Quote:Asia is seeing a resurgence of COVID, with sharp case spikes in Hong Kong, Thailand, and Singapore. Hong Kong’s infection rate soared to 11.4%, while Thailand reported over 33,000 cases last week. The surge is linked to JN.1 variant strains, waning immunity, and reduced booster uptake. Where does India stand? Should you be worried? What does global preparedness look like?

I never got the VAX as I got covid and figured why get the VAX ? 

Something went dramatically wrong at the launch as the sparkly new warship tipped onto its side during what is believed to have been a side launch , the Dear Leader (the Korean one) is said not to be best pleased.

Sadly given DPRK no footage of the embarrassing mishap but story below.
 

I really wouldn't want to have been involved in that project.

The WHO Pandemic Agreement has now passed.



There was no parliamentary vote, no public debate, and no referendum.

Outside the US there are growing concerns about sovereignty, accountability, and global governance with the foul odor of WEF shenanigans.


The WHO Pandemic Agreement was adopted on May 19, 2025, by 124 countries at the World Health Assembly in Geneva, with 0 objections and 11 abstaining, including the U.S. It aims to boost global pandemic response and equity but wasn't voted on by parliaments or public referendums, as is standard for such treaties. Critics fear it erodes sovereignty and lacks accountability, citing potential WHO overreach and human rights gaps. Supporters say it respects sovereignty, requiring country ratification, and enhances health security. The U.S. withdrawal from WHO, effective 2026, may hopefully weaken its impact. Concerns are valid, but the agreement's effects depend on implementation.

The treaty was adopted by consensus, not a formal vote, which means that governments, including the UK, virtue signaled approval without domestic scrutiny.



The countries not part of the WHO are Liechtenstein, Vatican City, and Taiwan. Liechtenstein, a UN member, collaborates via Switzerland and opts out due to its small size. Vatican City, not a UN member, has minimal global health involvement. Taiwan's exclusion stems from political tensions with Beijing, though it participates in some WHO activities as "Chinese Taipei."

The treaty is designed to address failings exposed by how countries "handled COVID-19."

It outlines legal commitments to:

– Share pathogen samples & genetic data
– Distribute vaccines & therapeutics "equitably"
– Strengthen international surveillance
– Comply with WHO-led emergency declarations
– Develop global digital health certification systems

World Health Assembly adopts historic Pandemic Agreement

This agreement is not limited to pandemic response. It's based on the WHO’s "One Health" framework, which views human, animal, and environmental health as interconnected. (interlinked / interlocked)


Critics (rightly) argue this broadens the WHO’s scope, allowing it to influence food systems, climate policy, agriculture, and land use under the guise of "pandemic prevention."

While the WHO cannot override national law, the treaty creates binding international obligations. Governments may use it to justify emergency laws or sweeping public health powers while shielding decisions behind the language of "international compliance" or "global coordination."

The WHO is not a democratic institution. Its Director-General, Tedros Ghebreyesus, is not elected by citizens, but appointed via a process dominated by diplomatic negotiations between member states. His past controversies, including handling of the early COVID outbreak and ties to China, have fueled considerable concerns about impartiality.




The WHO’s top funders are not primarily governments. As of 2023, its largest contributors included:

– Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
– GAVI Alliance
– UNICEF
– The European Commission
– Germany and the US

Private foundations now shape global public health priorities without any electoral mandate.

Among the more contentious provisions of the treaty are proposals to implement a Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) system. This would allow WHO to access pathogen samples from any country and redistribute pharmaceutical products under "equitable" frameworks — potentially overriding domestic vaccine supply chains.

The treaty also encourages states to adopt digital health documentation systems, which could evolve into permanent digital IDs tied to vaccination or health status. While presented as public health tools, such systems have been heavily criticised by civil liberties groups as intrusive, coercive, Orwellian and open to mission creep.



Several countries abstained or objected during the drafting phase. These include:

Poland, Israel, Italy, Russia, Slovakia, Iran, Algeria, Hungary, Czech Republic, Argentina, and Egypt.

Their stated concerns include loss of national sovereignty, lack of legal clarity, and the risk of unelected institutions imposing policy.

In the UK, there has been virtually no parliamentary debate over the treaty. No formal statement has been made by the Prime Minister or Health Secretary. Despite the agreement’s long-term implications, the UK has participated in negotiations quietly, bypassing public scrutiny.

The adoption of this treaty reflects a broader trend:

The shift from nation-state governance to transnational managerialism. Under this model, decisions affecting hundreds of millions are increasingly shaped by busybody billionaire technocrats, NGOs, foundations, and UN agencies — none of whom are directly accountable to voters.

James Burnham's 1941 "The Managerial Revolution" explains this.


Burnham's idea of an unaccountable managerial class has gained traction among conservative intellectuals seeking to counteract the power of this class, viewing "woke" as the justifying ideology of the new class.

This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a structural change in how global policy is made — particularly in moments of crisis...which you can trace such crisis moments all the way back to the Black Death and the ensuing global policies that were added/changed.

What COVID 911 began, the WHO treaty formalizes:

Emergency governance, centralized authority, and the use of global health as a gateway to broader control.

If democratic governments can enter binding international agreements on pandemic policy without consulting their citizens, then who governs in a crisis?

The answer, increasingly, is:

Those you cannot remove from office.

The only way to remove them is you have to kill them. Just like back in ancient times.

The WHO Pandemic Agreement is a landmark. Not just in public health, but in global governance. It centralizes authority, weakens national sovereignty, and embeds unelected influence at the heart of crisis response.

The public was never asked.

Note this agreement is just an agreed upon adoption. It will be several years before any of it is implemented. Smaller countries/small populations will feel the WHO whip first and be used as trial & error tests. But, these parasites work on generational plans, bit by bit. The US will be fully exited from the WHO cult sometime next year and at least while Trump is in Office I'm not going to worry much about it. I'll still keep my ears open in the event their policy influence starts creeping into the USA.

In the 8th century, the fate of Europe teetered on a knife’s edge.

A vast caliphate swept westward—unstoppable, unchallenged.

But in the heart of Gaul a man rose to stop the Muslim invasion in a final battle that saved Western Civilization.



The year is 732.

In the heart of Europe, the world holds its breath.

A storm approaches from the south, an empire on horseback, forged in the deserts of Arabia, now sweeping westward with the force of destiny itself.



Within a century of Muhammad’s death, Islamic armies conquer Persia, the Levant, Egypt, and North Africa.

Their banners catch the winds of victory. Now, they turn their gaze to the green, vulnerable fields of Gaul.



Crossing the Strait of Gibraltar in 711 AD, Muslim forces under Tariq ibn Ziyad smash the Visigothic kingdom.

Spain falls almost without a struggle.
Europe’s defenses are shattered.
The path north lies wide open.




By 732, the Muslim general Abd al-Rahman al-Ghafiqi leads a great army beyond the Pyrenees.

Wealth, conquest, and glory await. The Frankish lands, rich and weak, seem ripe for the taking—and no one stands in their way.



Their horsemen ride swift and deadly, razing towns and sacking churches.

From Bordeaux to the River Loire, the countryside burns.
Pilgrims flee.

Monasteries fall silent.
Europe seems ready to fall into darkness forever.

Yet not all in Gaul are defenseless.
In the north, a warrior-king gathers his forces.

His name is Charles—Mayor of the Palace, son of Pippin, leader of the Franks.

He has spent years hardening his army for this moment.



Charles is no king; he holds no crown.
But power answers to strength, not ceremony.

He has clawed his way to command by sheer force of will and now he prepares to hammer history into shape with blood and iron.

The Frankish army is different from the foes the Muslims have crushed. They fight not with dazzling cavalry, but with disciplined infantry. Heavy armor, long spears, and brutal, unbreakable ranks define them.



Charles watches the invaders carefully.
He refuses rash battle.

Instead, he shadows them, learning, choosing his ground carefully. He knows the future of Christendom itself will be decided in a single, terrible clash.

At a high, wooded plain between Tours and Poitiers, Charles sets his trap. He forms his men into a dense, bristling wall—deep ranks of armored warriors, unmoving as stone. Here, the fate of Europe will be written.



For days, the two armies stare at each other across the cold fields.

Neither side dares to move first.
The Franks stand silent, grim, patient.

Charles knows: it is not the first blow that matters, but the last.

Abd al-Rahman is confident.
His cavalry has shattered mighty foes before—why should a band of stubborn Franks be any different?  At last, growing restless, he orders the charge.



The Muslim horsemen thunder across the fields, armor flashing, banners snapping in the wind. Their lances gleam like stars as they lower their points toward the Frankish line, ready to break it in a single sweep.

The ground quakes beneath the hooves.
Closer, closer.

Charles shouts no commands.
His men do not flinch.

They tighten formation, shields braced, spears leveled forward.

The wall of warriors wait for the storm.



The impact is brutal.
Swords clash, lances shatter, bloody screams fill the air.

But the Frankish shield wall holds firm, absorbing the fury of the first assault like a great stone against crashing waves.

Continue...

About the time everyone gears up for drone warfare a game changing development will come along and make the drones almost useless IMO

Quote:Britain’s new Rapid Destroyer weapon could change the war in Ukraine overnight. Using invisible radio waves, it blasts Russian drones out of the sky—fast, cheap, and unstoppable. Is this the future of warfare? And can it crush Putin’s drone strategy for good?

Some serious topics discussed; supposedly within the next two weeks or so there will be some big releases on past indiscretions by the FBI and DOJ under the last administration. Worth a listen IMO

Quote:FBI Director Kash Patel and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino on celebrating National Police Week, keeping the homeland safe, rebuilding trust in the FBI and alleged corruption within the agency. #FoxNews

https://gizadeathstar.com/2025/04/chinas...ar-h-bomb/

Sounds like an overgrown fuel-air explosive device.  But those are hugely destructive.

Researchers from the UK and Canada who have been analysing the difference in warning calls made by a female Sumatran orangutan discovered she used a vocal element of a complexity thought only capable by humans , the information shared by the orangutan is multi layered to impart more detail of the perceived threat  

Quote:Recursion is the repetition of language elements in an embedded way so that they form a comprehensible thought/phrase. Like Russian nesting dolls, the power of recursion mean we can combine a finite set of elements to deliver an infinite array of messages with increasing complexity.
It is widely believed that nested communication is a unique feature of human language, allowing us greater complexity of thought, but research from The University of Warwick, published today in Annals of The New York Academy of Sciences, tells a different story.
Dr. Chiara De Gregorio, Research Fellow at The University of Warwick, who performed this work alongside Adriano Lameira (also Warwick) and Marco Gamba (University of Torino), said: "When analysing the vocal data of alarm calls from female Sumatran orangutans, we found that the rhythmic structure of orangutans' sounds made were self-embedded across three levels -- an impressive third-order recursion. Finding this feature in orangutan communication challenges the idea that recursion is uniquely human."
The three-layered (recursive) structure of the orangutan's calls was as follows:

• Individual sounds made by orangutans occurred in small combinations (first layer)
  
• These combinations could be grouped into larger bouts (second layer)
  
• And these bouts could be grouped into even larger series (third layer), all with a regular rhythm at each level
  

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...134254.htm