Interview 1789 – The One Hell Agenda on CHD TV

by | Mar 12, 2023 | Interviews, Videos | 23 comments

via CHD.TV: James Corbett and Meryl Nass, M.D. return to “Good Morning CHD” to discuss the latest updates on the WHO’s IHR proposed amendments + Zero Draft Pandemic treaty, highlighting the latest meetings that took place from February 20 – 24, and laying particular emphasis on the proposed “One Health Approach” — a broad new landscape of interconnected and interdependent relationships with humans, animals and the environment. Touted as an ‘non-colonial’ solution to the current ‘anthropocentric’ view on the ecosystem, the proposed solutions are anything but holistic. New fast tracked mRNA products for livestock raise concerns of equity for animal rights, considering no adverse events reporting system structure for animals currently exists. As the reality of global vaccine passports draws nearer, is the “One Health Approach” really a “One Hell” power grab for all living beings and plants on earth, and will world domination of public health will now be sold to the public under the guise of “anti-colonialism”? Watch this episode featuring the movement’s most fascinating duo on CHD.TV to find out!


Previous editions of Meryl and James’ monthly conversation

HR Working Group Feb 20-24, 2023 — Second Meeting Of The Working Group On Amendments To The International Health Regulations (2005)

World Health Organization Pushes For Global Vaccine Passports

Fourth Meeting Of The Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) For A WHO Instrument On Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness And Response

WHO Moves Forward With Plans To Target “Misinformation” “Infodemics” Through International Pandemic Treaty

World Health Organization Pushes For Global Vaccine Passports

The Future Of Livestock Vaccines

Court Takes Half-Step Toward Animals Suing

MRNA Vaccines For Livestock? – Questions For Corbett #097

Corbett Report — CRISPR

Upton Sinclair’s ‘The Jungle’ — The Corbett Report

The Proposed Amendments To The International Health Regulations: An Analysis

Intergovernmental Negotiating Body On Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness And Response Parallel Session 6

Working Group Breakdown

Proposed Amendments

2023 NDAA [Signed December 2022]

Bill Gates — How To Prevent The Next Pandemic

One Health Basics – CDC

CDC’s One Health Office: What We Do

One Health Joint Plan Of Action Launched And Presented By WHO And The Quadripartite Partners

One Health Joint Plan Of Action Launched To Address Health Threats To Humans, Animals, Plants And Environment

One Health High Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP) And The Quadripartite


  1. It is amazing the sort of linguistic and conceptual trojan horse type maneuvers the “One Health” propagandists are using.

    They speak about obviously factual truths (as well as more philosophical truths) such as “how interdependent humans are with ecosystems” and how “anthropocentrism is detrimental” (throwing around terms like “indigenous worldviews” and how they are “anti-colonial”) when their creepy megalomaniacal totalitarian lab food systems, GMO, transhumanist, social credit carbon footprint control grid really has nothing to do with the above mentioned terms.

    They are using advanced Greenwashing techniques and attempting to psyop people who care about the integrity of the ecosystems into building their own prison. it is very sneaky, and I feel like a good amount of people may actually fall for it.

    Real indigenous worldviews and animate worldviews (that honored the interdependence of humans with ecosystems) did not seek to hyper-consolidate control into centralized systems, they were decentralized ways of being that emulated the self-correcting, regenerative, decentralized and symbiotic relationships in an ecosystem.

    I even saw a recent post by the Rockefeller foundation trying to trojan horse their way into weaponizing the term Regenerative Agriculture to use it as part of their control grid, very insidious indeed. Like a global scale COINTELPRO system.

    They say “anti-colonial” yet these life sucking parasitic oligarchs that are pushing this “One-Health” agenda are actively working to colonize the very fabric of the genome with their CRISPR and their mRNA injections. This is more 1984 style double speak, very well done too.

    Thanks for exposing this very sneaky psyop material James and Meryl.

    • I was thinking about this comment above and all the “One Health” and Rockefeller Foundation rhetoric regarding anthropocentrism, indigenous worldviews, indigenous food cultivation systems (agro-forestry or “food forests”), regenerative agriculture and protecting the biodiversity of the last few remaining wilderness places and it bothered me that I had chosen to jump to what seems like a jaded and cynical conclusion where I assumed the worst of these people. I decided to take a step back and consider the possibility that (despite there being a long history and plethora of evidence indicating that expecting nefarious intent from such people would be completely reasonable and logical from an empirical standpoint) perhaps they mean what they are saying this time?

      The reason this bothered me is because in the past I have written about how each human being is imbued with a conscious spirit (that has certain intrinsic qualities) and free will gifted to us by the Creator, and that all else is learned. In my heart of hearts, this is something I know to be true (despite a lifetime of experiences where I have seen some very ugly and disturbing behavior on the part of humans choosing to exercise their free will in degenerative, cowardly and selfish ways). Thus, I think it would be hypocritical of me to just look at a past pattern of choices and then assume the worst without even being open at all to the possibility that these people are capable of change and turning over a new leaf.

      So, now we have these “One Health” people, the Rockefellar Foundation (as well as the WEF) and other plutocratic clubs, “philanthropic foundations”/”NGOs” talking about promoting regenerative agriculture, agroforestry, indigenous traditional knowledge, protecting the few remaining intact wilderness ecosystems, regenerating degraded ones, acknowledging our interconnectivity and interdependence will our fellow non-human beings on Earth and getting away from anthropocentric worldviews (many of you here will know these are all things I have talked about in the past on here).

      Considering what I have said in the past ( ) regarding oligarchs and individuals who seem to be (or have been) involved with organizations that are clearly involved in nefarious, transhumanist, plutocratic, oppressive and degenerative campaigns and behaviors I felt like I should at least take a step back and comprehensively consider all the possibilities here.


    • (continued from above..)

      So, I took a step back, took a deep breath and tried giving them the benefit of the doubt and looking deeper to see if their present actions are matching their words and stated intent.

      Well most of you will find it no surprise that it did not take long to see myriad incontrovertible examples of behaviors, industries, mandates, policies and lifestyles that are associated with the above listed plutocrats, their clubs, corporations, “philanthropic foundations” and “NGOs” etc that are involved in the complete opposite of any thing that could be considered “regenerative” or that which honors and learns from traditional indigenous knowledge.

      We are talking about organizations and corporations that push Biopiracy of seeds and animals (transgenic gene splicing patents and CRISPR frankenstein projects), the contamination of the human genome through biological weapons / transhumanist experiments like the mRNA and viral vector injections, Lab grown petri dish fake meat, hyper-centralization of violent coercive authoritarianism, the commodification of sacred relationships, the commodification and pillaging of bones of Mother Earth (lithium, cobalt etc for their “sustainable development goals”) and the chopping down of the very last pristine mature forests on Earth, for profit.

      Thus, my analysis of their claims as follows, one talk is cheap and their talk does not match up with their actions. Two, even if they start throwing money at some little organization or isolated project here and there, that could very well be nothing more than PR. Three, their long history of abuse, corruption, oppression, censorship, ecological mass destruction, experimentation on unwilling/unaware subjects, mass murder and racketeering operations are not data points that any responsible and sane person can completely ignore (even if they want to see the best in people).

      Avoiding, or not taking those past behavior patterns of the above listed organizations (and the plutocrats that are involved) into account and just trusting their nice sounding promises and rhetoric would be akin to a person that is getting out of a long term extremely abusive relationship (involving gas lighting and physical abuse) and then having their abusive ex tell them “no don’t go, i`ve changed, I would never do that again” (after they have said that and then done it again dozens of times already) and then trusting them. Therefore, I propose that trusting the rhetoric they are pushing would be akin to choosing to embrace a sort of Stockholm Syndrome.


      • I do think the people steering the agenda are psychopathic and it would be foolish to think they can grow a conscience and change. For example Gates, Soros, Schwab and those ilk are not capable of change I believe. It would be like expecting Ted Bundy not to commit murder. While I do think some criminals and even people who have killed others can change, it’s unlikely for many.

        I do think however that the people working for them and helping build the global technocratic gulag can change because I do think most people do have a conscience when acting as individuals and some may even be able to act apart from the mob and ideology.

        Toxic ideology like Marxism and fascism and stuff like that to me can blind people to who’s doing what and how to fix things. They think that some top down authoritarian model will solve the problem and it doesn’t. People start blaming systems and identities of people rather than looking at who is profiting and how they are profiting and why they are doing what they are doing. It becomes this nebulous ideology and diffuses constructive energy and leads to people taking sides they don’t even understand. Like “sustainable development” “green technology” “diversity and inclusion” “equity” like what does that actually mean? Who benefits, not what identity they have but what companies? Who runs them and what makes them tick? What is the end goal and will people who support it really be benefited by it and will they be free people?

        Your post really got me thinking about this because it seems like such clever cognitive infiltration/psychological warfare. To appeal to people’s sense of fairness and good will and then give them the opposite or to get people to hate each other and fight one another.

        I mean sustainable sounds good to me, but is what they are doing sustainable? None of the words they use even mean what the definition says if you look closely enough. Equity to them means that the 99% of humanity will be serfs and slaves in some fashion. Inclusion means everyone will be forced into the same gulag. Climate change means we must be fed bugs. It’s really sickening to consider.

        • And to clarify when I said that people like Gates, Schwab, and Soros are incapable of change I mean that it will not come from some internal sense of right and wrong, but can occur because people stop buying their crap, the physical crap and ideological crap. I do think that smart people are capable of doing that and guiding others like how JC and Meryl Nass are trying to do.

          • Thanks for the link, I’ll check it out. It’s interesting to consider they manipulate people. The parallels to 1984 are scary as well, mainly that it seems very obvious to me but seems like others aren’t getting it.

        • @cu.h.j

          I really appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts.

          Your perspective on how you see that “the people steering the agenda are psychopathic and it would be foolish to think they can grow a conscience and change..” reminds me of a conversation I had with Tessa Lena (author of the “Tessa Fights Robots” blog) where we were discussing the nature of psychopathy and what she had described as “born predators” in an interview. (the interview: )

          Do you personally think that the oligarchs you are referring to were born “psychopathic”? As in, when they were young children, they held within their little toddler minds megalomaniacal delusions that involve their want to extinguish other human’s lives?

          Tessa told me how she thinks that some are, and that maybe it is some kind of “soul contract” they agreed to before coming into this life, or in her words “Some people choose to be born as predators, which is allowed because they serve the function of keeping everyone awake.”. My wife has similar ideas about soul contracts.

          When I asked Tessa: Do you think that these psychopaths (that are actively seeking to murder, enslave, brainwash and oppress the many) have within them the potential to choose a different path within this lifetime, to experience a shift in perspective that leads them to embrace compassion, or are they locked into their psychopathic ways 100% without any chance for changing course in this life?

          Her answer was “..I think we cannot say whether they can reform during the same lifetime. I think it is generally unlikely but I don’t even ponder such things because they are under their own contract and my job is to be awake, not to fix them”.

          Would you say that you would have answered my question in a similar way?

          Thanks for elucidating on your views of those helping to build “technocratic gulag” and those stuck in the mental prison of various statist isms.

          They do weaponize “nebulous ideologies” in a very sneaky way indeed. The propaganda I linked below this in another comment from the Rockefeller foundation even comes right out and tells people “Don’t get dogmatic about it” (it being regenerative agriculture) in other words, they want to be able to describe what ever they are doing using these convenient buzz words that appease people so they would like to avoid anyone clearly defining parameters that may cut into profits or the ability of the term to be weaponized. It is like the way the word “natural” is plastered all over products in stores now, but it means nothing, no clear definition, it is just a misleading and comforting sounding PR catch phrase (I often find it on the labels of GMO laden ‘food’ products).


        • (continued from above..)

          Yes the cognitive infiltration tactics are highly advanced now. It is like they do a drag net over all the words being used by those inspiring self-governance, food sovereignty, decentralized ways of accessing basic needs and ideas that could disrupt their oligarchic monopolies, then they jump on the terminology being used by those people, attempting to lace the terms with half truths and misleading nonsense (in the minds of the masses) through attaching lies onto said terms in their propaganda pieces. Then they use the buzz words like carrots on a stick to lure people away from empowering themselves and back into complacency and infantilism. The precision of it all makes me wonder if A.I. algorithms are being weaponized to both identify the most ideal words worth targeting for cognitive infiltration/COINTELPRO tactics and then extrapolating how the oligarchs can phrase those words in a way that suits their end goals.

          Yes the widespread hijacking and weaponization of the word “sustainable” is palpable and almost unavoidable in Canada now. It is all over billboards, busses, commercials and written into every statist puppet politician speech. And now that the word “sustainable” is loosing creditability in some circles (as it essentially means, stagnating where we are without doing more damage but says nothing about healing what has been damaged or making things better) they are coming for the word “Regenerative”.

          I exposed the fallacies of the oligarch’s so called “sustainable development” propaganda in this article (with regards to their claims that wind turbines, solar panels and electric vehicles are going to save the environment) and I also talked about other terms that are the focus of my comments above, so I would value hearing your thoughts on what I put together in that context.

          Thanks again for the comment(s).

          • I think some may have been born psychopaths or had a propensity to it. I do believe there is some biological predisposition to it that when these traits are encouraged seal in the behavior. I think there were studies done on psychopaths in prison that showed MRIs were different from non psychopaths. I haven’t checked what autopsies revealed about actual structure of the brain though (in killers who are deceased). There are probably other factors at play, perhaps spiritual ones but what people can study is physical differences.

            Some may even believe that what they are doing is good and/or they also hate regular people and think they are superior and want to kill us off. I also believe in evil and would say that some people can be subsumed by it and become evil. Perhaps psychopaths are born evil, I’m not sure.

            I’ll check out your article and let you know what I think.

      • And it sounds like you are more or less saying the same thing except your answer is more cogent than mine. I’m glad you explored your ideas more!

    • (continued from above..)

      Here is a link to the Rockefeller Foundation publication I mentioned above:

      If you look further into what they are saying they use the same kind of terminology that was used in the “One Health” document referenced in the interview above.

      I am 99.99% sure that what they are saying is just part of an advanced psychological and counter-intelligence operation (and if anyone involved does genuinely believe in what they claim to be about, they are essentially nothing more than an unwitting limited hangout agent).

      It is likely psyop rhetoric designed to serve one or more of the following objectives:

      1. to engage in COINTELPRO type operations where they can infiltrate movements that directly oppose their goals of hyper-centralized control of the food and medical system and either eventually sow discord within them (divide and conquer), to muddy the waters with half truths and propaganda that uses buzz words but really leads people to a result that only benefits the few in power (The Delphi technique) and/or to eventually have controlled opposition within said movements that can ensure said movement are perceived by the general public in a certain way.

      2. Linguistic trojan horse tactics that tug at heart strings to get people to cheer for their organizations, accept their broader programs and ensuring that many will allow these transnational hyper-centralized corporate/oligarchic groups to exert influence on their local/regional governance policies (by convincing people they are going to save the environment etc).

      3. to dissuade people that are fully aware of the nefarious nature of the WHO, the Rockefeller Foundation, the WEF and others from learning more about and embracing the value of the paths of learning from, supporting and embracing the ways of seeing that the oligarch’s propagandists are now discussing (such as the detriments of anthropocentrism, the value of indigenous worldviews, indigenous food cultivation systems (agro-forestry or “food forests”), regenerative agriculture and protecting the biodiversity of the last few remaining wilderness places) by giving people the impression that such concepts / techniques are something that the globalists are involved with.

      4. to absorb, divert, gain the loyalty of and subsume the portion of the population that was starting to consider the importance and relevance of the above listed ways of cultivating, perceiving and seeing our place in nature (which they are using as buzz words) away from actually learning about those concepts and applying them locally to instead fall back into the infantilized existence many have become accustomed to (where they hope some large organization, institution, or other external force is going to do the hard work for them and fix the world, and all they have to do is just cheer for the right people and sit back as a spectator).


  2. One thing, she used the word ‘covid’, implying what, a virus (that’s never been isolated or purified), or a bioweapon, or just the seasonal detoxing that’s called the flu. It wasn’t clear to me.

    • She could have used general terms like “fear” or “tyranny” which is what I think of when I hear Covid. I also hear scam, lie, fraud. The particulars of the fraud are debatable for some people but it was a scam nevertheless.

  3. One thing, she used the word ‘covid’,implying what, a virus (that’s never been isolated or purified), or a bioweapon, or just the seasonal detoxing that’s called the flu. It wasn’t clear to me.

  4. Grace and Peace, James
    I do not always understand How you choose where to limit your dives on topics. I think I understand why but just not the “where” part. For example, I thought David Chandler’s work on “plane at the Pentagon” was sound and convincing. I think you chose to not expend your voice and your platform any further on that topic. Fair enough.

    Similarly,under the heading of “Bio-security” or even Health-Science-reality, I do not understand the hesitancy to put the foundation of virology under review. Mark and Sam Bailey, Andrew Kaufman, Stefan Lanka and several others are offering a straightforward critique.

    Rebuttals defending “the proven virus” idea start sounding silly, such as that of Peter McCullough speaking to Derrick Broze,

    Would it not be a good time to lay the ax to the root of such a deceitful and harmful tree, virology?

    Thank You.

    • I don’t think he should touch that topic like other topics he should let people do their own research. Especially since how contentious followers get calling people shills and agents if they don’t agree with them. People can be wrong and not be a shill but this will narrow audiences an prevent cohesion and changing public opinion. The tyrants do seem to care about public opinion to an extent and need our cooperation at this point. Whatever stops people from consenting to tyranny is what people need to do. People have believe in contagion for a long time and if there are other mechanisms going on many peoples minds will still think in the simplest pattern even if it’s wrong.

      So people can be completely right and shout it out on the roof tops but it might not do any good. JC is a paradigm level thinker that looks at the root of the problems and I think he does a good job. I don’t think (this is my personal opinion) that the germ theory debate is at the crux of the issue.

      With that said, I think other people like Dr. Lanka and other thinkers who are working on this have a wider platform now and have done a good job getting people to think in alternative ways which is also good. We don’t all have to see eye to eye on everything right?

      I really don’t know yet either way. I think Dr. Lanka makes some excellent points and has done some good research and since he’s a scientist is even better than journalists and MDs who are not knowledgeable of experimental science.

      I think what would be excellent is to have two research scientists debate, like Dr. Lanka and another lab scientist who isn’t making money off the research. Someone who’s honest and can discuss what they are doing and why they say they’ve cultured viruses and how that relates to what happens in the body and how that relates to contagion. I mentioned this before, but I would actually pay to attend a seminar like that to learn. But before I put my reputation behind something, I’d need to really study it if I had anything to lose.

      • Well said, cu.h.j
        I wholeheartedly agree.

  5. Upton Sinclair, was a socialist, who not only helped consolidate the packing industry, but was also one of the founders of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, which was the organization that put all the socialist, communist education in the colleges and universities, which in turn, has trickled down into the primary education.levels. All of this has been deliberate, as the planners knew full well, it would be difficult if not altogether impossible to pull off their “one world” scheme, if the populace was well educated and informed.

  6. Resist, as Julian Assange said while being arrested. Say no, said David Icke during an interview with Brian Rose. I couldn’t agree more.

    I also agree with things like ending animal suffering and taking care of the environment. ,I just don’t like how they are doing it.

    Plus, I felt like my grandmother was giving me these bad news over a plate of fresh baked cookies to make them easier to accept. I like how Meryl Nass speaks. Thank you for this episode. I am looking forward to more, even if it is to hear more bad news.

Submit a Comment


Become a Corbett Report member