Despite the fact that the monkeypox narrative never really took hold of the world and created fear among the sheeple like the COVID-19, the World Health Organization has not been content to let "sleeping monkeys lie".
It would appear that the monkeys that WHO officials talked to about the issue made it very clear that they found the use of the word "monkey" in monkeypox highly offensive.
Here are some quotes from the news release:
"Following a series of consultations with global experts, WHO will begin using a new preferred term “mpox” as a synonym for monkeypox. Both names will be used simultaneously for one year while “monkeypox” is phased out.
When the outbreak of monkeypox expanded earlier this year, racist and stigmatizing language online, in other settings and in some communities was observed and reported to WHO. In several meetings, public and private, a number of individuals and countries raised concerns and asked WHO to propose a way forward to change the name."
Given that the news release states that "a number of individuals and countries" raised concerns about the use of the monkeypox label, it would be interesting to know exactly how many individuals and countries actually raised the issue. One, ten, one hundred, one thousand? We'll never know.
Considerations for changing the name of the disease that shall no longer be referred to as monkeypox included rationale, scientific appropriateness, the extent of current usage, pronounceability, usability in different languages, the absence of geographical and zoological references and the ease of retrieval of historical scientific information. According to WHO, assigning new names to existing diseases is "exceptional" and generally takes several years, however, in this case the process was accelerated but we are told not to worry because the process of renaming the disease followed standard procedures.
Following the consultations which included experts from both the medical and scientific communities and classification and statistics advisory committees from government authorities of 45 nations, WHO's Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Gheybreyesus recommends the following:
1.) Adoption of the new synonym mpox in English for the disease.
2.) Mpox will become a preferred term, replacing monkeypox, after a transition period of one year. This serves to mitigate the concerns raised by experts about confusion caused by a name change in the midst of a global outbreak. It also gives time to complete the ICD update process and to update WHO publications.
3.) The synonym mpox will be included in the ICD-10 online in the coming days. It will be a part of the official 2023 release of ICD-11, which is the current global standard for health data, clinical documentation and statistical aggregation.
4.) The term “monkeypox” will remain a searchable term in ICD, to match historic information.
One has to wonder how many million dollars were spent on this exercise given that WHO is supported by the taxes that we remit to our governments, not forgetting that at least some of the cost fell on the shoulders of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as shown here:
This begs the question - how do chickens feel about the term "chickenpox"? Perhaps WHO should now prioritize the renaming of this disease which has, for decades, stigmatized those wonderful barnyard animals that have provided the world with breasts, wings and eggs since time immemorial. How about German measles? Haven't the German people suffered enough prejudice after their ill-advised invasion of Europe and slaughter of the untermenschen living among them?
I think that the WorldHealthOrganization has its work cut out for it.
Over the past six months, the narrative being perpetuated by the global ruling class has shifted from the pandemic to the fight against global climate change, often through the use of carbon taxes, the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and its inflationary impact on households around the world. As was the case with the Event 201 simulation which took place prior to the declaration of the pandemic, a similar simulation called the "Food Chain Reaction" took place back in 2015 as shown here:
...which included participation from the Center for American Progress, the World Wildlife Fund, Cargill, Mars and the Center for Naval Analysis (CNA), a federally funded research and development centre whose analyses are used to inform the decisions of the United States Department of Defense leadership. It also included senior officials and experts from Brazil, Africa, China, the European Union, India, the United States as well as various multilateral institutions, businesses and investors.
This decision making game was developed to explore issues arising from global food system disruptions spanning the decade from 2020 to 2030. The game considered the impact of population growth, urbanization, severe weather and social unrest on the global food system. Here is a quote from the publication as found on CNA's website about the setting for the game:
"The game was set between the years 2020 and 2030, a period that was near enough to be familiar, but distant enough to allow players to focus beyond current policy debates. The longitudinal nature of the game presented players with the opportunity to realize the impacts of their choices in the context of the environment-food- stability nexus. The players were organized into eight teams. Six of the teams represented Brazil, China, the European Union (EU), India, the United States, and Continental Africa. The seventh team represented Business and Investors, and the eighth team represented Multilateral Institutions (e.g., World Bank, United Nations, Non-Governmental Organizations). The interests of and events in other key regions, such as the Middle East and Central Asia, were represented within the underlying background scenario and through events that emerged as the game proceeded."
The game took place over four rounds which allowed the participants to understand the longitudinal impacts of their decisions:
"Prior to the start of the game (through 2019), demographic changes, climate pressures, and political crises had combined to threaten food security. The first round spanning 2020 – 2021, included lower than average global foods stocks, rising food prices, weather-related disasters, and instances of social unrest. The cumulative actions of players influenced worldwide conditions in subsequent rounds. In the second round spanning 2022 - 2024, players experienced the game’s food security crisis peak, followed by a tempering of global pressures in round three (2025 – 2027). The fourth and final round concluded in 2030 and brought players full circle to increasingly tight global circumstances, similar to those in the first round."
Here is a video that was used to set the stage for the gameplayers:
Here is an additional video which briefly outlines the game:
One of the issues facing the participants was the level of conflict within each of the eight geographic teams. The teams from Brazil, China and the United States faced little internal conflict since their approach had consistent viewpoints whereas those from Africa and the European Union experienced considerable internal debate due to the geographic and political heterogeneity within the team.
The participants' actions reflected the feedback loop between climate and food security, noting that agricultural production can contribute to negative environmental issues at the same time as it is the first sector to experience the impact of environmental degradation. Here is how the players solved that issue:
"Recognizing the potentially destructive nature of this feedback loop, players looked to increase agricultural productivity through sustainable and climate-smart practices. In addition, teams agreed to price environmental services, price carbon, support the development of a market for carbon trading, and cap global emissions levels. Teams entered into negotiations regarding a global carbon cap, carbon taxes, carbon “shadow pricing” through regulations, and carbon trading early in the game, but did not agree on implementation actions."
And, there you go, implementing a carbon tax scheme to ensure sustainable agricultural productivity.
Given the current agriculturally-led demonstrations in Europe, particularly the Netherlands, this is a key acknowledgment by the players:
"As the game advanced, teams confronted a “new normal” characterized to a large degree by volatility and uncertainty. In this environment, players acknowledged the link between food insecurity and instability. Food insecurity and increasing numbers of refugees may give rise to an increase in conflict and even illegal (e.g., human trafficking) and/or terrorist actions."
So, how do we solve the issues facing the "new normal" of a more volatile world? Here are their solutions:
"1.) Strengthening existing institutions and authorities under the United Nations (e.g., the World Food Programme, the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees, and the International Fund for Agricultural Development) and developing better coordination among them.
2.) Establishing a new coordinating entity under the United Nations/G20 to create the capacity to respond in a more timely way.
3.) Creating a new Strategic Headquarters under the United Nations to better coordinate member states’ use of military and nonmilitary assets, and to pre- position materials in areas of anticipated need.
...all of which will be funded using a modest transaction fee on global carbon trading along with additional funding commitments from China. Given the United Nations (and its affiliated NGOs) track record for ineptitude when it comes to global issues, this is hardly a reassuring recommendation.
For your information, here are the Food Chain Reaction game materials which provide details on each of the four rounds of the game:
"At Cargill, we have been managing volatility for more than 150 years. As commodity traders, we see how fluctuations in one area have follow-on effects in others.
Because our food, water and energy systems are inextricably linked, disruptions in one unleash a cascade of consequences in the others.
Those consequences can extend beyond the food system and become triggers for economic and political instability and civil unrest. For example:
In 2010: Russia experienced a heat wave that saw the highest temperatures in 130 years.
The heat wave reduced Russia’s wheat crop by one-third.
Russia instituted ban; impacted prices
2 percent change in global wheat supply drove a nearly 60 percent increase in prices around the world.
At the time, Russia supplied Egypt with the majority of its wheat. The rapid shift in supply led to price increases, and when combined with broader political tensions, were a contributing factor to the 2011 protests in Tahrir Square.
Similar scenarios have played out in Syria and some 60 other countries in the last decade.
In very real terms food security, climate and political stability are linked.
Behind the headlines there is a simple truth: Producing food is an outdoor activity and climate change is making challenging work of feeding a growing population.
But given that no one in this room tonight is in much danger of missing a meal, why should we care?
Three reasons:
First, disruptions in the global food system can trigger bigger problems that can have socioeconomic consequences that will hit us here at home.
Second, the world is having a new conversation about the food we eat. Here and in other high-income countries we care about gluten-free, sugar, GMO labeling and more. In low-income countries, we are also focused on nutrition – that’s why in India we have started fortifying cooking oil with vitamins A and D. Around the world, Cargill is working with its customers to respond to consumer preferences, reformulate products and explore new ingredients.
Finally, the private sector can, and must play a role in making the global food system more sustainable and resilient. We know that that climate, land, water and farmer livelihoods are all a part of the food security equation."
It's fascinating to see how the global elites have invoked global climate change as a means to further impoverish the organ donor class through the imposition of further carbon taxes as one of the key solutions to solving potential food production shortages while adding to their own personal wealth at the same time as the serfs suffer from extremely high food price inflation as shown here:
We all know that the global agribusiness sector is all about profitability and personal wealth and has little to do with environmental and social responsibility. If we starve or can't afford food or suffer from food insecurity, that's our problem.
A recent interview on China Global Television Network or CGTN, China's English-language, Chinese Communist Party-controlled news channel gives us some interesting insight into the world's self-appointed ruler, Klaus Schwab. The interview was held at the end of the 2022 edition of the APEC meeting global leaders which was held in Bangkok, Thailand.
Here is a complete transcript of Tian Wei's interview with Klaus Schwab:
Wei - In the APEC this year, both the leaders' meeting and also the APEC CEO summit you just spoken at the opening panel Professor, so how do you see would be able to with our capability to carry on this kind of discussion in the right direction?
Schwab - We have to define the specific elements of the global system for example, nature and environment, climate change and then to see what are actually see areas where can make true progress where we can have a real impact. I'm very glad that China is integrated into our initiative to plant one trillion trees in the next ten years by making its own contribution. We have to try with a collaborative platform where we integrate the best people, the most relevant people and then to work for progress. Now, surveys has been formed but we have to go one step further. We have to have a strategic mood. We have to construct the world of tomorrow. It's a systemic transformation of the world. So, we have to define how the world should look like which we want to come out of this transformation period.
Note that - "WE have to define how the world should look like" after the Great Reset. To hell with what the sweaty masses of the organ donor class want for their futures.
Wei - Earlier we have the Great Narrative also called the globalization and everybody believes it and everybody think this is our shared future. Now, as world is changing, we need to reshape again the vision as you just said but how to bring everybody on board?
Schwab - So, it's now the opinion globalization has failed and we are entering into an era of deglobalization. I think that's wrong. We, of course, have three shaping of certain supply chains so for certain physical goods we may see much more reshoring or home shoring. In reality, the world has moved closer together because we are moving from a physical world much more in a digital world and the digital world by nature is much more globally oriented. Now you asked how to do it?
Wei - Yes.
In his response, we see how Schwab is proposing to promote his Great Reset to the global unwashed.
Schwab - I think it needs what we feel in the World Economic Forum a multi-stakeholder approach. It suddenly governments who have to be in the lead but business, most of the solutions, will come from innovation from business and we have to integrate the large population. We have to mentor the population and to show through our good examples that the future requires this change and such change, at the end, ultimately, will be beneficial for them.
See, it's all for our own good! We're just too ignorant to see it and we will have to be reeducated so that we'll be capable of understanding that the global ruling class is just acting to benefit us.
Here is the final interesting exchange:
Wei - From your perspective, how do you understand this ambition of China to have the Chinese pass toward modernization and share it with the developing world?
In his answer to this question, we see the real Schwab agenda.
Schwab - I respect China's achievements which are tremendous over the last over forty years since the opening up and policy and reform policy came into action. I think it's a role model for many countries but I think also we should leave it to each country to make its own decision what system it wants to adapt and I think we should be very careful in imposing systems but the Chinese model is certainly a very attractive model for quite a number of countries.
So, each nation will be allowed to choose its "system" but we, as individuals, have no choice when it comes to the imposition of the Great Reset. Schwab also clearly shows that he has no objection to other nations adopting China's style of dictatorship and top-down economic approach because it is a "very attractive" societal model.
Here is the interview with CGTN's Tian Wei keeping in mind that Schwab, as a key part of the global technocracy and the architect of the WEF's Great Reset, was in attendance so that you can hear how Klaus Schwab can talk for five minutes and basically say nothing:
For those of you that either weren't aware or had forgotten, another global "leader" (and I use the word very loosely) and an acolyte of Schwab's who also admires China's ability to get things done:
Now we know where Justin Trudeau sourced his ideas for his government's heavy-handed approach during the pandemic, particularly his response to the truckers' protest and how it likely received the approval of Schwab through his minion, Canada's Deputy Prime Minister and WEF Trustee, Chrystia Freeland.
Thanks to this interview on China's government television network, Klaus Schwab, the self-appointed guardian of the global future, has made his preferences for our transhumanist and dystopic future very clear. Watch China and we'll get a sense of the roadmap that Schwab wants for the world and it most certainly isn't freedom of person.
The global political ruling class has released a document that plainly lays out the roadmap for the Great Reset aka Build Back Better agenda.
Here is the cover page for the G20 Action Plan on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and G20 Development Commitments and here is a link to the entire document should you wish to peruse it yourself:
With both Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab being in attendance, you can assure yourself that their requirements for the Great Reset have been included in the 2022 edition of our collective roadmap for the future. Let's look at some key excerpts, keeping in mind that "sustainable development" plays a key role in the future. In case you have forgotten, here is a graphic showing the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which forms the foundation for the Great Reset roadmap:
...and a video which briefly outlines the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development:
Here is a quote from the document showing how this document is rebranding the Great Reset which has not particularly been well received by thinking serfs:
"Recover Together, Recover Stronger: Reaffirming Global Partnership and Reinvigorating Multilateralism in Fostering Recovery and 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development"
Here are some of their plans for our collective futures (my bolds throughout) by subject matter:
1.) Environment (page 21 and 22) which includes behavioural modification for the serf class:
a.) Support scaling up sustainable finance for protecting, conserving, sustainably using and restoring all ecosystems, such as but not limited to surface and ground water wetlands including peatlands and mangroves, coral reefs, forest, marine and other unique ecosystems with close cooperation and collaboration with the G20 Sustainable Finance Working Group and the Finance track of the G20, and call for additional progress in addressing the priority actions identified in the G20 Sustainable Finance Roadmap for stepping up G20-led efforts concerning finance for nature, biodiversity, circular economy and resource efficiency, water, sanitation and social issues.
b.) Strengthen policies to enhance the participation in sustainable finance of public and private financial institutions, including multilateral development banks (MDBs), and other relevant public and private institutions.
c.) Highlight the role of fiscal policies that can play as an effective instrument to foster behavioral changes in businesses and consumers for steering the economy on the whole towards greater sustainability, leaving no one behind and encourage initiatives to scale up and maximize these instruments, including through international partnerships among countries to finance land protection, conservation, sustainable management and restoration programs and projects.
2.) Digital Economy (page 23) noting that the digital economy is key to the implementation of CBDCs, digital identities and ultimately control over the serf class:
a.) Acknowledged the role of digital connectivity as an essential enabler of digital inclusion and digital transformation and recognized the need to protect digital infrastructure. It demonstrated the complex interplay between digital connectivity and the social context within which the technology is embedded for expanding connectivity through the provision of policy and regulatory frameworks to support the achievement of the SDGs.
b.) Foster the discussion on enabling digital identity systems to harness the benefits of the digital economy.
3.) Agriculture (page 24) noting that Bill Gates, the world's foremost clean hands, non-farmer farmer and a very heavy promoter of technological advances in agriculture that will ultimately benefit him:
a.) Committed to step up efforts to enhance sustainable agriculture and food systems and highlight the fundamental priority of safeguarding food security and the importance of both adaptation and mitigation for climate resilient agriculture.
b.) Acknowledge the role of digital technologies in promoting sustainable agriculture and food systems, and therefore supports a G20 digital food and agriculture knowledge-sharing product (through report or website).
4.) Energy/Energy Transition (pages 29 and 30):
a.) Sets out voluntary multiyear actions to get on track to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and lays pathways towards net zero emissions or carbon neutrality according to national circumstances--in line with the principles of clean, sustainable, just, affordable, and inclusive transitions.
b.) Increase International cooperation in technological solutions through reducing emissions, including in the power and energy-intensive (hard-to-abate) industries & sectors. This technology improvement must be supported by funding, innovation, and Research, Development, Demonstration, Dissemination & Deployment (RDDD&D) in maximizing the available technology and integrating it with the next generation technology.
At the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors meeting back in February 2022 and which was reaffirmed in this roadmap, this was discussed as quoted in the roadmap:
"Recognize that policy mix toward carbon neutrality and net zero should include a full range of fiscal, market and regulatory mechanisms including, if appropriate, the use of carbon pricing mechanisms and incentives, and phase out and rationalize, over the medium term, inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption and commit to achieve this objective, while providing targeted support to the poorest and most vulnerable, and in line with national circumstances. Recognize that G20 Finance Track policy dialogue on the macroeconomic and fiscal impact of climate change policies could benefit from further technical work.
5.) Trade and Investment (pages 29 and 30):
Ensure trade and environment policies are mutually supportive, consistent with WTO and multilateral environmental agreements and should allow for the optimal use of the world's resources as a contribution to accelerating progress towards the achievement of SDGs, including on affordable and clean energy, on industry, innovation and infrastructure, on sustainable consumption and climate actions, life below water, and life on land.
6.) Climate and Green Finance (pages 36 and 37):
a.) Reiterate that our policy mix toward carbon neutrality and net zero should include a full range of fiscal, market and regulatory mechanisms including, as appropriate, the use of carbon pricing and non-pricing mechanisms and incentives, and phase out and rationalize, over the medium term, inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumptionand commit to achieve this objective, while providing targeted support to the poorest and most vulnerable, and in line with national circumstances.
b.) Recognize the challenges faced by many developing countries in accessing finance and technology for that purpose. In this regard, urge the fulfilment of the commitment made by developed countries, to the goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion in climate finance per year by 2020 and annually through to 2025 to address the needs of developing countries, in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation.
7.) Global Health (pages 37 and 38) recalling the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's funding of the World Health Organization and a myriad of other health-related NGOs and well as his deep affection for all things vaccine-related and the move toward digital vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic:
a.) Commit to nurturing under WHO coordination an ecosystem of manufacturing and research and development, which encourages strong collaboration between academia, government, research institutions, civil society, philanthropic foundations, international organizations, and private entities as well as acknowledge the importance of public-private partnership, technology transfer, and knowledge sharing on voluntary and mutually agreed terms.
b.) Acknowledge the importance of shared technical standards to facilitate seamless international travel, interoperability, and recognizing digital and non-digital solutions aligned with countries’ relevant legal provisions including those used for COVID-19 proof of vaccination or verification of tests as well as the IHR (2005) which provide an overarching legal framework for addressing public health emergencies that have the potential to cross borders.
c.) Endeavour to move towards interoperability of systems including mechanisms that validate proof of vaccination, whilst respecting the sovereignty of national health policies, and relevant national regulations such as personal data protection and data-sharing.
b.) Support science to shorten the cycle for the development, manufacturing, and distribution of safe and effective VTDs, with the ambition to develop VTDs (vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics) from 300 to 100 days in the long termacknowledging the differences in challenges to develop vaccines compared to therapeutics and diagnostics, following the identification of such threats while maintaining strong regulatory oversight and public confidence, and work to make them affordable and widely available.
Just in case you thought that they may have forgotten, the meeting covered this very important topic:
"Strengthening financial resilience, including monitoring and discuss the risks associated with volatile international capital flows, discuss the drivers of currency usage in trade and finance as well as developing local currency capital markets, and discuss macro-financial implications of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) for the international monetary and financial system."
Let's close this posting with a screen capture of the G20 Bali Leaders' Declaration as found on the White House website, showing the world how the Biden Administration has bought into the Great Reset roadmap:
I believe that is enough to digest for this posting. At the 2022 G20 meeting, the most influential members of the global aristocracy has succinctly outlined its roadmap for our futures and the dystopia that we will face if they are enacted. Our only hope is that there is a "Great Awakening" and that the majority of human beings realize that this systemic restructuring is in the best interest of a very small percentage of the world's inhabitants and not being undertaken with the best interests of the vast majority of humanity.
In closing and just so you are aware of how this group of influential individuals pays little attention to detail, here is a screen cap showing one of two misspellings of "geopolitical" in their document:
If they can't even use a spell checker, why would we trust them with the entire globe?
Since early 2020, it has become apparent that governments around the world, particularly those of English-speaking nations, have used the COVID-19 "emergency" as an excuse to solidify their power over those that elected them. Apparently, even the invocation of a coronavirus emergency is no longer the "only game in town" when it comes to government overreach, at least for those who live in Colorado.
Here is a recent announcement from the Democratic Governor of Colorado, Jared Polis:
Here is the Executive Order in full with my highlights on the pertinent sections:
This Executive Order gives the Governor the power to take whatever actions he deems necessary "in prevention of, preparation for, response to and recovery from disasters", which, in this case have been expanded to include not only COVID-19 but Respiratory syncytial virus (which the EO admits is common), influenza (which is also common) and other respiratory illnesses. The Executive Order will expire 30 days from November 11, 2022 (highly unlikely) but can be continued indefinitely with further Executive Orders (highly likely).
Coincidentally and somewhat ironically, despite being fully vaccinated, Polis has now tested positive for COVID-19 as shown here:
The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse.
