The Collegium International

Right as you think you’ve established a root, someone springs something upon you, which make you realise you’re not quite at roads end just yet.

What a trip this has been.

Yesterday, I tracked down the One Health approach back to the Department of Homeland Security under Michael Chertoff and 2005. But, within hours, Jessica Hockett pointed out that the document itself was the output of a number of working groups, which launched in the year before. In other words, 2005 is not end station. Back in the saddle. But before we move on, make sure to subscribe to Jessica’s substack, a relevant article can be found here.

Reading the 2004 document, I noticed a number of references to a 2002 act, ‘Public Health Security And Bioterrorism Preparedness And Response Act of 2022‘. Before Chertoff’s time. In fact, after his co-authored PATRIOT act had been passed into law.

The document can be found here.

And the similarities. The similarities.

There are a large number of similarities with the ‘One Health approach’. Surveillance, diagnostics, coordination, rapid detection…

And it goes on, surveillance of zoonotics, and then a really interesting part of the document. It goes on to outline departments relevant to the efforts outlined in this act.

Food and Drugs.
Center for Disease Control.
Secretary of Agriculture.

Spot it? It’s the domestic verion. This applies to the United States only. It’s the same outline as we see later, only later replaced by the WHO, FAO and OIE;

Food and Drugs = FAO
Center for Disease Control = WHO / OEI
Secretary of Agriculture = FAO / OIE

The point is that at this stage, this is an act applying to the United States, and the United States only. But by 2004, the scope had considerably widened; now the entire world was considered, and the WHO / FAO / OIE - the tripartite - had replaced similar US departments.

The document which Jessica linked to can be found here.

The premise is this -

a) IF the One Health document is derived from the DHS document, and
b) IF the DOH document is derived from the 2002 act, then
c) Someone must have interfered along the way to broaden the scope.

In other words, something happened during the working groups, which made them turn their view upon the world as opposed to just domestically. Who would have done that?

Fortunately, they supply a list of contributors early on. It goes like this -

Setting aside some more obviously questionable links, such as Club of Rome co-president Mamphela Ramphele -

Let’s start by removing candidates least likely to have understood that the primary, ulterior, motive at play was.

Let’s get rid of all big pharma executives, because they’re just there to make money. I wrote a thread on this on Twitter, but haven’t yet moved it across to substack. Here it is.

I furthermore think foreign consultants can be ruled out, possibly with the exception of those from the United Kingdom, of which there are none. That leaves us with this.

I was tempted to further remove University employees, but Georgetown made think twice in that regard/

Back to the list - Mamphela Ramphele and Joshua Lederberg initially appeared suspicious to me. The former due to the overt Club of Rome membership, and the latter because no description besides a Foundation and a University is supplied. However, he’s been an active advisor since the late 80’es to various US governments, so that appears to be just a bad description, and the former - who also worked at the World Bank for a number of years - is only there in financial capacity, surely.

So on we go. The next three which appeared suspicious were Carole Hellman, Margaret Hamburg and Joseph Malone.

The latter has a pretty light CV in comparison to the heavyweights. Very rare that you see these influencers go back to their primary field after a while in DC. So I doubt it’s him.

Carole Heilman was a closer fit - but as of 2015, she was still with the NIAID. Unlikely. These types tend to be butterflies between departments.

That leaves Margaret Hamburg. She want from the HHS to the NTI to the FDA in just a decade. Interesting. And who exactly is the Nuclear Thread Initiative?

Here they are. They’re about ‘protecting us’ from nuclear - AND biological - threats. Interesting, in the regard of Covid-19, One Health, etc.

It was founded by Ted Turner (CNN), and… they're behind the ‘Global Health Security Index’.

That index I previously addressed on Twitter. In 2019 they essentially outright stated it was a measure of One Health.

Bingo.

Lots and lots of pages claim Ted Turner is a member of the Club of Rome, but I couldn’t find it. Tried trawling a number of links, but nothing I could connect, and if I can’t link, then it’s not sourced and hence not usable.

However, that’s not to say I didn’t find other links. Here’s one. It states in simple terms that the president of the Club of Rome in 2002 was admitted to the board of the NTI.

And this, in turn, led me to a ‘connections’ page on the website of the Collegium International.

The Nuclear Threat Initiative is mentioned right there, along with several others - Club of Rome being one. Open Society is there as well, but we all know about Soros.

However, Earth Policy Institute no longer exists. It was dissolved in 2015. They brought us a range of books, including ‘Plan B’, which I’ve definitely heard of before. The book titles themselves tell the story, this is climate alarmism, right up the street of Club of Rome ideology.

But who and what the hell exactly is the Collegium International? Well, their members page looks like this -

It’s a long, long, long range of hyperconnected individuals especially in the politics and science communities. It even includes Antonio Guterres, the current acting Secretary General of the United Nations. This is not a joke.

But look at those names; Nobel peace prize winners, former presidents, ambassadors, economists, diplomats. Why have I never heard of this group before??

Well, to give a quick answer to that question before I move on - because Google do their bit to help out.

Yes, really. They claim to have more than 36,000 results, yet only show me 10. Did not matter what I did to get more results, going incognito, using a VPN, using a company account. All the same result.

Only 10 results shows.

Back to their page - what do they do? Let’s look at their history and objectives. Here it is.

Wanna bet that this lot is 100% pro SDGs - and hence by extension - pro Manhattan Principles and therefore One Health fascism just as well?

And in 2021, in their chronology -

Visio working meeting "Make sense of present emergencies for desirables futures" between the Collegium International and the Club of Rome

This is shaping up to be a terrible conspiracy theory. The chronology also reveals the ‘Paris Consensus’ which is the premise for the ‘charter of interdependence’ - no really, check for yourself (or use wayback if they accidentally the whole webpage in the meantime).

The project was even supported by Michael Moller, former Director General of the UN in Geneva.

Their press page reveals these absolute peaches. Global governance. Climate change. The latter leads to the former, in other words.

I clicked on a few links here, and most were accessible through Wayback online. The artices were take down in the meantime.

Fortunately, they also found the time to draft this. It’s a draft charter for - in their very own words -

World Governance.

The page has its own Wiki page which is pretty short on detail.

And while digging, this article came up using searching Yandex for “charter of interdependence”. It’s from 1997. This has been in the works for no less than 2-3 decades.

And I want to just repeat mysef here - Google had taken active measures to remove this page from the results.

As for the key term - charter for interdependence - that’s pretty much what we heard repeatedly throughout the scamdemic; ‘No one is safe until we are all safe‘.

Or, as it’s captured in the WHO’s pandemic treaty (article 16) -

Whole-of-government and whole-of-society.

This term has undergone several revisions to become this watered down. Because if you knew the genuine motivation, you would not agree. Better to keep you in the dark.

To protect our democracy.

Final note - I went through the pandemic treaty recently, but this thread is still only on Twitter. Here it is.

The Pandemic Treaty cannot be allowed to pass. Liberty and our way of life is entirely at stake. I recommend you read it yourself, but otherwise, here is the link again.

Have we yet run out of conspiracy theories?