Transcript of the above video:

For those who have watched this channel for a while now you know I am pretty concerned just in a general way about sort of these International protocols associated with travel and health mandates and things, things that I don't think anybody ever in a million years thought that some largely opaque International Bureaucracy should not really have this level of power over people's day to day life. I have serious issues with that just in a general sense and I have discussed that in other videos. Also the way in which this seems to be the attempt to promulgate this especially through US Immigration system, excuse me US legal system specifically saying that "well this isn't a new Treaty, we're just changing an old Treaty." Well yeah it is called Advise and Consent and when you change the text of a Treaty, you are changing the Treaty; that means it's a new Treaty. You need the Senate to weigh in in the US and I have talked about that already, I am probably screaming into the abyss here but I brought that up in the past.

I thought of making this video after reading a recent article from Zero Hedge, and Zero Hedge is actually quoting one Alex Newman via the Epoch Times, the article is titled: UN Seeks Vast New Powers for Global Emergencies. There is a lot going on in here, a lot going on in here. I'm going to quote some excerpts here. Quoting directly: "The United Nations is seeking vast new powers and stronger "global governance" tools to deal with International Emergencies such as pandemics and economic crises." Now this is interesting. This all started out in the context of International Health Regulations and now it is kind of "oh International Economic crises" is kind of being wedged in there. Quoting further: "A new UN Policy brief was revealed and the Biden Administration appears to support the proposal." Quoting further: "The plan to create an "Emergency Platform," which would involve a set of protocols activated during crises," (that then begs the question, who defines "a crisis"? We talked about that a few years ago in a similar context. How do you define what this "crisis" is?) Quoting further: "that could affect billions of people, has already drawn strong concern and criticism from U.S. policymakers and analysts. Among those expressing concern is House Foreign Affairs Chairman Rep. Michael McCaul (Republican from Texas) whose committee oversees U.S. foreign policy and involvement in international organizations. "We must be sure that any global protocol or platform operated by the U.N. respects U.S. national sovereignty and U.S. taxpayer dollars," McCaul told the Epoch Times." Quoting further: "He also noted his concern that the proposed platform expands the authority and funding of the U.S. and the definitions of "emergency" and "crisis" to include, for instance, climate change." Again, the definition of 'crisis' in all of this is a really important factor.

My personal opinion is countries can do this on their own. Thailand did a perfectly good job of handling these issues itself; US did too quite honestly. I don't understand why some supranational organization needs to come in over the top of these countries and dictate to them a) what a crisis is and b) what the response to it will be. Really, anybody that doesn't see the very ‘scary' not to be simplistic in my terminology but the terrifying ramifications this could have and also who is accountable here? The biggest thing I noticed going from 2020 through to whatever it was, October 2022, during this COVID lockdown and all of this stuff was who at the end of the day could you point to and say "well this is the person that is making that call"? They had a bunch of spokespeople, they had a bunch of people that were experts and things but who at the end of the day made the call that said "we're going to shut everything down". Who made that decision? Who made that determination? I never could get a clear answer on that. It was all "well we do it by consensus", which in political parlance and I am not picking on Thailand, the US other countries, I mean I did a lot of research on this because I had a lot of time on my hands for a couple of years to look at it, every time, "look well it's done by consensus". Well that is "bureaucratese" for "we all get to point our fingers at somebody else" and at the end of the day nobody really is sort of on the hook for "that's the person who said this is what needs to occur." So yeah, I am very concerned by this move. I have talked about it at length. It directly pertains to both US and Thai Immigration Law as well as just general international travel, so I think it's something that should most assuredly be on people's radars as something to be concerned about going into the future. I also find it very, very weird and again scary that beyond even that, it's not like we are talking about like the full body of the U.N. votes on this. This is like a small cohort of folks that work in an International Public Health capacity just sort of passing this dicta, or dictate out there and just saying this is what we are going to do, because that is what happens. Anybody that looks back on this and doesn't see that, we now have the timelines, we know when certain determinations were made and those determinations triggered some very substantial changes to the way our lives were for a very prolonged period of time without any way of really getting any accountability for a) who did it? And why? And b) how did we reverse it when under many different circumstances it was clear that a lot of these protocols were not overly necessary? 

So I mean the thing to take away from this video is keep an eye on this because moving forward I am very concerned about the fact that we may see, I hope we learn from what we went through, that's my big thing. I want there to be something akin to a Truth and Reconciliation Commission or something and not to place blame, I want to be clear on that too. I don't think there's any point in that. Everybody went through it and yeah you can probably go out there and point to some people that could have done better or something of this nature, no point. I don't see any point to that. I think what would be better is to go back and study how this happened so that in the future, even if it's determined that we need to take special steps to deal with it, for example a disease out there, that we can do it in such a way that mitigates against the worst excesses of what we went through because there were major excesses. Look I saw people die; I know people that committed suicide as a result of basically being complete thrown out of work, being totally despondent and having nowhere to turn because they were just completely isolated and they lived in a very cash economy kind of set up and everything just dried up quite literally overnight. They were unable to make money from one day to the next and thereby support themselves and it caused multiple people to take their own lives. That alone should be motivation enough to seriously, at least scrutinize these major changes that seem to be in the works and to scrutinize the activity that occurred over the course of those years so that for the future, we can make some better decisions that don't result in quite honestly the tragedies that we saw over those months.