Don’t Fall for WHO’s PsyOps – but COMMENT NOW on WHO Pandemic Treaty
A Lesson in Unwitting Compliance
A Lesson in Unwitting Compliance
I just decided to write this Substack, while trying to finish others, feeling compelled to expose psychological manipulation that people might not notice while urgently submitting their comments on WHO’s push for global domination with their Pandemic Treaty.
They expect you to fall into their traps (including incessantly, mindlessly using the V word after denouncing it, so you keep reinforcing their message).
The powerful “forces of darkness” (FODs), are creative and brilliant at pervasive, macro and micro psychological manipulation. That’s what $10 billion on behavioral scientists for messaging buys you.
The “forces of light” (FOLs) too often play into their traps, (including using the V word right after denouncing it, reinforcing their message, doing their work for them and against ourselves.) Here’s another trap.
I was responding to Steve Kirsch’s Urgent Call URGENT!!! Comment on the WHO treaty **NOW** -
Please go there NOW and submit a comment before 11AM EDT/8 AM PDT April 13.
Thankfully, Steve made it easy with a link and sample answers.
Steve’s sample answers, at the end, were confusing to me because I hadn’t read the question. When I clicked on the link, I saw this question from the WHO’s overlords
Written contributions to the first round of public hearings should respond to the guiding question, which is:
“What substantive elements do you think should be included in a new international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response?”
Please further note that all submissions of written comments are subject to the terms of participation. In that regard, please note that:
Written contributions are limited to 250 words.
Think before you answer the question. What is wrong with it? Should you answer what they are asking?
Presupposition
WHO’s question deploys a psychological technique called “presupposition.” The question presupposes there should be a “ new international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response,” and when you answer what should be in it, you implicitly accept the premise that there should be an instrument.
They give you the illusion of having a say in what should be included, but you already unwittingly fell into their trap, complying with their premise without realizing it.
This is one example of their seduction. They don’t miss a trick. There are infinitely more.
Here is my response – challenging the question
I do not think that there should be an international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response.
The WHO is an unelected body with conflicts of interest and corrupt practices. You have no right to impose restrictions on anyone.
Everyone is entitled to personal sovereignty and bodily autonomy, the basis for local and national sovereignty which must protect the rights of their citizens. We are granted these by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international agreements.
No nation, local entity or individual may be required to follow rules imposed upon us unjustly by the WHO which has no authority over us. Health issues are local and regional and must be addressed on those levels.
We know you rigged the PCR tests to manufacture the illusion of a pandemic where there was none. Lockdowns were ineffective and did more harm than good. They extended Covid by preventing young, healthy people from getting mild or asymptomatic Covid, acquiring natural immunity contributing to herd immunity while protected the vulnerable. The Amish acquired herd immunity in months.
You are unjustly usurping illegitimate power and will ultimately cause your own destruction, as more catch onto your obvious dangerous, ulterior motives.
Field Theory
Field Theory, extended from physics and mathematics to apply to social psychology and organizational development, can be useful to us. It expands upon principles of Gestalt Theory - "the whole is more than the sum of its parts" – to patterns of interactions between people, situations and social forces.
Let’s further apply the concept and contemplate a global Covid field that we all participate in, involving all forces, conditions, dynamic patterns of interactions, including language, behavior, etc. Everything everyone does contributes to the field.
If you use cash, as suggested by Catherine Austin Fitts, and do “cash Fridays” suggested by Mary Holland, you are changing the field for the better. If you refuse the spikeshot, you impact the field, etc.
When we comply with their frames, use their language, reinforce their messages, we variably allow, support or reinforce their domination of the field. We impede our ability to evolve and transform the field.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. – Eldridge Cleaver
Mindlessness and Mindfulness
“Mindfulness means maintaining a moment-by-moment awareness of our thoughts, feelings, bodily sensations, and surrounding environment, through a gentle, nurturing lens.”
Let’s elevate and empower (I hesitate to say “weaponize”) mindfulness, to add intentionality, will, and discipline in our language and behaviors.
People are rising up and learning, speaking, writing, taking actions, teaching, taking risks like we have never seen. We are building momentum towards the tipping point. More truth is coming out. They are off their game. We are still outgunned.
It would accelerate our progress in transforming the energy in the field to be more alert to their PsyOps and less mindless about our language. At the risk of being annoying for harping on this, we must all stop using their tools against ourselves, and call things by their real names to alter the field, raise consciousness and de-hypnotize. It doesn’t cost anything. It’s the least we can do.
Steve Kirsch’s Sample Answer to their trick question,
Written contributions to the first round of public hearings should respond to the guiding question, which is:
“What substantive elements do you think should be included in a new international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response?”
1. National and local leadership retain full autonomy, reserving the right to make decisions based on what is best for their own people.
2. The ability of nations and local municipalities to opt out of any and all portions of the agreement as they see fit, without consequence.
3. An open and transparent process with the ability for all people of the world to vote on including failsafe measures that will prevent the application of the global agreement in places where a majority of the people do not want it.
4. Measures that do not allow for influence in the process by any and all pharmaceutical companies or other global health profiteers.
Interesting take. Thanks for sharing.
This is insane that outsourcing our national, state, and individual sovereignty is even something we have to comment on; it should not even be a question we consider while living in the land of the free.
I am creating https://NoSearch.org with the hopes of unifying ‘we the people’ under a medical freedom message.
I commented without even thinking of your angle; as did most others I imagine. But from now on this “angle” will remain with me, so thanks.
The WHO does not even provide a receipt of the comments or even an acknowledgment!
My comment was general, along the lines of:
1. It is my body, my choice; quoting the Australian PM
2. Health is a personal matter between an individual and his/her doctor
3. Who care more for me - me or another organisation or temporal being? Me! Therefore I must have the first and final say.
4. Why would govts need to force people, directly and via proxy, to take something if they can prove it is safe, effective, and necessary???