For those who were able to read my last article entitled, “One Health – Globalist Path to a One World Order”, where I challenged the reader with the gigantic task of unpacking the United Nations quadripartite primer for the Fourth Industrial Revolution known as One Health, you may already be cognizant of the next important task – that of deconstructing the official narrative currently being used to support the climate change doomsday scenarios which globalist institutions claim are somehow impacting global health, and your well-being. This is certainly what climate alarmists would have you believe, but this environmental narrative is a crucial anchor for the globalists in gaining adoption for their ‘One Health’ command-and-control agenda.
The findings in our first article revealed a new threat-based economic model (pandemics, bioterrorism, climate change, extreme weather, war, political terrorism et al), built upon two sustainable developments doctrines, the Manhattan Principles and Berlin Principles. As a concept, some have described these as an integrated unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimise the health of people, animals and natural ecosystems. However, upon closer examination, these principles also resemble something akin to a framework for a fully globalized, socio-economic overhaul.
In other words, this is another subtle route for injecting a steady stream of fear and coercion through governments and public-private partnerships and into societies. When you understand how it actually works, you will soon realise the clever ways in which the globalists are using the One Health agenda to optimise their bottom lines. Indeed, all of this elite stewardship of the planet is not undertaken purely out of altruism, or some desire to save humanity from an impending environmental catastrophe. Moreover, One Health provides the tools of control necessary to achieve the goals set out in Agenda 2030 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDG).
During this chaotic economic and geopolitical transition, we are all busy witnessing magical manifestation of spiraling inflation in the economy, whilst waiting in trepidation for the return of the ‘next pandemic’, be it COVID, or one of its numerous mercurial cousins slated to spring into action whenever the WHO decides to declare a global health emergency.
In this article we will examine how and why in the World Health Organisation (WHO) and its partners have been relentlessly pushing the idea that ‘climate change’ as one of the biggest global health threats to mankind in the 21st century, an extreme position which is confirmed by the following WHO statement:
“It has never been clearer that the climate crisis is one of the most urgent health emergencies we all face,” said Dr Maria Neira, WHO Director of Environment, Climate Change and Health” (source)
The following statement was made on 11 October 2021, when the WHO launched its “COP26 Special Report on Climate Change and Health”. The report certainly paved the way for the One Health argument which is being used to bolster “climate action” in the form of a proposal which explicitly lays out a set of priority actions from the global health community to governments and policymakers around the world, calling on them to ‘act with urgency’ on what they are alleging is a dual climate and health crisis.
It’s also important to note that when it comes to climate change alarmists, some of these scientists and politicians associated with this topic have become extremely religious in their tone and rhetoric.
The Health Argument for Climate Action: COP26 Special Report on Climate Change and Health (PDF)
The WHO COP26 report includes ten recommendations that highlight the urgent need and numerous emerging opportunities for governments to prioritise health and equity in the international climate and sustainable development agendas (forgive them for omitting any mention of the huge profit waiting to be made by these self-styled altruistic corporations and their philanthropic foundations).
When you hear crisis terms like “urgent health emergencies,” alarm bells should be going off. By now, everyone who paying attention should know what the word emergency implies, particularly in terms of emergency (use) authorisation. By now, you should already know where this path is leading us.
Let’s remind ourselves that the WHO had recently changed the definition of a vaccine in order to accommodate a new gene therapy designed to supposedly ‘protect’ world populations from an alleged ‘novel’ coronavirus whose empirical attributes and origins still escape us – and so pushing climate change as a new global health emergency shouldn’t be too difficult. However, even climate change still requires a hook.
WHO: keeper of the narrative?
A WHO 2016 report entitled, “Preventing disease through healthy environments: a global assessment of the burden of disease from environmental risks” attempts to calculate the burden of disease in regions which the WHO deems as potentially catastrophic.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.