Particularly troubling are the provisions that commit WHO member states to developing behavioural-science measures (a euphemism for ‘nudge’ tactics and propaganda) and countering ‘misinformation and disinformation’ (meaning increased censorship). Given the extent of state-led propaganda and censorship during the last pandemic, would it not be more appropriate to strengthen protections for scientific debate and free speech instead?
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the day – the WHO’s plan for public-health tyrannySamizdata Illuminatus (Arkham, Massachusetts) · Civil liberty, Law & Regulation · Health & medical · International affairs · Totalitarianism May 9th, 2024 |
 8 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – the WHO’s plan for public-health tyrannyLeave a Reply |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
From the point of view of the Authorities, the state-led propaganda and censorship measures worked well to polish their tyrant-boners and put the revolting peasants in their place, even if not quite well enough to achieve the ultimate goal of a ‘new normal.’ So of course they’ll see it as entirely appropriate to improve and intensify the measures that had such positive and desirable results last time.
Or: They acted in bad faith then, they’re acting in bad faith now, and they should be treated as enemies just as they’re treating us as enemies. Not as political opponents, note, but as enemies.
For decades we have been told that the push for world governance is a “Conspiracy Theory” – yet here it is, this and other international bodies and agreements, what the academics call the “functionalist” approach to world governance, rather than the more open “federalist” approach.
Now we shall see what governments sign up and what, if any, governments do not.
Yes, that will be interesting.
It will also be of interest to see the reaction of voters to their governments signing up. Where & when voters are allowed to react.
“We can avoid formally rejecting this – but then not obey it” – the “we can play Merry Hell” line of a friend of mine down in Hitchin (about the European Union) – this fails to understand how the British Civil Service, independent agencies (outside the Civil Service), and the COURTS work.
A dictatorship such as Russia or China might go along with something like the World Health Organisation agreement and then ignore orders – but Western nations (not just the United Kingdom – ALL Western nations) can not – the independent courts (and the officials) will not allow that.
This is why Senator Ron Johnson got all 49 Republican Senators (yes all of them – including the RINOs) to sign up to opposing the World Health Organisation agreement.
Go along with this agreement, do not formally reject it, and YOU ARE NOT AN INDEPENDENT NATION ANY MORE.
This is the point of this agreement and all these international agreements and organisations.
It is not about “health” or “climate” or whatever the packaging says – it is always about power-and-control.
Snorri – the voters will not be told what these agreements are really about (that they are really about power-and-control – not “health” or “climate” or whatever the packaging says).
And even if the voters did know it would not matter – as the courts, and the officials, have made it very clear (on many different matters) that what the voters think does-not-matter. The agreement is legally valid – so voting for someone who wants to do something different (on immigration, or health, or climate – or whatever) does-not-matter.
Of course, Parliament could formally repeal these agreements – but that is incredibly difficult. So normally once an international agreement goes into effect – that is the end.
Stop them before they go into effect.
Paul:
Agreed. Except that there will be some parties, in some countries, that will tell the voters what these agreements are really about — if they are smart.
It will be of interest to see where there are such parties; and it will also be of interest to see what percentage of voters listen to them.
@Paul:
“Go along with this agreement, do not formally reject it, and YOU ARE NOT AN INDEPENDENT NATION ANY MORE.”
Do you remember the ‘non-committing’ ‘Global Compact for Migration’? German policy now looks like this had effectively replaced the constitution.
Snorri – yes indeed, for example in the Netherlands.
Sprance – sadly so.
The idea seems to be “because some ancestors of ours murdered your people [including my father’s cousins] 80 years ago – we have to let in lots of people who want to kill people like you, Paul Marks, right now”.
I fail to see the logic of the position. And, yes indeed, these “non binding” agreements end up being treated as binding.
The dictatorship of China will laugh at all these international agreements (and treat them as “scraps of paper”) – but Western governments will follow the rules of the international Corporate State slavishly.