The Medical Dictatorship of WHO

International Health Regulations and the Social(ist) Revolution.

JUPPLANDIA

At the height of the French Revolution the world saw that in the name of Liberty liberty could be taken away, and in the name of Equality class warfare could brutally slaughter innocent people, and that in the name of Egality the fabric of a nation could be torn apart and neighbour set against neighbour. We even saw that Reason and Enlightenment could be the excuses for savage mobs parading severed heads through the streets, and that Reason could be set up as an unreasoning and barbaric new God, literally worshipped by cold blooded and murderous bureaucrats and lawyers convinced that Science and Progress justified their savagery. The French Revolution, of course, is also the primary birthplace of leftism in all its modern incarnations.

The calm lawyer Robespierre, whose cold persona and bureaucratic heart worked day and night drafting utopian promises and death warrants in the same elegant hand, spoke of Reason and delivered Terror, all with a ledger book of carefully calculated, minutely analysed, bureaucratic calculations of the good, and all without the slightest confusing impediment of actual humanity.

In the name of toppling kings and claiming modern values, the French Revolution would establish a State far more authoritarian, brutal and casually indifferent to human rights than the one it toppled…,rather as rallies with No Kings slogans today support an enormous system of corruption and brutality with a much more authoritarian record than Donald Trump possesses.

In all these instances of gross political hypocrisy, Evil is easier and deadlier whenever it wraps itself in the language and appearance of Virtue, whenever soft words cloak hard deeds, and whenever calm precision directs a howling frenzy.

For those who still haven’t understood what occurred during the COVID years, in that period between 2020 and 2023, I should make the comparison clear: it was the same thing, in many ways a repeat of all the hypocrisies and excesses of the French Revolution.

This may initially appear a hyperbolic or absurd comparison. The COVID insanity was not conducted by wild revolutionaries against monarchical authorities. It was the settled and international policy of a whole host of supposedly democratic nations. It didn’t topple established and ancient systems of government. It instead broadened and deepened the operations of both the State and transnational organisations like the World Health Organisation.

Most obviously, it did not involve the very clear evils of French Revolutionary Terror. We did not see tumbrels on the way to the Guillotine, and weeping victims including women and children beheaded in the town square. COVID insanity was more subtle than that, but was it really less evil? Did it really have fewer victims? Aren’t there many of the features of COVID policy that perfectly match the conditions of French Revolutionary Terror?

Take the name of the body most associated with the Terror at its height. That was the Committee of Public Safety. All the murders of the Terror, all the mob violence and all the State conducted class purges and executions, were conducted in the name of ‘public safety’. As with COVID, public safety was a curious hybrid of authoritarian moralism as well as rampant Scientism. For the French revolutionaries of the Terror, keeping people safe meant executing those carrying the blood born bacillus of monarchism and aristocracy. And what they were doing was perfectly sane, perfectly reasonable, and perfectly in line with human progress and the very best lessons of scientific enquiry.

For the COVID fanatic of 2020-23, they were merely ‘following the Science’. And they too were simply enforcing public safety, whether the public wanted it or not. Keeping people safe meant taking away their basic liberties and rights, subjecting them to nation wide versions of curfew and house arrest, mandating their medical treatments against their will, restricting their movements and travel, forcing them to wear masks and comply with social distancing, ending their right of public or even private assembly. All in the name of their safety. While not as bloodily obvious as the savagery of the French Revolution, the combination of saying that these extremes measures were for public safety, based on Reason, and justified in taking away actual liberty in the name of safety, was all the same.

Nor was this process really any less socially revolutionary than the French Revolution was. Before Italy became really the first European nation to start introducing draconian measures, COVID fanatics had felt that some of the powers and measures they wished to adopt and enforce would be impossible to claim in western liberal democracies with populations used to the possession of certain rights, including a high degree of bodily autonomy, democratic freedom, and civil rights within a culture which considered individual human rights both important and a cultural inheritance assumed to be the normal state of affairs. Professor Ferguson, architect of the ludicrous and hysterical computer modelling of predicted death rates that never came true but which formed the key ‘statistical scientific evidence’ behind draconian policy choices, opined that until Italy started enforcing a COVID crackdown, he had thought such measures would be impossible to sell to western populations.

Of course in the event the draconian and authoritarian orgy of bullying, intimidation, coercion and State violence against the innocent citizen (both physical and paychological) that was COVID policy worked so well in its State manufacture of fear and loathing that private citizens in their millions demanded more and more revocations of basic rights. A punish me harder, Daddy kind of sexual fetish for oppression took hold, the whole thing taking on an increasingly sado-masochistic air of restraint and punishment as more and more people not only behaved like sexually submissive mask wearing gimps, fetishising their own displays of public submission to the greater good, but also as these same people became more and more enamoured of the idea of breaking, punishing and brutalising the non-compliant and the non-conforming (at one point a clear majority of Democrat voters in the US, for instance, backed the idea of detention camps for the unvaccinated).

When we think about the democratic traditions of supposed classical liberal western society, and the individualism which has been a hallmark until these times of the western political settlement, what occurred during COVID becomes even more spectacularly radical and revolutionary in social terms. What we had was a population raised on 80 years of cultural film, TV and literary warnings about the mid 20th century State tyrannies of Nazism and Communism, a population whose fictional archetypes and influences are still dominated by inspiring morality tales regarding the individual resisting State oppression, which despite all that cultural heritage did not find it at all odd to be under a curfew having committed no crime at all and not worrying that the State was describing itself as the only source of truth (Jacinda Ardern in highly ‘liberal’ New Zealand) or putting the military on foot patrol ready to shoot curfew breakers (parts of no-nonsense nobody pushes me around, mate, Australia, swiftly abandoning the Ned Kelly and Crocodile Dundee brands of rugged Australian machismo). In Canada ‘liberals’ cheered on State troops riding horses over disabled grandmothers and the State and banks working in fascist collusion to close the bank accounts of peaceful protestors. In the US an Austrian immigrant who made his life and career playing action hero opponents of tyranny, always on film ready to pick up a gun in the name of justice, went on TV stations to snarl “fuck your freedom” at the members of the US public who still stubbornly understood what freedom is.

To achieve what happened during COVID, State sponsored, media driven psy-ops had to invert the whole traditional western understanding of the relationship between the State and the citizen. It had to get people who sat watching science fiction heroes take down star spanning versions of Nazi Germany in their cinemas cheering on their own governments taking away their basic rights and breaking the Nuremberg Code. People still haven’t fully understood what a tipping point that represented, what a social revolution it was to get the populations of the West not only to comply with this madness but to in many cases demand more of it.

And the results have far exceeded the immediate deaths of French Rebolutionary Terror. When we look at the victims of COVID policy, truly and honestly, we are talking about millions of corpses across the globe. The virus had a 99.9% survival rate, but that 0.1% death rate was created, in a lab, by the same people, essentially, who conducted and controlled the COVID response. Every real COVID death was brought to us by gain of function testing and by Dr Fauci and Bill Gates and many others funding gain of function research in Wuhan. And of course the same people and the same orgsnisations denied the efficacy of cheap medicines that worked (Ivermectin) and prevented people receiving those. But to top all of that and all of those unnecessary, created deaths, the same people and organisations lied about the safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccines and have also harmed and killed millions of people through those.

None of this is hyperbole. None of it is conspiracy theory or fiction. The deaths have been so widely spread across the entire globe, and so little examined and so little acknowledged regarding the actual source of these deaths which has been concealed in every way possible right from pre vaccine testing results to today five years on from COVID’s beginning, that the results of COVID policy stand as an unacknowledged invisible genocide, a death toll beyond that of the worst current wars on the planet. Excess deaths for years in nation after nation, which begin during COVID policy, spike after mRNA vaccine release, and continue and include non vaccine deaths caused by other parts of COVID policy (like cancer and heart patient deaths from those unable to access treatment during COVID).

We will never have an accurate account of it now. But it really is like the Stalinist line on mass murder. The death of a single person is a tragedy. The death of millions is just a number. Because the crime was done to virtually everyone, the crime becomes invisible, hidden among life after life after life and death after death after death. It is too enormous to be perceived. It is spread diffusely over every land. We notice a death among ten people close to us. We do not notice ten million deaths among a billion people. We notice, eventually, a serial killer. We don’t notice a system that kills. Many will have been mourned and buried without the victim or the family knowing what killed them. I am not seeking to exaggerate or emote, only describe what has happened and been ignored.

It’s a long time since I’ve commented on those years. I’ve ignored it too. But how hideous that this should be the case. How hideous that nobody has ever been sacked or imprisoned for their part in this public safety mass murder, the worst crime in global medical policy since the concept of medical policy was created. They had to shift our perception of what freedom is and bury it beneath concern for ‘safety’ in order to enact this crime. But the general apathy and forgetting did not need another psy-op. It only needed our complacency, and life going on as normal, and our acceptance of the lack of a reckoning.

Now the World Heath Organisation was one of the four most guilty organisations on the planet in all this. It was a primary COVID criminal. It’s never been punished. Not a single WHO official has been sacked, demoted, questioned or censured. One of the truly great measures of the 2nd Trump term of course is the withdrawal of the US from WHO. That gives a measure of protection, even if Kennedy’s MAHA credentials are deeply hurt by the FDA still letting Pfizer mRNA poisons be sold and approving them for children. But for those of us outside America, the difficulties WHO faced in agreeing its Pandemic Treaty are not the end of its French Revolutionary assault on our freedom and lives in the name of public safety.

Here is CitizenGo discussing the about to be implemented changes to the International Health Regulations administered by WHO, changes which have been quietly advancing in the background of the Pandemic Treaty negotiations and which really represent a second front in the WHO’s war on us, a second strike aimed at total power over the citizen in any WHO signatory nation:

“Last year, while all eyes were on the Pandemic Treaty, the WHO managed to push through a set of International Health Regulations (IHR) amendments –quietly, without a vote, and under extremely shady and questionable circumstances.

These amendments to the IHR will give the WHO sweeping new powers to:

• declare health emergencies without evidence,
• pressure governments to impose vaccines and health passes,
• censor dissent,
• expand surveillance,
• share your private health data

All of these without democratic oversight!

These amendments include nearly every authoritarian power the WHO failed to force through the Pandemic Agreement.

It’s not a coincidence. It’s a strategy.

While global attention was fixed on the drama of the Pandemic Treaty, globalist bureaucrats at the WHO locked in real, dangerous powers through backdoor changes to the IHR.

The clock is now ticking, and the UK government has until 19 July to formally reject them in writing. If they don’t, the IHR amendments will take effect automatically without any debate or parliamentary scrutiny.”

Two years ago these changes were already known and discussed in this excellent summary of just how dangerous they are:

.
Dr John Campbell in this short piece explained the key points, but I’ll summarise too. The changes to the 2005 IHR document all allow a medical tyranny by the Director General of the World Health Organisation. All WHO signatory nations will follow the Director General’s orders. They will have just 48 hours in which to refuse WHO ‘assistance’, that is, the WHO taking charge and controlling their response in any given instance when the Director General wants to. If they refuse WHO direction, Thry have to explain that and essentially beg for understanding while the WHO circulates their ‘betrayal’ to other WHO signatories.

The assumption is that the Director General can declare ANY emergency and then take ANY response in reaction to it. In the 2005 document IHR are ‘non-binding’, it’s advice and guidance from the WHO. In the new version, every instance of the words ‘non-binding’ has been removed. These are binding orders that must be followed. Similarly every instance of ‘shall’ or ‘may’ describing WHO and State actions have been replaced by ‘will’ and ‘should’, meaning there is no choice in these actions. In article 10 of the IHR the requirement that the the actions of the WHO must take into account the ‘views of the State Party concerned’ has been removed-the signatory nation must follow Director General orders, and he doesn’t have to even consider their opinion on the matter. It’s made clear in all the changes that the signatory nation is subordinate to the Director General. In the 2005 document, WHO action came ‘at the request of the State body’. That has been removed-the Director General decides when he starts ordering the nation state about and directly controlling their actions. And the requirement thar this is in response to a “medical emergency” is changed to “all emergencies”. It doesn’t even need to be real or “actual”. The Director General can start ordering actions by the signatory State if he considers there to be a “potential” threat.

It’s not just national sovereignty that doesn’t matter anymore either with these new IHR rules. The new version removes any consideration for individual rights, making it clear that they don’t have to respect human rights in their own actions or those they order from a signatory nation. The limitation that “the implementation of these regulations shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons” has been removed. The WHO doesn’t have to recognise your basic human rights so long as the Director General ‘considers’ there is some kind of potential emergency.

Finally we get back to the nature of rule in Revolutionary France under the Committee of Public Safety. The State, or in this case the transnational unelected body now directing the State in any merely perceived emergency, can do whatever it likes to you, just like some thug marching you to a guillotine. And what does the Stwte have to do as well to keep the WHO happy and assure them that your human rights are being trampled on as much as the Director General wishes? It has to set up, under the IHR, a “Compliance Committee” whose actions prove the compliance of the signatory State and enforce compliance on the never consulted citizens of that State.

Americans should be very clear on one thing at least. Not being in the WHO any longer is a significant win for their safety and freedom. Europeans and Brits are not so fortunate.

---

This article (The Medical Dictatorship of WHO) was created and published by Juppandia and is republished here under “Fair Use”

WHO deadline and James Roguski’s open letter

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.