ONE HEALTH – Globalist Path to a One World Order
Freddie Ponton | 21st Century Wire
I would like to think that many would agree when I say the world we once knew seems to have taken a very strange path, to say the least. As global elites sit comfortably on board of their proverbial public-private partnership super yacht, whilst sipping vintage French XO with their philanthropists cohort and pondering evermore creative ways to keep control of an ever sinking ship, we can only wonder what might be their next diabolical plan.
We saw them parading once more at the World Economic Forum’s annual confab in Davos, where the world’s most wealthy and powerful technocrats gather to discuss the ‘big ideas’, and how they plan to tackle new challenges, and fine tune their elaborate master plans, not least of all warding off another new and sneaky threat, like the latest “disease X”, or as William Henry Gates III likes to call it, ‘the next pandemic.’ Clearly, a hypothetical disease due to some unknown exotic virus, said to be likely (or rather unlikely) to cause a serious pandemic.
In 2018, if you remember, the World Health Organization (WHO) followed by the World Economic Forum (WEF), added this “disease X” to the list of pathogens that could pose a danger to humanity. A truly disturbing prophecy, when just two years later, the world’s greatest-ever respiratory plague, “Covid-19”, suddenly emerged to take the world by storm. Ironically, this pandemic was a perfect model of “disease X” (how timely).
A true game changer, Covid-19 was presented to mankind as a likely zoonosis, an infectious disease that is transmitted between species from animals to humans, or from humans to animals.
Already in their starting blocks, the world’s mainstream media began orchestrating a perfectly harmonised symphony, presenting us with around-the-clock news programs and bulletins, featuring an endless carousel of self-proclaimed science experts, public health mavens, and grandstanding politicians and reiterating the identical script: the introduction of a novel coronavirus allegedly from “an animal reservoir”. Still, the origins of the SARSCoV-2 have managed to escape the world, leaving us with a bevy of assumptions and exotic theories, all of which are making it exceedingly difficult for anyone to wrap their heads around where this show-stopper of a virus came from, or if it even exists in nature, much less what actual threat it ever posed to the human race. Instead of looking for straight forward evidence of a truly purified and isolated version of the SARSCoV-2 virus, many have instead entertained supernatural ‘gain of function’ theories. And with all that speculation, we are, collectively speaking, no closer to discovering the truth what supposedly caused this global upheaval of the last two years.
This leads us to the story of “One Health”. In this article, we will chart its origins, from inception to adoption, in the hopes of better understand how this concept has strangely become the handbook for the contagion business, but also possibly the most powerful instrument of control which globalist oligarchs have devised to date. It is also the underlying concept, and virtual cornerstone of a yet to be realised working global government structure.
The formation and super bureaucratic architecture of this framework is complex and multilayers, but to understand it function and purpose, you only need to remember one thing: whoever controls the “One Health Economies” controls the people, the governments, and by extension, the future of humanity.
What is One Health?
The One Health concept has been in the making for over a decade, but it is now moving into BETA mode. According to the plans outlined by the WHO and its meticulously assembled One Health High-Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP), One Health is an integrated, unifying approach which aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems across the planet. It is the new global society framework upon which all new sustainable development initiatives and transitional systems will be built, and is the basis for the implementation of a new global world order.
One Health claims to recognize the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environmental ecosystem, as closely linked and ‘interdependent’.
The approach mobilizes multiple sectors, disciplines and communities at varying levels of society, all meant to work together to foster well-being and tackle emerging threats to health and ecosystems, while addressing the collective need for clean water, energy and air, safe and nutritious food, taking action on climate change, and contributing to the ongoing objective of sustainable development.
Indeed, it seems they do care very much for our well-being.
The importance of establishing a One Health Definition was first raised by the OHHLEP, and later agreed by the four main stakeholder partners, referred as the United Nations Quadripartite, tasked with developing a common language and understanding around the new concept of One Health.
The WHO, along with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), and more recently the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), all welcomed the newly formed operational definition of One Health (my humble experience tells me that rarely people disagree when potentially billions of dollars in public money is about to be thrown their way).
Let’s start by reviewing this Quadripartite (WHO, FAO, OIE, UNEP), the four organizations now working together to mainstream One Health, supposedly conceived in order to help humanity prepare for and prevent, predict, detect, and respond to ‘global health’ threats, and promote sustainable development.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) provides us with a great clue, stated on their website:
“The application of a One Health approach is a critical one for achieving the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)”.
“We are One World working together for One Heath”.
You may have noticed that One Health has been getting a lot of traction recently, particularly in response to quantifying diseases’ impact on the economy, a burden can be calculated, even if the methodologies and results remain heavily debated. For example, in a 2011 paper, Making Sense of One Health, we can read comment made by Jean Kamanzi, a Senior Officer at the World Bank and currently with UN FAO Regional Food Safety officer for Africa, estimating that SARS-1 would have cost $50 billion, foot and mouth (FMD) in the UK $30 billion, FMD in Taiwan, $5-8 billion, bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in the UK $10-13 billion, and Nipah virus in Malaysia $350-400 million.
In another estimation, economists consider that the emergence of BSE, SARS, Avian flu (H5N1), and swine flu (H1N1) have caused over $20 billion in direct economic losses over the last decade, and in excess of $200 billion in indirect losses.
One Health claims to solve these problems.
Once the importance of infectious diseases was ascertained, the question became, what are the options for preventing and controlling them? “The One Health Approach” was deemed by the Quadripartite to be a valid solution and potential response to address these challenges, but without giving a clear explanation as to why suddenly, as the old global economic model is being collapsed, that all of these exotic viruses are suddenly taking the center stage, and creating what appears to be orchestrated chaos. Judging by what we have all witnessed over the last two years in terms of the ‘global response’ to COVID-19, you would have thought that we never had to deal with viruses and epidemics before.
Follow the money – One Health and the World Bank
For its part, the World Bank has outlined its version of the One Health mission, and has positioned itself as the central player to be added to UN Tripartite (that was before UNEP came on board), as it was difficult to fully exclude them from the formal alliance. The World Bank really pushed hard to implement, One Health, that is, to transform it into a workable concept that can allow for ongoing fundraising. It is also the organization that invested the most heavily in shaping One Health into a coherent and more developed globalist discourse (since when a bank is a charity).
However, at an earlier stage, the World Bank was regarded with caution by the FAO, WHO, OIE, as some were fearing that the World Bank was interpreting One Health as a tool to redefine the role of animals in public health, as the World Bank was said to be aiming to fuse public health and veterinary services. Despite their denials in this regard, they have clearly advanced this agenda a long way.
Such a fear was certainly justified and transpired in a statement made by Bernard Vallat in 2009, then the Director General of the OIE, and this is what he said:
The concept ‘One World, One Health‟ should not serve as a pretext for dangerous initiatives like trying to achieve economies of scale based on purely theoretical notions worthy of a sorcerer‟s apprentice, such as trying to merge the Veterinary Services and the Public Health Services.
Here it is important to acknowledge that there are, in fact, pockets of dissent within different globalist institutions.
The issue of the merging of public health and animal services was a tense one then, which certainly damaged the architectural efforts by World Bank. However, with its habit of raising funds, and with its will to remain involved in One Health, the World Bank proved to be difficult to set aside, and remains to this day an important partner in managing the governance of One Health.
New arrivals to the One Health party
There are other organisations which have been at the margins of the One Health for some time, but have since been integrated to the global alliance. These are the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). All have embraced the One Health doctrine which emphasizes the need to view human health and well-being as a subset of environmental health. This is a key concept, and one of the foundational principles of One Health, which folds everything into an environmental envelope, along with all the various eco imperatives, including climate change.
It seems the global order has a plan, and somehow One Health is at the very heart of it.
Header featured image (edited) credit: Ape/One Health/Orginal article from 21 Century Wire
Emphasis added by (TLB) editors
Stay tuned to …
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.