The world has greatly suppressed the truth in villainy and decadence. We live in an adversarial atmosphere where defending truth and protecting its seekers calls for boldness rather than subtlety. With stakes so high as our very liberty, bodily autonomy, and the safety of our youngest and most vulnerable, failure to offer constructive correction to our allies would be negligent.
By Brad Ward, Director, Armor of Truth
In the immediate wake of the 77th World Health Assembly and the adoption of the amendments to the International Health Regulations, Dr. Meryl Nass posted an article to Meryl’s COVID Newsletter titled:
Some people worry that the IHR amendments passed. DON'T. This list of the bullets we just dodged should make the result clear. CELEBRATE!
In our previous reports on the 77th World Health Assembly we discussed the failure of the Alt Media and the pod-blogging Patriot Movement to rightly grasp and describe the nature of the agreement between the United States and the WHO and for overlooking the actual and immediate danger, not to sovereignty, but local autonomy (links below).
We honor Dr. Nass’s important contributions in exposing the vaccine industry and standing for personal autonomy in healthcare. However, serious problems have emerged in the current messaging. Worse, divisions are erupting among the group. Adulation and in-house attacks are waxing at a time when a focused unified front is vitally necessary to the keeping of the American republic and for the defense of liberty worldwide.
Out of respect, we have held back our commentary on this post to allow time for Dr. Nass to clarify her statements and perhaps address and heal divisions. She has, unfortunately, doubled down.
The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him. (Proverbs 18:17)
In the June 1st post, Dr. Nass wrote, regarding the adopted IHR amendments,
We did it. People power beat the $ and the connections of the globalist cabal. The IHRs that passed were merely a face-saving measure.
Dr. Nass asserts that the adopted amendments were a “benign” version of those originally proposed, saying that only, “One bad thing remained in the IHR, and that was ‘addressing’ misinformation and disinformation…” Then she provided a list of measures that were excluded or left out of the agreed and adopted amendments. The post reads,
Below is a list of the major bullets we just dodged that were REMOVED from the IHR amendments +/- the pandemic treaty:
THIS WAS A HUGE WIN. […]
This is a strange list that seems to be an arbitrary outline of popular alt media talking points lacking detail and any reference to the specific IHR amendments. It seems worth noting that it was the United States delegation that largely influenced pushing the amendments through. That would indicate that our own government is complicit in these negotiations locating the more immediate threat inside our own borders.
The assertion that this was a victory and that the adoption of the amended IHR is a benign event is misleading. The advance of corporatism is intact and has not been mitigated, but expanded and to say otherwise is to patronize readers. It’s unclear why Dr. Nass would make that assertion when she knows the system. However, nitpicking the items on the list is not our aim in this report.
The same policies in the pandemic agreement and amended IHR are already in place within the regional medical conglomerates present in your hometown right now. The pandemic “treaty” and IHR amendments are not threats TO national sovereignty, they are in fact exercises OF national sovereignty implemented and enforced by the governments and agencies of member nations. You can witness them today in your hospitals, urgent cares, and other regional medical behemoths. Dr. Nass was a direct target of this homogenization of doctrine and practice when she was persecuted for standing against one-size-fits-all corporatism in medicine.
The enemy is corporatism through regional control of markets and social contouring through distributive justice. What the medical, pharmaceutical industrial complex is building through the WHO is a controlled global market and profit making leviathan on the backs of taxpayers. It’s not sovereignty they’re after. They intend to dominate the markets so completely through patents and public private partnerships that your options will be limited to only their products and treatments.
That said, you can inspect the IHR for yourself to determine if the items in the list are relevant, and we invite you to engage with our work to grow your knowledge and understanding of the threat that already exists locally and has been advancing in your city or municipality for over 30 years.
All that said, we are seeing confusion and divisions erupt within our own communities over this issue. So we believe it is most important at this point to focus our attention on the principles of good leadership for winning the long war with our globalist totalitarian adversaries.
As an example, we’ll be referencing interactions by Dr. Nass and her followers in the comments under that June 1st post. Review the relevant excerpts below from the discussion. Names have been removed, except for Dr. Nass. Take note of the vehement defenses made here of Dr. Nass, the legitimate questions and confusion expressed by some commenters, and particularly Dr. Nass’s response regarding fellow researcher and investigator James Roguski.
Commenter R (Liked by Meryl Nass)
Meryl Nass you have been a true blessing and a driving force in stopping the W.H.O. […] You have been a monumental positive influence on many people and gave them renewed vigor[…] Much Love to you and everyone else who are genuinely working for the greatest benefit of all. You are all TRUE VIRTUOUS HUMAN BEINGS. You inspire me, each day, to spend energy in thinking of ways I can help, and to put those thoughts into action. I can only express infinite gratitude, for now and the many battles ahead.
Commenter D (Liked by Meryl Nass)
Very well put, Ripple, Meryl is one in a billion - an Angel of all things good. I just hope she remembers to take a little time out occasionally. Nobody, and I mean nobody works as hard and diligently as Meryl. She has achieved so much.
Commenter JB
God bless you Meryl! You are truly our Esther and we so appreciate you!
Commenter GP
Why does James Roguski write that we the people have been massively defeated on the IHR?
Meryl Nass
Great question. Did he not read them? What is his intention?
Commenter SD
This is my question as well that gives me doubt as to what James Roguski read that we may have missed? I believe clarity would be a good resolve.
Commenter T
Now list for us your interpretation of what WAS adopted. You left that part out...
Commenter A
Dr Nass has worked extremely hard, so why don’t you do just that, put a nice list together for us on what was adopted and let Dr Nass get on with what she decides to focus on
Commenter T
Why don't you stop kissing her ass? She has paid subscribers. I don't.
Commenter Rd
Don’t put up provocative posts if you’re not feeling well enough to deal with them!
Commenter RD
Meryl, why are you turning that question back on the general public here?
Commenter Mn
too would like to understand why James Roguski says otherwise, and lists the articles that are dangerous further. Art 1, 4, 12, 13, 24, 27, 31, 35 (paragraph 2,3,4), 44, 54bis.
Again conflicting reports from Dr. Nass Vs James Roguski’s!! Need clarification and would be nice for both to get together (United) to place forward a chart if wins and any losses for both We the Ppl and the WHO. We cannot afford to be divided. Please think about this. TY
This sampling excerpt of comments represents a general emerging trend of confusion where readers’ questions are going unanswered. In particular, Dr. Nass’s reply to a straightforward question as to why James Roguski came to a different conclusion than her’s is notable for its provocative tone. Such a response neither informs nor strengthens the group, but rather sows a seed of discord by escalating the in-group/out-group social dynamic.
To be clear, Dr. Nass is not alone in this. Like many who have chosen to come forward as captains of the citizen’s brigade to confront our global adversaries, she has placed herself in a difficult position that requires an even handed magnanimous approach to disagreement and a comforting style of reassurance toward confusion. We all make mistakes, but if we’re serious about running a successful defense of our liberty, this is an example of what not to do.
Using these examples for context, the following essay describes the patterns and negative effects of weak leadership and offers some advice for how to embody the characteristics of an effective leader.
Groupthink and weak leadership in the Alt Media and Patriot Movement
The circumstances and experiences of the “global pandemic” and the vaccine rollout with all its coercions and loss of livelihoods and even loss of life itself were most certainly traumatic. Dr. Meryl Nass emerged as a prominent figure standing against medical tyranny. Many people around the world seeking hope and strength in the storm rallied around Nass’s resilience to personal and professional persecution as a source of strength and reassurance that there was indeed a resistance to the overt and arrogant power plays and psychological operations.
“The first one to plead his cause seems right until his neighbor comes and examines him.” (Proverbs 18:17)
We have no reason to believe that Dr. Nass’s intentions have been anything but good, and that she really does mean well. As far as I know, we are co-belligerents in this war against humanity. We all want to see evil defeated and destroyed, and surely, we do not want to be tempted into promoting more evil than we expose.
When a group has been a source of grounding and comfort through such a drastic and disconcerting experience of tyrannical government overreach, lockdowns, and threats of exclusion from society as was had from 2020-2022, any threat to the group’s existence or to the leader’s authoritative positions may cause some members to suffer a form of psychological discomfort known as cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957).
It is also common for individuals to derive a sense of identity and self-esteem from being members of such an important social group during such a confusing time. In defense of self-esteem, group members may reject legitimate challenges, sincere questions, and alternate views. To reinforce the preminance of and allegiance to the leader, some members may even attack those who’ve come to only slightly different conclusions (Turner, and Tajfel, 1986).
In the comments under Dr. Nass’s post, fawning and defense of the doctor as their champion is seen from some commenters. Questions posed in response to Dr. Nass’s positions are met with a strong rebuke of those who challenge the information. As Max Weber described, leaders that emerge in a time of great stress can be perceived as extraordinary and are often followed with fervent loyalty. It is quite possible that some of Dr. Nass’s followers may view all of her opinions as infallible (Weber, 1947).
Being aware of these common social dynamics is crucial in the information war of our age. Nass’s followers have created a strong division between those who support the doctor (in-group) and those who criticize her (out-group). This unnecessary division leads to polarization, where loyalty to the in-group is paramount, and any questioning is met with hostility. Such group dynamics can escalate conflicts and deepen divisions within the community.
Cult of personality arises when a group idealizes a leader and a leader accepts and embodies the heroic image of himself. Unwavering devotion and the absence of true humility in a leader can lead to a dangerous concentration of power, suppression of dissent, and an inevitable chilling effect on truth telling.
It is plain to see that the greatest responsibility in group dynamics belongs to the leader. Leaders, knowingly or unknowingly, set the boundaries and model the behavior that the group will inevitably emulate and regulate. Therefore, good leaders must guard their own hearts against high sensitivity to criticism and the temptation to thrive on admiration. When faced with dissent, leaders must be vigilant to avoid defensive reactions, doubling down on potentially faulty positions, and encouraging loyal followers who do not question their authority.
Perhaps most important of all, leaders of groups seeking truth and justice must vigilantly refrain from disparaging or casting suspicion upon other researchers or investigators who come to different conclusions. This does not mean that criticism of other views is forbidden, on the contrary, respectful disagreement is key and a ripe opportunity to model honorable behavior. Allowing patterns that stifle self-correction fosters a toxic cycle of ego inflation and creates sycophantic dependent followers who struggle to think for themselves.
This is not uncommon. However, it stands in stark contradiction to the character and commitment necessary to achieve victory over tyranny. Moreover, this is a very important cautionary example of human nature and group dynamics, because, as we come full circle, we remember that the point of much of Dr. Nass’s work during the pandemic was to refute blind loyalty to authority, and the vilification of dissenters. How disappointing it is to witness exactly this occurring among those who follow her work today.
A sure test for any prominent voice in the information war is their reaction when confronted with significant error. If such a person accepts the correction the unity of the whole group is made stronger.
Negative consequences of weak leadership can be quite severe when the stakes are so high. The erosion of critical thinking and the healthy exchange of ideas leads to poor decision-making and the propagation of misinformation. Internal polarization undermines unity and fuels conflict within our community.
Finally, when those in positions of leadership are careless with their authority and allow group dynamics to run amok, the most common and worst result is that truth is inevitably suppressed, whether it was intended to or not.
Suppression of truth, it should go without saying at this point, handicaps our fight to defend freedom and hinders the fulfillment of our responsibility to keep the American republic for our children. Pride, deceit, and the suppression of truth are antithetical to Christian values.
"Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." (Proverbs 16:18)
James, the Just, brother of Jesus cautioned the earliest Christians who were spread throughout the Roman Empire and experiencing all manner of persecutions, that not everyone of you should be a leader, knowing that not everyone is qualified to lead, and that those who do will be judged more strictly than the rest (James 3:1).
Leaders have a responsibility to uphold the truth and act with humility, otherwise their followers will be led into error, by its right name, sin.
Followers should exercise discernment and not place leaders on pedestals, remembering that all humans are fallible.
Ephesians 4:15 encourages everyone to "speak the truth in love," to prioritize truth and humility, honesty and compassion. Our community, if love of truth is the purpose, should support an environment where questioning and critical thinking are encouraged, and leaders are held accountable.
It is imperative for both leaders and followers to prevent the erosion of trust and the spread of deception. After all, if we say we are about getting to the truth and helping other people wake up to it, then we must set the proper example. I’ve had to do it many times, and I assure you, it is quite painless for anyone other than a narcissist. It is far better to be standing on the firm foundation of truth rather than balancing precariously on the shifting sands of adulation and relevance.
This message is given in the spirit of unity to provide an opportunity for correction and reconciliation. Far too often on the internet and social media folks engage in character assasination, and ad hominem attacks. The prayer for this message is that it would be delivered thoughtfully and received with the care and love in which it has been intended.
“Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt…” (Colossians 4:6).
Salt is both a preservative of good things and a purifier of corruption. God is not only concerned with our spiritual development, but also the way we interact in public as we represent His kingdom. All the correct knowledge in the world is dulled and made of no effect apart from love.
“But the goal of our command is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and an unhypocritical faith.” (1 Timothy 1:5)
Always keep in mind that often, when contentions are made public, the most important hearers are the many who are looking now on or will eventually discover the message. We must always speak clearly so as to not cause confusion.
🎯