Behind the façade of global organizations established supposedly for humanity’s benefit lies a disturbing reality that few dare to acknowledge. Three powerful entities—the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations (UN), and the World Economic Forum (WEF)—operate as what many have termed an “evil trinity,” working collectively toward agendas that may threaten national sovereignty and individual freedoms worldwide. Exposing the WHO UN and WEF
This investigative piece examines the concerning evidence regarding these organizations’ true objectives, their interconnected operations, and the potential dangers they pose to humanity through population control initiatives, sovereignty erosion, and economic manipulation.
Related: Global Financial Enslavement
The World Health Organization: Beyond Public Health
The World Health Organization presents itself as the guardian of global health, but historical statements from its founding leadership reveal potentially darker motivations. Dr. Brock Chisholm, the WHO’s first Director-General, made a startling declaration in 1952 that casts doubt on the organization’s stated mission.
“The priority of the World Health Organization is population control,” Chisholm stated, according to Professor Segal, who served as Assistant Director-General for 24 years and attended every WHO meeting during that period.
Chisholm reportedly viewed overpopulation as a “security threat” requiring intervention through health functions. This foundational philosophy raises serious questions about whether the WHO was truly established to improve global health or if population control was always its primary objective.
The organization’s funding structure further compounds these concerns. A significant portion of WHO funding comes from pharmaceutical and biotech corporations with vested financial interests in the organization’s policies and recommendations. This creates an obvious conflict of interest that may influence critical public health decisions.
Get instant dream insight with our Free Dream Interpretation App
Pandemic Responses and Questions of Legitimacy
The WHO’s handling of various disease outbreaks has drawn criticism from experts worldwide. The 2009 swine flu incident exemplifies the questionable nature of some WHO decisions. According to reports, several European countries had secretly agreed with pharmaceutical companies to purchase swine flu vaccinations, but only if the WHO declared a pandemic level six alert.
Interestingly, just before this declaration, the WHO allegedly changed its pandemic definition, removing the requirement for “enormous numbers of deaths and illness.” When the pandemic was declared, only 144 people had died worldwide—a number significantly below traditional pandemic thresholds.
Forbes magazine later called this a “fraudulent response,” while the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe described it as “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century.” This episode resulted in approximately $18 billion being spent on what many consider an unnecessarily escalated health scare.
Similar concerns emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic, with critics suggesting the WHO’s actions followed a familiar pattern of exaggeration and potentially harmful policy recommendations.
United Nations: Peace Organization or Control Mechanism?
The United Nations was ostensibly created in 1945 with the noble purpose of maintaining global peace. However, according to insiders who have participated in UN meetings, peace is marginalized in favor of discussions that often lead to conflict rather than resolution.
“In different meetings which I participate myself, I have seen the peace very small like a Cinderella in a corner. And she waits to have a chance to speak. And she never had this chance… And in fact all the discussions, they were for war. But they don’t say war. And why is that? Because they manipulate,” notes one observer.
Related: Truth About mRNA Vaccines
The UN’s track record in preventing genocide and mass atrocities raises further questions about its efficacy and true purpose. During the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia, where approximately one-third of the population perished, the UN reportedly took no substantive action to intervene. More disturbingly, when Ng Seri, the foreign minister for the Khmer Rouge, appeared at a United Nations General Assembly after boasting about “cleansing the cities,” delegates reportedly applauded.
The Vision for UN Global Control
Documents discussing a “world effectively controlled by the United Nations” describe a system where national sovereignty would be subordinated to supranational institutions. MIT professor Lincoln P. Bloomfield explicitly stated that such a world would require “mandatory universal membership” and “national disarmament” as conditions for effective UN control.
This raises profound concerns about whether the UN’s ultimate objective is to establish a form of world government with “an unchallengeable monopoly on military power”—a direct threat to national sovereignty and democratic self-determination.
World Economic Forum: Economic Development or Global Reengineering?
The third entity in this triumvirate, the World Economic Forum (WEF), presents itself as an organization dedicated to improving the state of the world through public-private cooperation. Founded by Klaus Schwab, the WEF has gained extraordinary influence over global economic and social policies.
However, the organization’s track record suggests its policies may prioritize ideological agendas over practical outcomes. The case of Sri Lanka provides a sobering example. In 2018, the WEF published an article titled “How We Will Make Sri Lanka Rich by 2025,” promoting policies that Sri Lanka subsequently implemented. These included sudden bans on conventional farming practices to improve the country’s Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) score.
The results were catastrophic. Food production plummeted, with farmers expecting crop losses of up to 85%. Food prices nearly doubled, pushing millions toward starvation. A once self-sufficient nation was forced to import food, draining its financial reserves. The WEF quietly removed the article from its website as the disaster unfolded.
Population Control Ideology
Statements from WEF participants reveal concerning views on global population. One participant explicitly stated: “I hope that we can, I mean, the planet can support something like a billion people, maybe two billion, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have. If you want more liberty and more consumption, you have to have fewer people.”
Such statements align disturbingly well with the population control priorities previously attributed to the WHO’s founding leadership, suggesting these organizations may share a common philosophical foundation that prioritizes reduction of human population under the guise of sustainability.
The Interconnected Power Structure
What makes these three organizations particularly concerning is their interconnectedness. They do not operate in isolation but rather form an integrated system of influence and control.
According to critics, these organizations ultimately serve powerful global financial interests rather than the nations or peoples they claim to represent. “The oligarchs are the ones who gather once a year in Davos, the members of the World Economic Forum… The world oligarchy system, they have the power on Europe because they control all the people like Bundeskanzler or president or prime minister or whatever they are. Because they are not the employee of their people. They work for the other side. They work for the oligarchs.”
Related: What Killed Pope Francis?
This suggests that democratic processes in many nations may be compromised, with elected officials ultimately serving the interests of unelected global financial powers rather than their constituents.
Strategies of Control
These organizations employ several key strategies to advance their agendas:
- Informational warfare through propaganda and censorship
- Psychological manipulation using fear to make populations compliant
- Medical interventions presented as public health measures but potentially serving other purposes
- Economic pressure through financial mechanisms and ESG scores
The creation of “perpetual emergencies” serves as a powerful tool, keeping populations in constant states of fear and more willing to surrender freedoms and sovereignty for promised security.
Conclusion: Reclaiming Sovereignty
The evidence suggests that the WHO, UN, and WEF operate not as independent organizations serving humanity’s best interests, but as coordinated entities advancing a shared agenda of centralized control, reduced national sovereignty, and potentially population reduction.
As these organizations continue pushing for increased authority through initiatives like the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty (Pandemic Accord), greater awareness becomes essential. Citizens and nations alike must carefully examine the true objectives and consequences of policies promoted by these global institutions.
The fundamental question remains: Who should determine humanity’s future—democratically elected representatives accountable to their citizens, or unelected global organizations guided by private financial interests?
The stakes could not be higher, as they involve not just abstract concepts of sovereignty but the concrete realities of human freedom, health, and prosperity for generations to come.
NOTE: This article was generated from the video transcript and rewritten with the assistance of AI—see our AI Usage Disclosure for more information.
