Weinstein To Carlson: W.H.O. Intends To End Free Speech In America

Download this post...

Tucker Carlson: So you’re saying that an international health organization could just end the First Amendment in the United States?

Bret Weinstein: Yes. And in fact as much as this sounds, I know that it sounds preposterous, the ability to do it is currently under discussion at the international level, and it’s almost impossible to exaggerate how troubling what is being discussed is. in fact, I think it is fair to say. that we are in the middle of a coup that we are actually facing the elimination of our national and our personal sovereignty and that is the purpose of what is being constructed, that it has been written in such a way you are, your eyes are supposed to glaze over as you attempt to sort out what is it what is under discussion.

And if you do that, then come May of this year, your nation is almost certain to sign on to an agreement that, in some utterly vaguely described future circumstance, a public health emergency, which the director general of the World Health Organization has total liberty to define in any way that he sees fit. In other words, nothing prevents climate change from being declared a public health emergency that would trigger the provisions of these modifications.

And in the case that some emergency or some pretense of an emergency shows up, the provisions that would kick in are, beyond jaw dropping.

Tucker Carlson: Before you get into it, and I just want to thank you, by the way, for taking the time to go through this proposal, because you’re absolutely right. It’s impenetrable, it’s designed to be, to cloak what they’re saying rather than eliminate it. What’s it called?

Weinstein: The funny thing is actually, I was looking this morning to find out what the current name is and the names have actually been shifted slightly, clearly a feature. And it’s unclear to me how much that’s just simply designed to confuse somebody who tries to sort it out and how much that’s designed to, for example, game the search engine technology that might allow you to track the changes because to the extent that the name has shifted.

So, I call it the World Health Organization Pandemic Preparedness Plan, right? And what is under discussion are some modifications to global public health regulations and modifications to an existing treaty. But all of this makes it sound minor and procedural. What has been proposed are and again, the number of things included here is incredible. It’s hard even for those of us who have been focused on this to track all of the important things under discussion and to deduce the meaning of some of the more subtle provisions. But, they the World Health Organization and its signatory nations will, be allowed to define a public health emergency, on any basis that having declared one, they will be entitled to mandate remedies, the remedies that are named include, vaccines, gene therapy technology is literally named in the set of things that the World Health Organization is going to reserve the right to mandate.

That it will be in a position to require these things of citizens, that it will be in a position to dictate our ability to travel. In other words, passports that would be predicated on one having accepted these technologies are clearly being described. It would have the ability to forbid the use of other medications.

So, this looks like they’re preparing for a rerun where they can just simply take ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine off the table. They also have reserved the  here as well. The right to dictate that’s that of course, misinformation is how they’re going to describe it.

Tucker Carlson: In fact, I want to ask you to pause and play a soundbite from Tedros, in which he alludes to this, and I want to get your assessment. Here it is.

Tedros: We continue to see misinformation on social media and in mainstream media about the pandemic accord that countries are now negotiating. The claim that the accord will cede power to WHO is quite simply false. It’s fake news. Countries will decide. What the accord says and countries alone and countries will implement the accord in line with their own national laws. No country will cede any sovereignty to WHO. If any politician, business person or anyone at all is confused about what the pandemic accord is and isn’t, we would be more than happy to discuss it.

Tucker Carlson: So, he’s going to be more than happy to discuss and explain the misinformation…

Weinstein: Yeah, that is comforting. On the one hand, I must say, I have not seen that, and it is tremendously good news, actually. What it means is that once again, we have managed to raise awareness of something in time that there is conceivably a better outcome still available to us.

Tucker Carlson: They’re spooked enough to bother to lie about it.

Weinstein: You couldn’t have said it more accurately, yes. Those were clearly lies, and of course his saying that into a camera, Is supposed to convince you nobody could possibly lie so directly. So there must be some truth in what he’s saying, which is of course nonsense.

And anybody who goes back through, Matt Orfila’s compendium of various things that people have said into cameras over the course of COVID that they then swear they didn’t say months later knows that these folks are very comfortable at saying totally false things into a camera. It doesn’t cause them to think twice or sweat or anything.

But it’s great that we have managed to raise enough awareness that Tedros is actually addressing our spreading of what it actually is, malinformation. You’re aware of this this extension?

Tucker Carlson: So I was, I’m so old that I was. Still stuck in the truth or falsehood binary? Where what mattered was whether it was true or not?

Weinstein: No, the malinformation is actually exactly what you need to know about to see how antiquated that notion is because this was actually the Department of Homeland Security actually issued a memo in which it defined three kinds of, I kid you not, terrorism, misdisc, and malinformation.

Misinformation are errors. Disinformation are intentional errors, lies, and malinformation. are things that are based in truth, but cause you to distrust authority.

Tucker Carlson: So malinformation is what you commit when you catch them lying.

Weinstein: Yes exactly. Yeah it is, discussing the lies of your, government is malinformation and therefore a kind of terrorism, which I should point out as funny as that is, and as obviously Orwellian as that is, it’s also terrifying because if you have cracked the history of the spreading tyranny from the beginning of the war on terror.

You know that terrorism is not a normal English word the way it once was. Terrorism is now a legal designation that causes all of your rights to evaporate. So at the point that the Department of Homeland Security says that you are guilty of a kind of terrorism for saying true things that cause you to distrust your government, they are also telling you something about what rights they have to silence you.

They are not normal rights. These things are all, terrifying, and I do think the COVID pandemic caused us to become aware of a lot of structures that had been built around us. Something that former NSA officer William Binney once described as the turnkey totalitarian state.

The totalitarian state is erected around you, but it’s not activated. And then, once it’s built, the key gets turned. And we are now seeing, I believe, something that even outstrips William Binney’s description because it’s the turnkey totalitarian planet, right? The World Health Organization is above the level of nations, and it is going to be in a position If these provisions pass to dictate to nations how they are to treat their own citizens, to override their constitutions, despite what Tedros has told you, so that is frightening.

It’s not inherently about health. What I think has happened is the fact of a possible pandemic causes a loophole in the mind. It’s not a loophole in our governance documents. Our constitution doesn’t describe exemptions from your rights during time of a pandemic emergency. Your rights simply are what they are and they’re not supposed to go anywhere just because there’s a disease spreading. But nonetheless people’s willingness to accept the erosion of their rights because of a public health emergency, has allowed this tyranny to continue. to use it as a Trojan horse. Yes. And I think that’s also, it’s something people need to become aware of.

There are a number of features of our environment that are, basically they are blind spots that we can’t see past. Vaccine was one, and I know, I wasn’t an enthusiast about vaccines. I still believe deeply in the elegance of vaccines as they should exist. But I’m now very alarmed at how they are produced, and I’m even more alarmed at what has been called a vaccine that doesn’t meet the definition, right?

That because many of us believe that vaccines were an extremely elegant, low harm, high efficacy method of preventing disease. When they called this mRNA technology a vaccine, many of us gave it more credibility than we should have. If they had called it a gene transfection technology, we would have thought, wait, what?

Public health functions the same way. If you think about it, public health, step back a second. Your relationship with your doctor, your personal health, ought to be very important to you. But there are ways in which things that happen at a population level affect your personal health and your doctor’s not in a position to do anything about it.

Somebody dumping pollution into a stream from which you’re pulling fish. You might detect the harm at the population level. You might need a regulation at a population level in order to protect you. Your doctor’s not in a position to give you a pill to correct it. So the idea that public health is potentially a place to improve all of our well being is real.

But once you decide That there’s something above doctors relative to your health, then that can be an excuse for all manner of tyranny. Public health has been adopted. It’s like the sheep’s clothing that has allowed the wolf to go after our rights because in theory it’s trying to protect us from harms that we would like to be protected.

Tucker Carlson: And it generates such fear it’s, such a huge scale that It weakens people’s moral immune systems.

Weinstein: Absolutely. They will accept things they would never accept otherwise. Absolutely. And as and as, I know, when we raised questions about what was being, being delivered to us under the guise of public health, we were demonized, as if we had a moral defect, it wasn’t even a cognitive defect where we were failing to understand the wisdom of these vaccines. It was a moral defect where we were failing to protect others who were vulnerable by questioning these things. The idea that health is at stake in some vague, larger sense that requires us to override the natural relationship between doctors and patients, is itself a coup against medicine by something else. We are living some crazy story in which things that are perfectly obvious are still somehow have not lodged themselves in the official public record. And, I think that has a lot to do with frankly the death of journalism. A lot of us are doing jobs that we didn’t train for.

Heather and I are doing some journalistic job that we certainly didn’t train for. We trained to think about biology and we do that in front of a camera and so that functions as a kind of stand in for journalism. But the handful of journalists who still exist, I think without exception. are not scientifically trained, right?

Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, you, we don’t have very many people doing investigative journalism, and the ones who are doing it, they don’t have the skill set that would make this a natural topic to investigate. We have to boot up some kind of new institution that will allow us to do this job well, and presumably that will involve taking the few investigative journalists who Remember how to do that job and the few scientists and doctors who are willing to still do their job and put us together, right? Podcast isn’t the right place to do it. If that’s all we got, that’s all we got. But there’s got to be a better method

Tucker Carlson:. So if this is ratified or signed onto by the United States in May, six months from now, it sounds like that’s it.

Weinstein: it. We don’t know. I will say I have very little hope that the U. S. will derail this. I have the sense that whatever has captured our government is driving this as well. And in effect the U. S. wants this change. It will, in fact in the same way that the Five Eyes nations agree to mutually violate the rights of each other’s citizens because that was not prevented in any of our constitutions.

I think the U. S. wants something to force it to violate our constitutional protections, and the World Health Organization is going to be that entity. That said, I have recently been to the Czech Republic, and I’ve been to Romania, and I’ve heard from other parts of the former Eastern Bloc that there is resistance, that people who have faced tyranny in living memory are much less ready to accept these changes and that they are actually beginning to mount a response.

I worry that it will be too thin and easily defeated, especially if they do not understand that actually the world is depending on them. That the traditionally, the countries we traditionally think of as part of the West. are compromised and that these countries which have more recently joined or rejoined the West are the best hope we’ve got, that they are in a position to derail this set of provisions and that we are depending on them to do it.

Tucker Carlson: So, I just want to end for a few moments on your, on the overview here. So you have all these remarkable things converging in a single 12 month period. You have war, pestilence, political unrest, apparently unsolvable political unrest. What do you think we’re looking at in the West? What is this moment and how does it end?

Weinstein: So I have long been interested in questions of good governance and the West and I’m sad to report that I think the West has actually collapsed, and what we are left with is now, a nebulous echo. The values of the West still function, but they function in a vague way, and we have seen that they can evaporate quickly under the right circumstances.

I suspect, and I really don’t know, I don’t think anybody knows. But I suspect that some powerful set of forces has decided that consent of the governed is too dangerous to tolerate and that it has begun to unhook it. And we do not know how this works. We can see some of the partners who are involved in this, but I don’t think we know ultimately who’s driving it or where they’re going. I think many of the notions that we picked up about nations and who our friends are and who our enemies are they’re now more misleading than they are informative. In other words I don’t think the U. S. has an enemy called China. I think there are elements within the U. S. that are partnered with elements within the Chinese Communist Party for practical reasons. And our, the, notion that these, two parties are competing with each other just distracts us from what’s actually taking place.

But, let’s just put it this way. We have a large global population. Most people have no useful role through no fault of their own. They have not been given an opportunity in life to find a useful way to contribute. And I wonder if The rent -seeking elites that have hoarded so much power, are not unhooking our rights because effectively they’re afraid of some global French revolution moment as people realize that they’ve been betrayed and left without good options. Is that what we’re seeing? It certainly feels like we’re facing, an endgame where important properties that would once have been preserved by all parties because they might need them one day. Are now being dispensed with and we’re being, we’re watching our governmental structures and every one of our institutions captured, hollowed out, turned into a paradoxical inversion of what it was designed to do.

That’s not an accident. The thing that worries me most actually is that whatever is driving this is not composed of diabolical geniuses who at least have some plan for the future, but it’s being driven by people who actually do not know what kind of hell they are inviting.

They’re going to create a kind of chaos from which humanity may well not emerge. And I get the sense that unless they have some remarkable plan that is not obvious, that they are just simply drunk with power and putting everyone, including themselves, in tremendous jeopardy by taking apart the structures on which we depend.

Tucker Carlson: How do you see your you’re, speaking in, grand terms that three years ago I, might’ve laughed at, I’m not laughing at all, and I think you’re absolutely right. But you’re also choosing as a 50-ish man, to say this stuff out loud and to pursue the truth as you find it and then to talk about it.

So how do you, why did you decide to do that? And how do you think that ends?

Weinstein: We are all the products of whatever developmental environment produced us. And as I’ve said on multiple topics where my family has found itself in very uncomfortable and sometimes dangerous circumstances, because we speak out.

I don’t think I had a choice. I literally cannot understand how I would sleep at night, how I would look at myself in the mirror if I didn’t say what needed to be said. And, I heard of a very good speech by Bobby Kennedy, Jr. Though neither of us are libertarians, he was at the Liberty Conference in Memphis.

And the last thing he said in that speech struck me to my core. Something I’ve thought often and said almost never. But, there are fates far worse than death. And I think, for my part, I have lived an incredible life. There’s plenty I still want to do. And I am not eager to leave this planet any earlier than I have to.

I have a marvelous family. I live in a wonderful place. And I’ve got lots of things on my bucket list. But I’ve got lots of things on my bucket list. However, Humanity is depending on everybody who has a position from which to see what is taking place, to grapple with what it might mean. to describe it so that the public understands where their interests are.

It is depending on us to do what needs to be done. If we’re to have a chance of delivering a planet to our children and our grandchildren that is worthy of them, if we’re going to deliver a system that allows them to live meaningful, healthy lives. We have to speak up. And I don’t know I don’t know how to get people to do that.

I’m very hesitant to urge others to put themselves or their families in danger, and I know that everybody’s circumstances are different. Some people are struggling just simply to feed a family and keep a roof over their heads. Those people obviously have a great deal less liberty with respect to, standing up and saying what needs to be said, but this is really, it’s what we call in game theory a collective action problem.

If everybody responds to their personal being if everybody says that’s too dangerous to stand up. I’m not suicidal. I’m I can’t do it then not enough people stand up to change the course of history. Whereas if people somehow put aside the obvious danger to their ability to earn and maybe to their lives of saying what needs to be said.

Then, we greatly outnumber those we are pitted against. They are ferociously powerful, but I would also point out this interesting error. So I call the force that we’re up against Goliath, just so I remember what the battle is. Goliath made a terrible mistake, and it made it most egregiously during COVID, which is It took all of the competent people, took all of the courageous people, and it shoved them out of the institutions where they were hanging on.

And it created, in so doing, the dream team. Created every player you could possibly want on your team to fight some historic battle against a terrible evil. All of those people are now at least somewhat awake. They’ve now been picked on by the same enemy. And yeah, alright, we’re outgunned, it has a tremendous amount of power but we’ve got all of the people who know how to think.

I hate to say it, or maybe I like to say it, but I don’t think it’s a slam dunk, but I like our odds.

Read full story here…