‘Swapping Public Control for Private Money’: The Decline of the WHO
The World Health Organization, intended to address health challenges, now enriches corporations while harming public health. Good governance and excluding commercial interests are essential to restore its role in tackling infectious diseases and promoting global health equity.
Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender’s Top News of the Day. It’s free.
By David Bell
International public health is a mess. Once seen generally as a public good, the focus of the World Health Organization (WHO) now more closely resembles a scheme for extracting private profit from the public purse.
Wealthy corporations drive a “public-private partnership” agenda, the foundations of the rich determine global priorities, and a propagandized public are ever more removed from decision-making regarding their own well-being.
There was a time when things were different, and public health promoted genuine equity and decentralization.
However, decades of naively swapping public control for private money have dismantled the decolonizing, community-based model on which institutions such as the WHO were ostensibly built.
While the WHO remains mainly publicly funded, and defunding bad ideas is sensible, simplistic solutions to complex problems are seldom a good idea. Replacing net harm with a vacuum will not help the people who need substance.
Knee-jerk reactions can satisfy those who are unaffected by collateral harm but want “something done” (such as the privileged Zoom class who decided in 2020 that wrecking the livelihoods of others might protect them from a virus), but we should be better than that.
Public health, like our personal health, should remain a responsibility of us all.
Some argue that “public health” is a false construct, and that only personal health really matters.
Those who believe this should clarify what they will do when a factory upstream on their local river starts releasing mercury or cyanide into their water supply.
Without a structure to monitor this, they won’t know until people around them get sick or die. If they want to walk outside, they probably prefer clean air. These require considerable communal effort.
We also live far longer than our forebears principally due to improved sanitation, living conditions and nutrition. Antibiotics play an important role, and some vaccines have contributed late in the game.
While some of these improvements grew organically, many required communal action (i.e., a public health action). If the road has now led us into the bog, better to back up and reroute the road than destroy it altogether.
What public health is
The WHO was designed in 1946 to help coordinate international public health. It was to be called upon by countries when needed.
The WHO’s remit was primarily to address high-burden diseases that cause avoidable sickness and death where countries lacked the resources or technical expertise needed.
Although non-communicable diseases such as diabetes or obesity — or cancers and degenerative diseases such as dementia — kill most frequently, the WHO sensibly prioritized the unavoidable results of poverty or geography, predominantly infectious diseases, striking younger and so that shorten life far more.
“Life-years lost” is an extremely important concept in public health. If we really believe that equity is important — a reasonable chance of all having a roughly equal lifespan — then addressing diseases that remove the most life years makes sense.
Most people would prioritize a 5-year-old with pneumonia over an 85-year-old dying of dementia if the choice had to be made. Both lives are of equal value, but one has more to lose than the other.
When truth was important, preventable diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and the effects of undernutrition were the priority of the international health community.
COVID-19 is therefore an obvious anomaly. It kills at an average age older than most people even live to, and predominantly affects those with severe metabolic or lifestyle diseases.
Conventional public health metrics that consider life-years lost (such as disability-adjusted life years) would have allowed the public to realize that things were not as serious as some needed them to believe.
What public health is not
In terms of equity, it would be ludicrous to divert resources from African children dying of malaria in order to vaccinate them against COVID-19.
Such a resource diversion would be expected to kill more children than could conceivably be saved — mass COVID-19 vaccination is far more costly than malaria management.
So, the fact that such a vaccination program was run by the WHO, and is still underway, says everything we need to know about the current intent of the WHO and its partners.
Mass COVID-19 vaccination, though clearly a public health negative in low-income countries, was not a mistake but a deliberate act.
The people in charge knew the age at which people die of COVID-19, they knew most people already had immunity, and they knew the worsening of other diseases that resource diversion would drive.
In the same way, they had known that closing schools would entrench future poverty and increase child marriage and that closing workplaces in crowded cities would enforce poverty whilst having no impact on virus transmission.
It is therefore rational to conclude that those driving such policies are acting incompetently from a public health standpoint. Calls for their organizations to be defunded and dismantled are fully understandable.
In wealthier countries, where organizations such as the WHO provide minimal value-add beyond career opportunities, the benefit of demolishing international public health may appear obvious.
However, those born by good fortune into countries with strong economies and health systems must also think more broadly. An example will help explain the issue.
Where international cooperation saves lives
Malaria has had a huge influence on humankind. It has killed enough to change humanity, selecting for mutations such as sickle-cell disease that, while deadly in themselves, killed less often than the malaria parasite they protect against. Malaria still kills over 600,000 children every year.
Good diagnosis and treatments exist but they die because it is often unavailable. This is mostly due to poverty.
The parasite is naturally spread by mosquitoes throughout the tropics and sub-tropics but is only a major issue in poorer countries. For example, there is no malaria in Singapore, very little in Malaysia, but a lot in Papua, New Guinea.
A concerted effort in the development of better malaria drugs, diagnostics and insecticide-impregnated bed nets (to stop and kill the mosquitoes) has reduced risk for many, but many low-income countries cannot procure and distribute them without external support.
As the COVID-19 response demonstrated, some people and corporations are willing to risk the lives of others for profit. So without international regulatory support, malfeasants would also send substandard and fake products to these countries.
A similar picture applies to many other diseases, including tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and schistosomiasis (a very nasty worm infection).
So, while it may be reasonable to state that the WHO and partners have been a net public health negative over the past few years, not all the actions of such institutions produce net harm.
Not all their work is configured to benefit the rich. If we permanently eliminated all international health efforts, then history suggests we would kill far more than we save.
That is not an outcome to strive for.
Recognizing institutional realities
Somehow, we must retain the benefits while removing the ability to sell out to the highest bidder.
A penchant for injecting pregnant women with mRNA medicines that concentrate in the ovaries and liver, crossing the placenta to enter the dividing cells of the fetus, does not mean honesty or competence are beyond reach.
It simply means people can be bought and/or brainwashed. We already knew that.
Public health, like plumbing or selling cars, is a way by which ordinary people make money. Therefore we need ordinary restraints and rules to make sure they do not abuse others for self-enrichment.
The current mess is also society’s fault. Because these institutions deal in health, we pretended they were more caring, more ethical and more able to self-regulate.
We should have expected this and prevented it.
Because the WHO is staffed by humans, and humans have a natural desire for more money, it will keep prioritizing its corporate benefactors and their investors.
Car salesmen don’t succeed by giving customers the best deal, but by gaining the best deal for the manufacturer.
Who and what to fund?
It is irrational to support corrupted institutions, but rational to support improvements in health and well-being.
It is rational (and decent) to help populations who, through accidents of history such as past colonial exploitation or other misfortune, lack the means to fully address their own basic healthcare.
While bilateral arrangements may address much of this, it also makes sense to coordinate more widely. Multilateral institutions can provide efficiencies and benefits beyond those achievable on a bilateral basis.
A sensible model would recognize human frailty and greed, ensuring international health institutions can only act when and as requested by each country.
It would exclude private interest, as the priorities of population health are simply incompatible with the maximization of corporate profit (which the WHO’s corporate donors are obligated to prioritize).
The tendency of humans to put loyalty to an institution (and their own salaries) above a cause also necessitates strict staff term limits. Equity would demand the same.
International institutions, supported by our taxes, must never be in a position to undermine democracy, curtail freedom of expression, or override our fundamental right to work, education and normal family life.
Doing so would be the antithesis of bodily autonomy and human rights. It would be the antithesis of democracy. And it would be the antithesis of good public health. Institutions seeking power to impose their will on ordinary, free people must be dealt with accordingly.
The COVID-19 response of the international health industry, led by the WHO, impoverished the public and degraded health. The current rush to transfer greater powers to the WHO should therefore not be confused with public health.
Publicly funding the further erosion of freedom and basic human rights would be self-harm, while funding access to basic healthcare is a global good. The public, and politicians who claim to represent them, should be clear on the difference.
Originally published by Brownstone Institute.
David Bell is a senior scholar at Brownstone Institute, a public health physician and a biotech consultant in global health.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.
Subscribe to The Defender – It’s Free!
The Brownstone Institute is a nonprofit organization founded May 2021. Its vision is of a society that places the highest value on the voluntary interaction of individuals and groups while minimizing the use of violence and force including that which is exercised by public or private authorities.
Sign up for free news and updates from Children’s Health Defense. CHD focuses on l
The Global Policing conglomerate/the State
- October 17, 2023
- The United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals are not about sustainability. They’re tools to facilitate the implementation of a One World Government
- The term the globalist alliance uses to describe its network is a “global public-private partnership,” or G3P. The G3P is composed of most of the world’s governments, intergovernmental organizations, global corporations, major philanthropic foundations, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society groups. Collectively, they are the “stakeholders” that are implementing the SDGs
- While SDG16 claims to advance “peaceful and inclusive societies” and “justice for all,” this goal is really about consolidating authority, exploiting threats to advance regime hegemony, and implementing a centrally controlled global system of digital identity (digital ID)
- A digital identity is not merely a form of identification. Your “identity” is who you are, and a digital identity will keep a permanent record of your choices and behaviors, 24/7. Universal adoption of digital identity will enable the G3P global governance regime to establish a behavioral-based system of reward and punishment
- The COVID pandemic was used to redefine human rights and to get people used to the idea that the rights of individuals are conditional and can be ignored or suspended “for the greater good.” The United Nations’ Charter establishes a global governance regime that stands against freedom, justice and peace, and all of the UN’s SDGs need to be understood within this context
At this point in time, it’s crucial to realize that the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are part of the plan to implement a One World Government, where the entire world will be run by unelected bureaucrats beholden to technocratic ideals.
In a two-part Unlimited Hangout investigative series,1,2 independent journalists Iain Davis and Whitney Webb expose how Sustainable Development Goal No. 16 (SDG16), which claims to advance “peaceful and inclusive societies” and “justice for all,” is really about consolidating authority, exploiting threats to advance regime hegemony, and forcing a “centrally controlled global system of digital identity3 (digital ID) upon humanity.”
As explained in Part 1,4 the term the globalist alliance of technocrats use to describe its network is a “global public-private partnership,” or G3P:
“The G3P is toiling tirelessly to create the conditions necessary to justify the imposition of both global governance ‘with teeth’ and its prerequisite digital ID system. In doing so, the G3P is inverting the nature of our rights. It manufactures and exploits crises in order to claim legitimacy for its offered ‘solutions.’
The G3P comprises virtually all of the world’s intergovernmental organizations, governments, global corporations, major philanthropic foundations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society groups. Collectively, these form the ‘stakeholders’ implementing sustainable development, including SDG16.”
What SDG16 Is Really About
The central objective of SDG16 is to strengthen the UN-led regime, and of all the subgoals included in this SDG, the establishment of “a legal identity for all” (SDG16.9), is the most crucial, as other goals rely on the use of digital identity. As noted by Davis and Webb:6
“Universal adoption of SDG16.9 digital ID will enable the G3P global governance regime’s to establish a worldwide system of reward and punishment. If we accept the planned model of digital ID, it will ultimately enslave us in the name of sustainable development …
SDG16.9 ‘sustainable development’ means we must use digital ID … Otherwise we will not be protected in law, service access will be denied, our right to transact in the modern economy will be removed, we will be barred from participating as ‘citizens’ and excluded from so-called ‘democracy.’”
Understanding Digital Identity
The World Economic Forum (WEF), founded by Schwab, has for years promoted the implementation of digital identity. The problem with calling it “digital ID” is that people misunderstand it to be something it’s not. There’s a huge difference between identity and identification.7
Identification refers to documents that prove you are who you say you are. A digital identity is NOT merely a form of identification. Your “identity” is who you actually are, and a digital identity will keep a permanent record of your choices and behaviors, 24/7.
Your identity encompasses everything that makes you unique, and that’s what the globalist cabal is really after. Step out of line, and every social media interaction, every penny spent and every move you’ve ever made can be used against you.
Indeed, having access to everyone’s digital identity is the key to successful manipulation and control of the global population. The graphic below, from the WEF, illustrates their idea of how your digital identity will interact with the world.
Everything you can think of is to be connected to your digital identity, and your behavior, beliefs and opinions will dictate what you can and cannot do within society. It will unlock doors where someone like you is welcome, and lock the ones where you’re not.
If you think the idea of vaccine passports is insane, wait until your access to critical infrastructure and services is dependent not just on your vaccination status, but also what books you’ve bought, what ideas you’ve shared, and who you’ve given money or emotional support to.
Download this Article Before it Disappears
Interoperability Will Link Disparate Systems Together
As people are coming to understand the threat of a One World Government, resistance against digital ID and the social credit score that comes with it has started to mount. The G3P’s answer to that dilemma is the construction of an interoperable system that can link disparate digital ID systems together. As explained by Davis and Webb:8
“This ‘modular platform’ approach is designed to avoid the political problems that the official issuance of a national digital ID card would otherwise elicit.
Establishing SDG16.9 global digital ID is crucial for 8 of the 17 UN SDGs. It is the linchpin at the center of a global digital panopticon that is being devised under the auspices of the UN’s global public-private partnership ‘regime.’”
You Have No Rights, Only Permits, Under the New World Order
You may be wondering where human rights enter into all of this. If your digital ID records every move you make, which can then be used against you, won’t that violate some of your basic rights as a free human being? Well, that depends on how human rights are defined — and who defines them. Davis and Webb explain:9
“… the Universal Declaration of Human Rights … was first accepted by all members of the United Nations on December 10, 1948. The preamble of the Declaration recognizes that the ‘equal and inalienable rights’ of all human beings are the ‘foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.’
After that, ‘inalienable rights’ are never again mentioned in the entire Declaration. ‘Human rights’ are nothing like ‘inalienable rights.’
Inalienable rights, unlike human rights, are not bestowed upon us by any governing authority. Rather, they are innate to each of us. They are immutable. They are ours in equal measure. The only source of inalienable rights is Natural Law, or God’s Law.
No one — no government, no intergovernmental organization, no human institution or human ruler — can ever legitimately claim the right to grant or deny our inalienable rights. Humanity can claim no collective authority to grant or deny the inalienable rights of any individual human being.
Beyond the preamble, the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) concerns itself exclusively with ‘human rights.’ But asserting, as it does, that human rights are some sort of expression of inalienable rights is a fabrication — a lie.
Human rights, according to the UDHR, are created by certain human beings and are bestowed by those human beings upon other human beings. They are not inalienable rights or anything close to inalienable rights.
Article 6 of the UDHR and Article 16 of the UN’s 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights … both decree: ‘Everyone has the [human] right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.’
Note: We put ‘[human]’ in brackets … to alert readers that these documents are NOT referring to inalienable rights. While the respective Articles 6 and 16 sound appealing, the underlying implications are not.
Both articles mean that ‘without legal existence those rights may not be asserted by a person within the domestic legal order.’ As we shall see, the ability to prove one’s identity will become a prerequisite for ‘legal existence.’ Thus, in a post-SDG16 world, persons without UN-approved identification will be unable to assert their ‘human rights’ …
Article 29.3 of the UDHR states: ‘These [human] rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.’
In plain English: We are only allowed to exercise our alleged human ‘rights’ subject to the diktats of governments, intergovernmental organizations and other UN ‘stakeholders.’ The bottom line, then, is that what the UN calls ‘human rights’ are … government and intergovernmental permits by which our behavior is controlled.”
COVID Was an Opportunity to Reset the Playing Field
Our behavior is also controlled through censorship and control of information. In its “COVID-19 and Human Rights” document,10 published in April 2020, the UN presents human rights as policy tools and openly admits that “securing compliance” with health measures that severely restrict (or outright eliminate) human rights will depend on “building trust,” and that includes censoring that which might undermine trust in authorities.
Censorship of “misinformation” and “disinformation” is also required under the proposed International Treaty on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response, which places the World Health Organization at the center of all pandemic-related agendas, and in the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHRs). Importantly, both of these instruments will be binding. As noted by Davis and Webb:11
“The current proposed amendments12 to the IHR illustrate how ‘crises’ provide unique opportunities for the UN and its partners to control populations — through purported ‘human rights’ — by exploiting those ‘rights’ as ‘a powerful set of tools.’
Here is one example of the proposals being put forth: The WHO wishes to remove the following language from IHR Article 3.1: ‘The implementation of these Regulations shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.’
It intends to replace that regulatory principle with: ‘The implementation of these Regulations shall be based on the principles of equity, inclusivity, coherence and in accordance with the common but differentiated responsibilities of their States Parties, taking into consideration their social and economic development.’
This proposed amendment signifies that the UN and its partners wish to completely ignore the UN’s own Universal Declaration of Human Rights whenever any of these agencies declares a new ‘crisis’ or identifies a new ‘international threat.’ This exemplifies the ‘course-correction’ the UN envisioned would arise from the ‘unique opportunity’ presented by the COVID-19 crisis.”
The UN Has Already Assumed Authority; No One Granted It
Right now, the WHO appears to be set up to become the de facto global government, but the UN is also a contender, and it has openly assumed this authority.
For example, in its “UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda” document,13 published in 2013, it states that “A global governance regime, under the auspices of the UN, will have to ensure that the global commons will be preserved for future generations.”
The United Nation’s Charter establishes a global governance regime that stands against freedom, justice and peace, and all of the UN’s SDGs need to be understood within this context.
As noted by Davis and Webb:14
“The UN calls itself a ‘global governance regime.’ It is arbitrarily assuming the authority to seize control of everything (‘the global commons’), including humans, both by enforcing its Charter — citing its misnamed ‘Human Rights’ declaration — and by fulfilling its ‘Sustainable Development’ agenda.
Note that the ‘global governance regime’ will ultimately ‘translate into better national and regional governance.’ This means that the role of each national government is merely to ‘translate’ global governance into national policy. Electing one political party or another to undertake the translation makes no material difference. The policy is not set by the governments we elect.
As nation-states one by one implement SDG-based policies, the regime further consolidates its global governance. And since the ‘global governance regime will be critical to achieve sustainable development,’ the two mechanisms — global governance and sustainable development — are symbiotic.
Again, by the UN’s own admission, inalienable rights are the ‘foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.’ Yet the UN’s entire Charter-based human rights framework comprehensively rejects the principle of inalienable and immutable rights. ( Free will).
The UN Charter is, therefore, an international treaty that establishes a global governance regime which stands firmly against ‘freedom, justice and peace in the world.’ All of the UN’s ‘sustainable development’ projects should be understood in this context …
You may wonder what Sustainable Development Goal 16 … has to do with protecting the planet and its inhabitants from the predicted ‘climate disaster.’ The answer is: nothing at all. But then, ‘climate change’ is merely the proffered rationale that purportedly legitimizes and lends urgency to sustainable development.
Establishing firm global governance — in effect, a world dictatorship — through the implementation of SDGs is the United Nations’ real objective. ‘Climate change’ is just the excuse.”
‘One Health’ — The Global Takeover of Everything
The pandemic treaty and IHR amendments, once enacted, will form the foundation for the WHO’s legal authority to act as a global governing body. Both are broadly focused on pandemic preparedness, planning and response, but there are built in loopholes that can easily be invoked by the WHO to turn it into a de facto global dictatorship.
The central instrument that will allow for the vast expansion of the WHO’s power is something called the One Health Joint Plan of Action, officially launched in October 2022 by the WHO, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH).
This initiative amounts to multiple globalist organizations synchronizing their plans, while at the same time combining their resources and power.
The “One Health”15,16 agenda recognizes that a broad range of human and environmental aspects can impact health and therefore fall under the “potential” to cause harm. For example, this is how the WHO will be able to declare climate change as a health emergency and subsequently require climate lockdowns.
The graphic17 below illustrates how the WHO’s scope of control is expanded under the One Health agenda to cover vast aspects of everyday life.
On paper, the One Health Joint Plan of Action “seeks to improve the health of humans, animals, plants and the environment, while contributing to sustainable development.”18 Its five-year plan, which spans 2022 to 2026, intends to expand capacities in six key areas, including health care systems, the environment and food safety.
The plan includes a technical document that covers a set of actions intended to advance One Health at global, regional and national levels. As reported by the WHO:19
“These actions notably include the development of an upcoming implementation guidance for countries, international partners, and non-state actors such as civil society organizations, professional associations, academia and research institutions.”
In other words, the goal is to create health, environmental and food safety rules to be followed on a global scale.
The Endgame and How to Stop It
In an April 16, 2023, Substack article,20 Jessica Rose, a postdoctoral researcher in biology, tried to make sense of the last three years. Starting at the end, she believes the endgame is the “conversion of the majority of human beings into workers … like ants.”
To get there, the globalists must dehumanize us, systematically chip away at the human spirit, render us infertile and destroy all notions of bodily autonomy and national sovereignty. The plan has worked well so far, but cracks are beginning to show. More and more people are starting to put the puzzle pieces together, as Rose attempts to do in her article.
The COVID pandemic was the set-up, Rose suggests. It was geared to “test compliance levels” and set the scene for the next act, which was to normalize all things abnormal. The trans movement, which completely overwhelmed the social consciousness in a single year, is a continuation and expansion of that “normalization of the abnormal” phase.
It’s also a major component of the agenda to dehumanize and sterilize the population. After all, trans youth — who are also among the most brainwashed individuals in society right now — are the future of humanity. A brand-new report by legal experts backed by the United Nations is also seeking to normalize pedophilia,21 which would further dehumanize and de-spirit our youth for generations to come.
Adding insult to injury, the report was published March 8, 2023, “in recognition” of International Women’s Day. Never mind the fact that young girls and women are the primary victims of this sick mindset.
The “manmade climate change” hysteria and subsequent war on carbon is another fabricated “emergency” that is unhinged from science and reality. And the UN’s SDGs are perfectly tailored to enable the endgame. Under these goals, human freedom, human health and quality of life are sacrificed to “protect the environment and save the planet.”
As Rose notes, if the WHO pandemic treaty goes through, we can expect to be locked down indefinitely under the guise of “some climate catastrophe, likely linked to some ‘deadly pathogen’ passed to humans via some insect vector like mosquitoes.”
By then, central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) will also be in place, which will enable the unelected totalitarian regime to enforce whatever restrictions the WHO and its funders dream up, be it related to the food you’re allowed to eat based on your carbon footprint, the drugs you’re forced to take, what causes you’re allowed to fund, what businesses you’re allowed to buy from, when and how far you’re allowed to travel or anything else.
“A practical way I can think of to stop the endgame from being realized is to stop the CBDC,” Rose writes. “Use cash. Insist upon it. Do not give business to stores that only use cashless systems. Supply equals demand, so demand the use of CASH.”
Other Strategies to Reclaim Our Freedoms
Other ways to prevent the WHO’s power grab, include the following:
•Call your congressman or congresswoman and urge them to sponsor H.R.79 — The WHO Withdrawal Act,22 introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs, which calls for defunding and exiting the WHO. The Sovereignty Coalition’s Help the House Defund the WHO page will allow you to contact all of your elected representatives with just a few clicks.
Simply fill out the required field, click submit, and your contact information will be used to match you with your elected representatives.
•Also urge your congressman or congresswoman to sponsor H.R.1425,23 which would require the pandemic treaty to be approved by the Senate.
•Call your senators and urge them to sponsor the Senate version of H.R.1425, which is S.444, the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act.24
•Share Door To Freedom’s educational poster,25 which explains how the IHR amendments will destroy national sovereignty, and increase surveillance and censorship. See doortofreedom.org for more information.
“Everything They Told You About Ukraine Is a Lie” – Episode 18: Tucker Carlson Sits Down with Colonel Douglas Macgregor (VIDEO)
Tucker Carlson sat down with Colonel Douglas Macgregor in his latest Tucker on Twitter series.
Colonel Macgregor was a regular on Tucker’s former program on Tucker Carlson Tonight on FOX News. McGgegor has consistently condemned US participation in the Ukrainian War with Russia.
Here is the full interview from Twitter-X:
Ep. 18 Into the abyss: Colonel Douglas Macgregor tells us why the Ukraine war must end now. pic.twitter.com/a3bGLvJC4s
— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) August 21, 2023
Vigilant FOX reported on Tucker’s introduction where he laid out the truth about the mainstream media reporting on this massacre.
Macgregor explains why this bloody war must end now.
“Pretty much everything that NBC News and the New York Times have told you about the war in Ukraine is a lie.”
“‘The Russian army is incompetent,’ they claim. ‘Ukraine is a democracy.’ ‘Vladimir Putin is Hitler, and he’s trying to take over the world.’ Thankfully, the Ukrainians are winning. None of that is true.
“Every claim is false. The last one, especially. The Ukrainian Army is not winning. In fact, it’s losing badly. Ukraine is being destroyed. Its population is being slaughtered in lopsided battles with a technologically superior enemy or scattered by the millions to the rest of the globe as refugees. Ukraine is running out of soldiers.
“As that happens, the question will inevitably arise who’s going to replace them? If the Ukrainians can’t beat Putin, who will? The answer, of course, will be us. American troops will fight the Russian army in Eastern Europe. That’s most likely. And the assumption is we’ll win. But will we win?
Probably not, says former Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor, a decorated combat veteran who advised the Secretary of Defense in the last administration. The US, says Macgregor, is on the brink of a catastrophic war that could very easily destroy us. Few Americans seem to understand that, but they should.”
Mcgregor warned Tucker Carlson and his audience, “The US is on the brink of a catastrophic war that could easily destroy us.”