries.
Because everything that we see, as we said in the interview with James, every policy, every legislation, everything that makes no sense, including the push for pedophilia, comes from these agencies.
We need to get rid of them.
God bless.
Thank you.
▲
Export Selection