All this has been said by Covid mandate critics online, but it is interesting to observe that the same points are now appearing in scholarly journals. David Bell in a recent edition of the American Journal of Economics and Sociology, puts the case that Covid pandemic preparedness laid the road to the creation of international fascism! As he says in a key paragraph: “The COVID-19 response, intended for a virus that overwhelmingly targeted the elderly, ignored norms of epidemic management and human rights to institute a regime of suppression, censorship, and coercion reminiscent of the power systems and governance that were previously condemned. Without pausing to examine the costs, the public health industry is developing international instruments and processes that will entrench these destructive practices in international law. Public health, presented as a series of health emergencies, is being used once again to facilitate a fascist approach to societal management.” This drive to technocratic control will be pushed to the final level if the World Health Organization pandemic treaty becomes international law, next year. Health decisions will be taken away from the nation state and power given to this globalist New World Order entity. It is one of he most important globalist strategies to defeat, for otherwise we may all be vaccinated at gun point with the latest genetic toxins of Big Pharma.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajes.12531
Pandemic preparedness and the road to international fascism
David Bell American Journal of Economics and Sociology 30 July 2023
https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12531
Abstract
The World Health Organization's broad definition of health embraces physical, mental and social well-being. Expressed in its 1946 constitution alongside concepts of community participation and national sovereignty, it reflected an understanding of a world emerging from centuries of colonialist oppression and the public health industry's shameful facilitation of fascism. Health policy would be people-centered, closely tied to human rights and self-determination. The COVID-19 response has demonstrated how these ideals have been undone. Decades of increasing funding within public-private partnerships have corroded the basis of global public health. The COVID-19 response, intended for a virus that overwhelmingly targeted the elderly, ignored norms of epidemic management and human rights to institute a regime of suppression, censorship, and coercion reminiscent of the power systems and governance that were previously condemned. Without pausing to examine the costs, the public health industry is developing international instruments and processes that will entrench these destructive practices in international law. Public health, presented as a series of health emergencies, is being used once again to facilitate a fascist approach to societal management. The beneficiaries will be the corporations and investors whom the COVID-19 response served well. Human rights and individual freedom, as under previous fascist regimes, will lose. The public health industry must urgently awaken to the changing world in which it works, if it is to adopt a role in saving public health rather than contributing to its degradation.
CONCLUSION: A DISRUPTED FUTURE The drive of fascism in the 1930s was heavily supported by the health professions. While this was most obvious in Germany, where doctors were over- represented in the Nazi party and the SS, the eugenics and technocracy movements of North America had aspects in common with fascism and operated in the mainstream of public health (Allen, 2011; Corbett, 2017; Haque et al., 2012). The fascist thinking behind such movements relies heavily on the concept of combining corporate and political authority as defined by Mussolini, with the welfare of the masses being placed in the hands of political tyrants and closely allied corporatists. They were characterized by the identification and vilification of minorities, by intense propaganda backed by heavy censorship, and by the use of health professions to enforce aspects of population control, including management of dissenters and those considered of less worth. While the COVID- 19 response gave hints of how aspects of this could return, the pandemic preparedness and response (PPR) agenda appears designed to lock this in for the long term. Against a background of easing of restrictions on killing fellow humans through euthanasia legislation in Western countries, we have had three years of restrictions on travel and public gatherings, censorship in media and public discourse, and open vilification of minorities on the basis of choice of medical status (Government of the Netherlands, 2022; Health Canada, 2021). The PPR agenda aims for more funding than any other international public health program. Rather than being a subject of discussion within the democratic structures of individual countries, it is being negotiated by poorly accountable international bodies such as the WHO, the G20 and World Bank, in concert with private bodies, such as the World Economic Forum, that, in turn, have heavy direct involvement from the pharmaceutical and software companies that stand to gain financially from mass vaccination, surveillance, and social credit programs (WEF, 2022; WHO, 2022f, 2022g, 2022h; World Bank, 2022c). While the scale is broader than the nationalist fascism of 80 years ago, the similarities in the structure and the corporate- authoritarian model for decision- making have clear echoes. If the agenda of pandemic threat and response continues along the lines established by the COVID- 19 response, we are likely to see Western societies transfer decisions on such issues from open, transparent, democratic processes to privately controlled bodies. The promotion of fear and active use of behavioral psychology in the COVID- 19 response was successful in achieving broad public acceptance of, or at least acquiescence to, the removal of what had been considered fundamental rights (Dodsworth, 2021). Pandemics are a rare event but the PPR agenda is being successfully promoted on the demonstrably false premise that they are becoming more frequent and have increasing severity (Bell, 2022b; WHO, 2019). The public's acquiescence to increasing and institutionalizing of restrictions seems likely, as the German public acquiesced to similar measures in the 1930s. An underlying fear of death, fed by a false but very broadly supported narrative, worked in the | 11PANDEMICS AND FASCISM1930s, worked from 2020 to 2022, and seems likely to work again. Keeping “us” safe in the context of a threat that causes individuals to feel powerless is a difficult paradigm to oppose. Previously, fascist regimes were overthrown through warfare with external powers. In this new incarnation, the private and international institutions involved work above or outside of national sovereignty and appear to have broad support among the higher levels of national governments. There is no external power that can march across the border and overthrow the dictator. While it is unclear how non-Western populations such as those of Africa will react, with their widely differing societal experience of colonialism and direct oppression, the way out for Western societies, with their reliance on democratic institutions that appear to be captured by the broader agenda, is unclear. Mass acquiescence to COVID- 19 response measures suggests that the ability or desire of citizens in Western societies to defend basic human rights and norms is low. There has also been an increase in the ability of those in control to silently censor websites that might have activated stronger public dissent. Incompetence within this leadership may be necessary to bring this episode to an end or a loss of the apparent consensus that this leadership currently exhibits. Either way, it is hard to see democratically based Western society persisting in its current form. We should be thinking through alternative structures that undermine the influence of fear on populations and that expose the lies of propagandists, while laying bare the fascism they espouse. If most continue to acquiesce, they should at least be clear on what they are acquiescing to.”