The subtlecain Podcast

Interview: James Roguski-Don't Quit While You're Ahead!

January 14, 2024 Aaron Smith Season 1 Episode 61
The subtlecain Podcast
Interview: James Roguski-Don't Quit While You're Ahead!
Show Notes Transcript Chapter Markers

INTERVIEW: JAMES ROGUSKI-DON'T QUIT WHILE YOU'RE AHEAD!

 

JANUARY, 14TH 2024      AARON SMITH      SEASON 1      EPISODE 61

 

SHOW NOTES:

This week, in Episode 61, returning guest James Roguski and I unearth the truths behind the World Health Organization's covert maneuvers. We peel back layers of obscurity to reveal the fact that pivotal amendments to international health regulations, previously reported as adopted, were never actually voted on. Prepare for an eye-opening discussion about the implications of this perchance intentional oversight and about the critical need for transparency in global health governance.

JAMES ROGUSKI LINKS:
https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/exit-the-who
https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/exit-the-united-nations-and-the-who

DAMASCUS ROAD PROJECT:
https://damascusroadproject.org

GREATER RESET:
https://thegreaterreset.org

Support the show

You are valued, you are loved, and you are worthy.

Speaker 1:

Welcome to the Subtle Cane Podcast. I'm your host, Aaron Smith, broadcasting from the Aorta of America, beautiful festival city, Oshkosh, Wisconsin, where we pump out reason and pierce through the propaganda. Here we go. Today is Sunday, January 14th 2024, and winter stopped by and slapped us around Silly up here in Festival City this weekend. I can barely even tempt the chickens out of their heated coop with the Black Soldierfly larva they usually cub it. That's when you know it's bad.

Speaker 1:

The less than creatively named but still very important greater reset is about to take place in Morelia, Mexico. A meeting of some of the leading figures in the pushback against the centralized, technocratic great reset agenda will be gathering to discuss strategies and exchange ideas about how to create real solutions to some of the problems we face collectively. We'll be getting a boots on the ground report about that in the upcoming weeks from a good friend of the show. Speaking of leading figures in the pushback against centralization and friends of the show, today we are joined once again by Mr James Rogusky. James has been tirelessly doing his part by helping people understand the significance and urgency of pushing back against the WHO. This is episode 61 of the Subtle Cane Podcast Interview with James Rogusky. Don't quit. While you're ahead, let's get into it, Mr James Rogusky. Back to the Subtle Cane Podcast. I appreciate you taking the time. How's it going? What's new on the docket?

Speaker 2:

Mr James Rogusky back to the Subtle Cane Podcast. I appreciate you taking the time. How's it going? What's new on the docket? Mr James Rogusky, back to the Subtle Cane Podcast. I appreciate you taking the time. How's it going? What's new on the docket?

Speaker 1:

Thanks for digging through that haystack. It's no small task. Last time we talked, we were looking at, I believe, the December 1st deadline to reject the amendments. Obviously, we've passed that. What exactly is the next phase? Looks like the May 27th meeting.

Speaker 2:

Well, let me actually address the thing that you said because, as is often the case, sometimes I think the universe is putting on a theatrical production just for my own personal entertainment. Ultimately, what happened, or what the plot twist at the end, was amendments were purported to have been adopted back in May of 2022. And with that system, there's an 18 month period where every nation has the option to reject the amendments and, as it turns out, iran and New Zealand apparently have rejected those amendments. But that's not the plot twist. The plot twist was, believe it or not, they never actually had a vote on the amendments back in May. They said they did. They implied that they did. They put out a document on May 28th 2022 that essentially said well, you know, here's the amendments that are changed. And they said that it happened during their eighth meeting.

Speaker 2:

But, unfortunately for them, they record those meetings and they make them publicly available, and they never discussed the amendments at that meeting and they never actually voted on it. They just said they did. And so, 18 months later, finally, we got some members of the European Parliament to send a letter to Tetras and they said well, you know, we're trying to see if there's any record of actually having a vote on this, and if you don't provide it, then apparently these are null and void. So that should be a worldwide scandal. But you know other than myself and a handful of other people it's very, very well hidden. I doubt that you'll ever hear that on the mainstream media, but that's the kind of organization that the WHO is.

Speaker 1:

So, going back into history a little, the international health regulations that were adopted under President Nixon. That really shouldn't have been to start with, but we are now legally beholden to. So this is something that does affect not just America, many countries but this affects the United States and these amendments are legally binding to us. Is that? That's my understanding, and so that not having a vote is a pretty big deal when you're talking about amendments that affect an international health regulation, that's no small misstep there.

Speaker 2:

And the international health regulations. Everything you said is correct. If you were to read them and just if you only just read the titles you know in the table of contents, you would realize that they're not about health. They're really. They should be called the international surveillance, monitoring, reporting, emergency monitoring, fear mongering regulations and this may sound odd coming from me, but probably about 5050. Some of what is in the current regulations is acceptable. It's fine. Some of it I would like to change. I would like to make some amendments, but the general idea of what the current international health regulations are all about. It says that if a nation identifies that there's some kind of an outbreak or an increase in disease, or you know certain specific diseases, like you know, maybe the plague or polio, or you know horrible things like that smallpox, our obligation under the current international health regulations is primarily to share that information with the WHO as soon as possible. If it's a public health emergency that could spread internationally, it's essentially just well tell the WHO so that everybody's aware. It's what happens after that. That is problematic. Now the IHR, as they are currently written, is designed to try to not have the economy shut down, to not have travel restrictions, the encouragement in the existing document is to try to keep all of that going, despite the fact that there might be some kind of contagious disease, and so the vast majority of people have not read these documents. Two years ago I had no idea, so I don't expect that everybody knows about this, but it's not what you think. It is probably Okay, and so you know, as I was reading through it the first time a couple of years ago. You know, you look at it, you go well, that makes sense and I'm okay with that. And well, you know I would change a few things here. But all in all, it's essentially designed to keep the lines of communication open and have things like lockdowns and travel restrictions not happen, if at all possible. Now the changes that are being made have been misunderstood, misrepresented, and it really comes down to why are these documents even being considered, why are amendments being considered and why are they talking about doing a new agreement?

Speaker 2:

Many people call it the pandemic treaty, but it's properly. At the moment they're calling it the pandemic agreement. It's not what most people think it is. These negotiations were started for a reason that is absolutely absurd, but probably only to you and I in your audience, but not to the people involved in it. This is actually a trade disagreement. It's a trade argument where, back at the end of 2021, the relatively poorer nations were not happy that the wealthier nations had gotten contracts and had basically hoarded all of the production of what they refer to as pandemic related products. They got large contracts to get 10 times as many jabs as they needed, and recently we've been hearing that those jabs have expired and they were thrown away and, like the United States back at the time, pretty much cornered the market on what I call run-death-is-near, formerly known as Ramdesivir. And so the nations were unhappy that all of these wonderful poisons and biological weapons were being hoarded by the wealthy nations and they wanted to negotiate, essentially, a trade agreement so that that kind of thing couldn't happen again. Now they should be counting their blessings that they did not have availability of those things, because the data, even on the WHO's website, points out that in Europe and North and South America well over 16 times as many people died from COVID than in Africa, and so this is all backwards. We should be going to Africa, going.

Speaker 2:

What did you do? That's what should have been done. What did you not do? Yeah, what did you not do. You're absolutely right there.

Speaker 2:

But because so much money is involved, they're arguing for access to intellectual property. And in addition to intellectual property like patent rights and genomic sequences and things like that, they also want manufacturing know-how so that they can make their own poisons and biological weapons you know vaccines by their name and profit from it by manufacturing them in their own country. And so what we're dealing with is a level of just absolute denial that those products not only didn't work, they damaged millions, if not billions, of people. But there's a lot of money on the table, and what they're negotiating is you know how do they deal with a trade dispute? Now, if it was food and water and the wealthy nations had hoarded all of the food and water and the poor nation said, hey, that's wrong, we need to have an agreement so that you share equitably, you could understand that. But they're arguing over something that's not right. But they're arguing over something that they should be counting their blessings that they missed out on.

Speaker 1:

Okay, and so, if I'm following this correctly, what happened was the people that stood to benefit the most financially from the jabs and from the related medical drugs like Remdesi, beer and medical equipment.

Speaker 1:

The greed of those people prevented the ambitions of other people, which had the poor nations felt like they were getting left out, and I do remember Bill Gates making the rounds on the morning talk shows talking about how there was a justification for maintaining intellectual property, even though this was supposedly life-saving, and somehow making an ethical argument for holding back from poorer nations. But that was the main interest was making sure that we had enough for ours and screw everybody else. So that was the argument. But financially speaking, the rich countries were the ones that could enrich the people who produced these products, and so they went to those places. So it wasn't really an altruistic plan in the first place. So now, retrospectively, they're saying, hey, we want our ability to match theirs, and so there's greed. So it's power and control, and power, control and greed that are coming together to make this situation where there's warring like infighting within the WHO. Am I following that correctly or have I gone off on a tangent?

Speaker 2:

I would say you're leading the way. That was exactly on point, and so I'll take it to the next step. Okay, when, more than a year ago, the first proposed amendments were made public, what we learned was that Bangladesh and the African nations they both submitted surprisingly similar amendments and it would create a new article 13a. They're very similar but they are a little bit different, and what their proposal for this problem was would take into account that currently, and for 18 years now since 2005, I guess it's pushing 19 years, no-transcript the director general can declare a public health emergency of international concern pretty much just because he feels like it. Now, that's overstating it a little bit, maybe, but what I call money pox, he declared that to be a public health emergency of international concern, overriding the vote against doing that by his advisory council or committee, and the only thing that really holds him back from declaring anything an emergency is, you know, the concept of if you cry wolf too many times, no one will ever listen to you, sure. And so they know that he can declare public health emergency, and the proposed changes would also give him the authority to decide which products were needed and then design an allocation mechanism their words by which he could then tell any given country, most likely a wealthy, developed nation, that their manufacturers have to make what he says and give it to the country that needs it. And that idea of having a centralized you know command in the hands of one individual is right out of the totalitarian, dictatorial, marxist, communist control, the means of production, playbook. We have no way of knowing if those concepts are still in play, because they've been talking about all of this in secret for a year.

Speaker 2:

That's coming to a head because on January 27, which is four months in advance of the assembly scheduled for May, that's a deadline where nations have the right to submit proposed amendments, but they have to do so four months in advance. And back in October the working group about these amendments said publicly that they're not reaching agreement and they're going to have to. Essentially they're not going to meet their deadline. Now they went on to say that, well, you know they want to try to keep working and you know, maybe present something at the last minute, just before the assembly starts. But that's a clear violation of Article 55, which sets up that four months deadline.

Speaker 2:

So I've been encouraging everybody you know possible, pay attention and see whether or not they do the honorable thing, which would be to have a press conference and say, hey, you know, we got 190, some nations with 190, some pages of amendments and 300, you know plus changes that we're considering and we just weren't able to do it in about a year. So we're going to need some more time. We'll give you a progress report in May, but you know we'll have to just keep going and try for next year. That would be the honorable thing to do. No harm, no foul. They tried. They didn't quite get it put together in the timeframe that they were hoping and they know that they are failing. They publicly stated it, I reported it back in October and obviously nobody on the mainstream media picked it up.

Speaker 2:

You know and thank you for having this conversation because you know this is the only way we have left to get information out to the people is by this and word of mouth, by other people sharing, you know, something like this podcast. Yeah, it's actually good news. I mean it's actually good news, and it almost seems like people are vaccinated against good news. Everybody spreads the gloom and doom. How about spreading some good news?

Speaker 1:

No, I'm on the same page with you there. I talk a lot about on this show. Talk a lot about the focus on the negativity and acting on what is actually within our spheres of influence and where we actually have agency. And, in that vein, because of the fact that this is a comes across as minutia in it happening somewhere over there and it's not terribly sexy or an exciting but, but it is very, very important because it will have impacts on our personal lives that maybe people just aren't, it isn't resonating with them and it needs to be at their front door a little more. I agree that is good news. The cynic in me wonders why they would admit that publicly, you know, and when they already have displayed that they're willing to go forward with things without even taking a vote. So why would they even telegraph that? But but that's the cynic in me. Short break here.

Speaker 1:

This week's featured need is the Damascus Road project. Damascus Road project was founded in 2009 and is dedicated to fighting the evil of sex trafficking and sexual exploitation. They're committed to bringing awareness through education, restoration and empowering the abused. They advocate for the prevention and abolition of sex trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation. The Damascus Road project Inc is a 100% specially trained volunteer run 501 C3 nonprofit organization. No one in the organization draws a wage, so 100% of the funds donated directly serve local communities. Damascus Road project has participated in hotel outreach efforts at six different Super Bowls and they've worked alongside national missing Children's Organization and other anti trafficking NGOs, local law enforcement. Their work results in recoveries every year.

Speaker 1:

What they do is they serve the community with a three fold approach they educate, they offer professional education and training opportunities to all community members. They locate those who are being victimized and they advocate for those people by offering support, compassion, encouragement, mentorship and resources. There will be a link to their site in the show notes. If you've received value from what I'm doing here, please consider contributing to the Damascus Road project. Human trafficking is only getting worse with the mass migration of vulnerable people all around the world. You can email me at subtlecainatprotonmailcom. That's subtlecainatprotonmailcom with suggestions for a worthy cause you want to see featured in my next episode. I create and offer these episodes for free because I believe in the free exchange of ideas and I have faith that you will return that value by helping someone in need. Let's get back to it.

Speaker 2:

As far as if I may, if I may weigh in on that before we move on to the next topic yeah, no, please. It seems like their system requires them to say what they're doing, because then they have a certain plausible deniability where they say well, we told you. And then they turn that around and if you remain silent, they assume that you're okay with all of it. Silence is consent, and so, by understanding how their system is structured, they adopt changes to international rules, they give a time period for nations to proactively reject their decision, because they know procrastination is a powerful force and if either people or nations or whatever organization doesn't proactively oppose what they've said, they're going to do. Hey, you know, it's kind of like at a wedding. You know, speak now or forever. Hold your peace. You had your chance. If you don't speak up Now, they don't publicize it, they don't send everybody a text message saying hey, do you oppose this?

Speaker 2:

Right, it's all done very quietly and you know it's like finding a needle in the haystack. Once you find it, you know you're like oh, wait a minute. No, I don't want that. But if you never actually come across it, that doesn't matter. Their perspective is oh well, you're supposed to be paying attention.

Speaker 1:

Ignorance of the law is not a defense, but that principle there's also and this might sound a little wacky, but there, and I wish I could come up with the actual term, but there is a there is a term or a principle in Satanism where you and I'm not saying that they're Satanists, what I'm saying is it's a similar. There's a similarity, a Luciferian aspect to this in my perspective, where you, you have to tell someone what you're doing. Let's say, you're selling apples on the corner and you're selling poison apples. You take on that karma for selling poisoned apples. But if you put a sign on the apple stand that says I'm selling poisoned apples and people buy them and eat them, you no longer are comically responsible for selling poisoned apples. They've accepted that to themselves and that's an actual principle in Satanism. So it's just weird to me. That stuck in my head or stuck out.

Speaker 2:

Well, it's a, it's a fundamental principle, and you know it goes both ways as well. Okay, if we, the people, fail to tell our public servants, our representatives, our congressman, our senators, what we want them to do and they listen to their donors or lobbyists or the World Economic Forum we have to look in the mirror and say, well, we didn't tell them what we wanted. And so, ultimately, you know, really, if you want to assign responsibility for what's going on in the United States, when we look in the mirror and realize that we have not been giving strict instructions to our public servants to do what we want, because it, you know, it does seem useless at times, because we, the people, need to be better organized, we need to be more vocal. So, you know they listen to their donors, they listen to their lobbyists and so forth, and but ultimately, the responsibility has to be born.

Speaker 2:

If you don't speak up, your silence is viewed as consent. Yeah, and so I encourage everybody Don't, don't think that the media is gonna do it for you. They have their own priorities. You know they're fundamentally for-profit business and you know they work for their advertisers and you know they don't work for you and advertisers, mainly being Pharmaceutical companies.

Speaker 2:

Figure, yeah, go figure how that works right. And, and so you know people such as yourself. I encourage everybody to actually be the media. Everybody you know can do this at a certain level. I have a good friend who Not my cup of tea, right, but he pretty much lives on Twitter. Now Some people will cringe at that idea and some people go yeah, me too.

Speaker 2:

I'm there all the time.

Speaker 2:

Well, you know, if you apply yourself on any of these social media platforms and I know there's problems, but Whatever it is you do, you know anybody can pick up their phone or camera or computer and Cut a short little video and say whatever it is you want to say, put it up on your platform, gain A gain of following.

Speaker 2:

And you know what is an influencer other than somebody who's been saying whatever it is they want to talk about and other people resonate with it and start to follow them, and so everybody has the capability of doing that to a certain degree. And Even if it's just that you send it to, you know the people that you know and your public servant. There's no law that says you can't send a video of you telling your public servant, your representative, what it is you want, and If you do a good job of it, you put it up on social media. Who knows how many people might see it. But if you're silent and you're just complaining, oh, they don't do what I wanted to do, but you haven't told them what it is you want.

Speaker 1:

Well, you got to look in the mirror and blame yourself mm-hmm, what, since you've been digging into this as deep as you have, I'm, I'm wondering, with all the talk that you hear about medical misinformation and all it, are there mechanisms in these that you're aware of, in this upcoming amendments, for controlling information, in mitigating the, the ability we have now to To push back in the manner that you're suggesting there?

Speaker 2:

in both of these documents there is some language to that effect and because these, I'll get into some details about that. Okay, in in the amendments there's a couple of relatively vague Sentences about, you know, this sort of thing, and and so the most of the language is actually in what people call the treaty, and and so in the various Different versions of the document it's come and gone, it's grown and it's gotten smaller. I'm actually digging through it right now. In the latest version it's gotten down to Only two paragraph or three paragraphs, right, it says the parties shall strengthen science, public health and pandemic literacy in the population.

Speaker 2:

So I guess they want to teach us something as well as access to information on pandemics and their effects and drivers, and and combat false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation, including through effective international collaboration and cooperation. So nice, doesn't it? And? And so one of the things that they're very skilled in in the language is Saying language that is relatively, you know, seemingly benign, but then it comes down to well, how do you interpret and implement something like that? You know what is information, disinformation, misinformation, malinformation. And Wait a minute, everyone always has the right to voice their opinion.

Speaker 2:

No one has the right to shut you up. You have the right to say what your opinion is. If you're wrong and the facts bear out the fact that you're wrong, well you suffer the embarrassment of being wrong, but that doesn't give anyone the right ever to stop you from saying what it is you believe. And this is where the the core problem is who and I don't mean the WHO, you know, lowercase who gives anybody the authority to Infringe upon your individual rights and freedoms? Well, this is what's really going on in the world is Various, you know, people want to believe that they should be given authority to tell other people what to do, whether that is what they can say, what they can eat, what they can not eat, what they can, you know, use to maintain or optimize their health. The battle here is really about Authority and and that versus freedom, and what. One of the things that I think people lose track of Is there's a big difference between authority and power. A lot of times, organizations, people, governments, certainly have power, you know, in the form of police power, but they don't actually have lawful authority and when anyone is abusing that position that they might have and the power that comes with it. I'll give you a good example.

Speaker 2:

Javier Becerra, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, was interviewed last year, and the first question they asked him was what would you like Americans to know About the Department of Health and Human Services? And he didn't slow down at all. He said right away oh, I want everyone to know that the federal government does not have any authority over health. They clearly know that they don't have any authority. If you get up a digital copy of the Constitution and do a search for the word health, you're not going to find it. What he went on to say was but we do have a lot of money, and so when they put money into Medicare, medicaid, obamacare or whatever, people gravitate to it. And so if you agree to get a benefit that they're offering, well, it comes with terms, it comes with strengths Well, yeah. So people lose sight of the fact that they're not infringing upon your rights. They're enticing you to give up your rights voluntarily in return for a benefit.

Speaker 2:

And that's where I think the vast majority of people get confused. I have a friend who is anti socialist. He thinks socialism is absolutely horrible. Okay, but he's living off of social security. Now I get it. You know, workers paid into social security and now a little bit of it is coming back. But almost everyone who you know pays into social security gets back far more than they ever put in.

Speaker 2:

And when you look at what has gone on in the medical field, here's an interesting challenge for anybody in your audience. Go back to the 1960s, when they started Medicare, medicaid, and Look at the withholding tax, where they take a little tiny couple of percent out of people's paychecks for Health care. Add it all up for 60, some years or approximately that, and you'll have a number. Go into the federal budget numbers and add up what the federal government has spent on health care and I would venture to guess that you'd come pretty close to the overall federal deficit, long-term federal debt. I should say not deficit on a yearly basis, but overall debt.

Speaker 2:

The Pharmaceutical hospital emergency industrial complex Figured out back in the 1960s that they could steal billions of dollars. That ended up as debt and Words. You know our great great great grandchildren will never be able to pay that off and you know this industry that is sucking America dry and poisoning them at the same time is Is probably five times the size of the military industrial complex and people, for whatever reason, they cannot see it. It's, you know, a fraudulent industry well over a hundred years where people are poisoned to change their symptom patterns or Scared.

Speaker 2:

You know they have the fear put in them. Oh, you might get sick. So let us inject a poison into you now. And it's astonishing to me that people are unable to see the business model. You know I call testing and drugs and jabs customer acquisition tools. You take healthy people, you get them started down this downward spiral. You convince them they have a dis ease or they might get a dis ease and and you give them a poison of some sort and then they're back in a couple of months to treat the side effects of the poison. It's astonishing that people don't see it, but the you know programming is so powerful that people get trapped in that system.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, as a nurse and going through nursing school and, in practice, understanding and really having a better picture of what, what it means when people say allopathic medicine, and, and, and, if anybody really wants to figure out anything about health, you want to understand the difference between allopathic, homeopathic, osteopathic medicine, and, and really dig into that and what, what this comes down to. As I'm listening to you as well, it reminds me of that. The document you have I don't know if it's top ten reasons To not be in the World Health Organization or no is it the exit, the who, and, and. You talk about the conflicts of interest, and so people understand you have to take into consideration that that these nice platitudes that that are talked about with you know, information or health, or all these things. If you, if you're hearing these things from people who are benevolent, that would be one thing and it would still not be right, it would still be suspect.

Speaker 1:

But but you're not hearing this from benevolent people. You're hearing hearing it from people that have demonstrably Shown they cannot be trusted. They do not have your best interest in mind. They're certainly not altruistic, but evident, as evidenced by the way they treated poorer nations during the pandemic. There's, there's.

Speaker 1:

There's so much corruption and infighting and fear mongering that I just when you hear, when you hear the whos talking points or the world economic forum in their sphere of influence, in the, in the financial, in it, forgive me if I'm Misrepresenting what you're talking about. I am not trying to, but the fact that there's so out of touch with what is actually good for us and and their conflicts of interest and there's so much corruption involved that it it behooves us to really pay attention to what their Motivations are and and understand that the motivation is not for our well-being. These things are all very good in theory, having a coordinated response to a pandemic, sharing information and Research and and resources, as it helps people, but that's not how it played out. We have a recent Demonstration of how it will play out with with the motivations.

Speaker 2:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker 1:

Am I off? No, that's.

Speaker 2:

Absolutely. The business model Is not what people you know believe it to be. Now there's, you know, good people get involved in this, and there are many good people trying to do good things. But if you're unaware of, for what it's worth, you know, I've spent 30 years studying and and working in natural health and there are healing modalities that makes Star Trek look like ancient technology. I mean, there are things out in the world that are absolutely astonishingly wonderful, but if it's not, you know, part of the profit margin for any given practice, they will tell you, oh, there's nothing else you can do, and so it's.

Speaker 2:

It's kind of interesting how anyone could actually fall for the statement oh, there's nothing that you can do. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say that or say something like, oh, I've tried everything, and you can just run down the list of the possible things that you know a person could do. Literally everything is infinite, and and so it's a type of programming where people believe what they're told and you know, in coming, you know, back to all of this information with the WHO, yeah, I published an article several months ago. Read, and I'll clean it up a little bit for your audience. You know, read the darn documents.

Speaker 2:

Okay, don't take my word for it, don't take some other. You know media, whatever person's word for it, go to the source material and see what it actually says. And so I've noticed in the media that that often times what you get is someone talking about what somebody said about what somebody said about what somebody said about some document that you didn't read. And it's become harder and harder With most media outlets to find the original source material. You've got to dig down through a couple of layers of hearsay. I mean hearsay literally means you heard somebody say and so you know I'm talking right now and people are hearing it and that's wonderful. But go dig in and you know, go to the source material and see for yourself that what I'm saying is actually accurate and verifiable and so, yeah, go ahead.

Speaker 1:

One one of the things that I like about, let's say, the articles that you have on sub stack that I've been going through. Now I don't remember this stuff off the top of my head, like like you do, but the nice thing is when, when you're posting an article, you have the source material and you have links in there so I can go in and I can read, I can get. I may not understand everything. It's some of it's just over my head or the legalese doesn't make sense to me the way it's worded, but you have shared in your work so I would encourage people to to go to your articles If they're looking for some of that source material. You at least have links to it and you and you do a very good job of citing your sources and why you're Making the arguments you're making.

Speaker 2:

Well, you know, just the other day, a friend of mine in England, um, sent me an email because I accidentally put the wrong link under the paragraph that I had just written and, to their credit, they found out because they clicked on the link to go see and it was just sending to. You know, one page over it was the wrong number, um, and I appreciate that. I you know when, when people say, hey, um, you know something here is wrong. That's a blessing. You know when somebody is looking at the information and they are aware enough to go excuse me, but you know there's a typographical error or you've said the wrong word or you made a mistake. None of us are perfect, and so that kind of critical analysis Is is wonderful when people do that. Anybody who points out to me that I'm wrong about something becomes one of my best friends. I need you around, you know, to keep looking at this and tell me if I make a mistake.

Speaker 2:

That's how you know, society gets better, and over the past four years that has been better bought in. You know you, you are not allowed to criticize things that you feel are wrong, and that is an enormous problem that we cannot allow to continue. You know, there are many smart people who look at a problem differently and they come away with a different answer and the proof should be well, is it working? And you know, was not allowed. Doctors who creatively analyzed what was going on with their patient and did things that were actually Appropriate were shut down because they were not following the accepted, you know, dogmatic protocol.

Speaker 2:

That is a recipe for the disaster that we suffered through and and, astonishingly, people cling to that authoritarian view of oh well, they're the experts. Well, you know, experts can be wrong and If you don't allow that feedback mechanism to correct errors, they multiply out of proportion. And when you look at, you know what's going on now, with projections of Adverse events and deaths among the people who followed the official protocol. You know it's a disaster and they, in these negotiations, are not even remotely Considering questioning what they did, because this is not the World Health Organization, it's not the international health regulations, it's it's a venture capital prospectus to transfer money, it's a trade dispute. They're not questioning what was done over the last four years, they're looking at it going well, that was pretty profitable, but we missed out on the poor countries. What can we do to get control of that and that's horrific, that's absolutely horrific.

Speaker 1:

It brings to mind the emphasis, because I think that this is another approach and I'm certainly not alone in this another approach to implementing a centralized technocracy, and so using the medical mechanism is something I know James Corbett's talked in depth about as well, with the medical martial law going back to 2009 already, and the significance of the public-private partnership emphasis that the World Economic Forum has plays very. It dovetails very nicely with this trade negotiation you're talking about, because if you can incentivize these public-private partnerships, you can expand your reach into these poorer countries and you can find and you can capitalize on aspects of it that you wouldn't have been able to otherwise, along with the ESG. It hasn't panned out very well. That's another one of these things that isn't working out really well, but these are very patient people In the end, the people that are at the top of these and I don't think Tedros is really the top of anything more of a lackey, if you ask me, but if you go back into his history and how he got where he is, that certainly seems to be the case. But I think we have a combination of things here, james, that people have a short attention span. So this research that you're talking about.

Speaker 1:

People have a hard time doing it, and I understand it, because life is very busy and our lives are at a pace that doesn't even make sense to me sometimes. So I appreciate when people like you take the time to do what you do and then cite the sources, the original sources, and it gives a shorthand so you don't have to read the entire international health regulations, but you cite the areas pertinent to the arguments you make. So I do appreciate that. Then we have also a complacency in society where that's been bred into us not genetically, I don't think, but intellectually to accept what the experts say and this idea of consensus and this consensus really being the antithesis of good science, but the science being now burned into people's brains through propaganda to make them think that there is this nebulous God out there called the science that will tell them what the world is and isn't like, and so I think that that's a dangerous thing.

Speaker 1:

And then I also think that I just got a Hulu subscription. I know this is going to sound like I'm really going off the trail here, but I wanted to watch whatever. I'm watching the ex files and I get a kick out of that stuff and I noticed that there's more and more ads. Like within a week already, I'm getting all these ads. Most of them are healthcaregov and Pfizer.

Speaker 1:

It's amazing, get these vaccines and sign on so, like you were saying nothing. There's no free lunch. So if you can get people signed up for these benefits they have, I know people are in a hard spot, but you do have to give up some of your sovereignty, some of your autonomy, in order to participate in programs. So the combination of those things, I think, are making it really hard. That's why I do I really appreciate when people like you take the time to do what you're doing and making the rounds the way you're making them and helping to inform people like myself and my audience that things are not exactly the way they're being told or you're being told they are.

Speaker 2:

So a lot of people ask well, what can they do? And so, depending upon where you live, these types of broadcasts reach all over the world. There are many different things that people are doing in different countries. In the United States, if people go to stop I'm sorry, exitthewhocom, you'll see that there's a piece of legislation very simple. I think anyone could read it. It's a page and a half long. It really has three points. It stopped giving them money, tell them we're leaving and repeal the legislation that got us involved way back in 1948. That's on exitthewhocom.

Speaker 2:

There's another piece of legislation that, if people go to exittheglobalagendacom, that is oh, I'm sorry, I'm being corrected by a wonderful girlfriend here stoptheglobalagendacom. That is a different piece of legislation that is in both the House and the Senate to exit both the WHO and the United Nations, and so, if you tried to make it easy, you can click on a button and it will ask you for your zip code and it'll tell you which Congressperson and Senator you can send a pre-written letter to. You can call them, you can actually record a video and send that to them. There's also flyers and things that people can pass out, and if you want additional information about all of that. You can go to stopthewhocom, which actually holds an article and a movie that I did a year ago now 100 reasons why we should exit the WHO. And so the easiest answer to what can people do is just spread the word. Look at whatever information you care to review. If some of it makes sense to you, it could be as easy as taking this recording, sharing it with everybody.

Speaker 2:

I suggest, don't try to convince anybody. Take whatever information you think is worthwhile and share it with absolutely everybody you can, and instead of telling them what they should do, ask them what their opinion of it is. Most people probably won't even bother to look. They'll glance at it, they'll form an opinion, but they won't actually review the material. And so if they get back to you and they agree with it and they're on board and they looked it over and they think it's great, well, now you have an ally and you know that you can talk to them about that. If they come back and they're in disagreement, they want to argue about it. Ask them if they actually read the information or if they made a snap judgment by glancing at it, because what I've come to learn is people say they looked at something, but they really just glanced at it, made an immediate decision as to whether they didn't like a person who's associated with it. They didn't like the color combination. They didn't like something and, rather than actually get into the information, they just made up their mind and that's it.

Speaker 2:

And so, if you are familiar with the movie the Matrix, some people want to take the red pill. They want to know the truth. They want to break out of the Matrix and deal with reality, however brutal it may be. But some people prefer to just go back into their peaceful little existence and live in their make-believe world. It's comfortable until it becomes a disaster for them. The rule in the movie is you're only supposed to help people out of the Matrix if they want you to help them out of the Matrix. If you try to convince somebody that they're wrong and they don't want to be convinced, quite frankly, you're breaking a certain universal law and you're barking up the wrong tree. Waste in your time. It's more important to identify allies, get better connected, build those relationships, organize, work together and Decide what it is you want to do to make the world a better place. You'll get far more accomplished than trying to beat your head against a brick wall.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, sage advice. I will have those links as well. I'll have those in the show notes for everybody, and I encourage you all to Take the time to at least do more than glance At the information that James has made available to us here. I want to thank you so much again for coming on and for Just talking through some of that stuff. It makes more sense to me now and and I really love the fact that those are Actionable steps that we can take, that we actually have agency in Do to make, make a change or at least make some noise.

Speaker 2:

If I may just do one more thing I try to do, or I Encourage people to call me directly. I give out my phone number it's 310 619 305 5. There's obviously an enormous number of details involved in this and my view is that if people call me up because they have a question or a suggestion or whatever it may be, um, you're identifying yourself as someone who is actually still able to think for themselves. People who don't think for themselves don't have questions. They just do what they're told. And so when somebody calls me up because they you know, they're trying to figure out all these details and they have a question, I'm honored to try to help people do that. Hopefully, the effort I've put in will shorten everyone else's learning curve and, you know, that speeds up the progress towards making the world a better place.

Speaker 1:

Well said, james Ruggowski. Thank you so much for coming on the subtle came podcast once again and I I hope that you come back with some Exciting news in the future and I hope that we all take what you've said with the proper amount of Seriousness that that it deserves. So you have a wonderful day and I Thank you so very much.

Speaker 2:

I mean this is this is good news that should encourage people to take stronger action. There's nothing to be afraid of. You know, we're supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. So if, if we all don't find our courage, we're gonna lose our freedoms, and I do not want that to happen, and I'm sure no one else really does so. You know, speak up and call me if you have any questions.

Speaker 1:

Well, there you have it, Mr James Ruggowski, once again knocking it out of the park. James has a measured and honest message for people. His calm demeanor and sincere approach are in stark contrast to the screaming heads and alarmism we so often see in media. He encourages us to sift and winnow through the evidence and is willing to share what he has found in his research to help us become aware of this pressing situation that can and will affect us all. He asks us to consider what the WHO is saying in their own words, and provides context for some of the more Vagin, seemingly benevolent means used to achieve less than benevolent ends.

Speaker 1:

Take some time to check out the provided links and please Consider what you can do to be the voice of reason within the spears of influence within which you reside. I end with this quote by author Hannah Arendt, quote as Citizens, we must prevent wrongdoing because the world in which we all live wrong doer, wrong sufferer and Spectator is at stake For all you listening. You are valued, you are loved and you are worthy. God bless and good night Like a fear.

Update on International Health Regulations
Deadline for Proposing Amendments Looming
The Deception of the Healthcare Industry
Corruption and Misinformation in Health Organizations
Combating Misinformation and Taking Action