WHO, UN, WEF and EU Impose Censorship on the World
To protect us, of course. It’s for our own good. To protect our human rights and freedoms.
Because without censorship and its twin propaganda, how could they peacefully take over the world?
I hope you saw that “With full respect for dignity, human rights and freedom of persons” which are embedded in the current International Health Regulations (IHR) was crossed out in the draft of the IHR amendments prepared by the WHO’s review committee and working group a year ago.
All negotiated text since then has been kept under the highest secrecy. So we only have the draft from last February to go on, in trying to understand what the current version of the document might be.
Human rights, dignity and freedom of person were to be excluded. See screenshots below.
But wait!
The UN Secretary-General Gutteres says no, we are still committed to dignity, human rights and freedom of persons. In fact, he has a plan to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms.
It says so, right there, on the UN web page below.
https://www.un.org/en/countering-disinformation
How is he going to protect them? Well, obviously, it’s gonna cost some dough. Doesn’t everything. But he has some best practices all lined up.
He is going to protect our human right to information by censoring the information, clamping down on free speech, protecting us snowflakes from any information that might disturb us… or cause us to disturb THEM.
Wait what? Is THIS why so many ‘snowflakes’ were created? Damn these guys, they must have been planning this caper for a very long time…
Wikipedia says he can’t get away with this double-talk, based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.
The right to freedom of expression has been recognised as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law by the United Nations.
Many countries have constitutional law that protects free speech. Terms like free speech, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are used interchangeably in political discourse.
However, in a legal sense, the freedom of expression includes any activity of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
That looks pretty clear to me. He can’t get away with this!
But no! Ursula von der Leyen laid it out clearly at Davos just now:
“The top concern for the next two years (for WEF attendees) is Misinformation and Disinformation.”
https://twitter.com/therealrukshan/status/1747209947727999113
As I told Kevin Stocklin of the Epoch Times today, the globalists are committed to a soft coup, no bullets or bombs for us. We have to march into their trap willingly. They don’t want to destroy all our valuable infrastructure. New York and Boston will never look like Gaza.
But to manage this feat, absolute control of the narrative—of virtually all information—is critical. And that is why ‘climate change’ and wars had to move over so misinformation could take top billing in Davos.
They are committed. And they are very sneaky. Read this, a nugget from the IHR, the same proposed document I started with. Censorship was rolled into the section on how the WHO can assist nations.
Assist them in breaking international and probably domestic law. The bolded parts are the new proposals.
It helps that, according to the UN, there is no universal definition of disinformation:
There is no universally accepted definition of disinformation. No one definition may be sufficient on its own, given the multiple and different contexts in which concerns over disinformation may arise, including with regard to issues as diverse as electoral process, public health, armed conflicts, or climate change.
And that is just how the UN likes it; with no definition, they can make up their own definitions, or apply definitions on a case by case basis. And voila, censorship occurs and you call it something else.
Who was it that said “1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual”?
See more here substack.com
Header image: Medpage Today
Some bold emphasis added
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.