“The WHO’s Global Efforts to Weaken National Structures and Implant Totalitarianism in the Health Sector”

The WHO is currently trying to exert direct legal influence on states in the health sector. It is intended to put rules into force which allow legislative and thus sovereign action in the respective state.

From lawyer Dr. Roman Schiessler – first published on dr Schiessler’s blog

In this context, it is not important to analyze the proposed rules in detail, since the tendency is generally the same. It is about overturning national structures, which are to be replaced by internationally valid mechanisms. How you now call the respective construct that is supposed to bring about this, whether it is the so-called pandemic contract or the IHR (International Health Regulations), is not of crucial importance, as the following explanations will show.

What is crucial is to remove or de-emphasize everything that constitutes a nation-state legally, defines it and makes it effective in protecting its own citizens. The focus is essentially on three starting points, viz fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law in the form of an independent judiciary.

Eliminating these three most important elements in this context, or at least rendering them ineffective, is the ultimate goal of such global efforts. The well-being of the people is certainly not the priority here.

Fundamental rights should be abolished

The elimination of fundamental rights, so-called civil liberties, is important because they are generally capable of significantly reducing political decision-making space when it comes to enforcing international agendas. In this sense, they can become a significant nuisance and obstacle if they are used appropriately. These rights are to be replaced by a kind of feel-good and security concept that seems to be able to offer something of equal value. It helps, of course, that the awareness of fundamental rights in the population is low. The regulatory importance of these provisions for a company is usually not recognized by the individual.

In order to be able to enact these well-being and security concepts, it is also necessary to obtain legislative powers in the national states. This is equivalent to eliminating the respective legislature, i.e. the state power elected by the people, i.e. the sovereign. As part of the “corona crisis”, the legislature was replaced by the executive due to an enabling law. Although the power to legislate remained domestic, the democratic structures were always eliminated.

control of the judiciary

Furthermore, according to WHO’s ideas, it is necessary to somehow rein in the judiciary. This problem appears to be the biggest in legal terms, but in fact it is not. As we saw in the “corona crisis”, the courts across the board adhere to various guidelines spread by the media and the executive and stop all their own judicial investigations. For this it is necessary to know what makes the difference between a court (judiciary) and an administrative authority (executive) and what the real meaning of the judiciary is.

Case law is essentially about the independent, i.e. not bound by instructions, determination of the facts that are essential to the decision, because the application of the law ultimately depends on this. Legally, the problems arising from the corona crisis did not arise from the fact that the law was not applied, but from the fact that all independent investigative activity in relation to the facts to be determined in the context of a judgment was discontinued. Beginning with the district courts and state administrative courts up to the supreme courts, which are no longer instances of fact themselves, but have not had the slightest influence on the deficits in the determination of facts by lower instances by failing to recognize procedural errors. It was important for all courts (with few exceptions) to be characterized exclusively by political compliance. The problems with the appointment of judges, which among other things make this circumstance possible in the first place, will not be discussed here.

If one or more of the basic constitutional principles (republican principle, democratic principle, federal principle, rule of law principle, liberal principle, principle of separation of powers) are affected by far-reaching legal changes, a referendum should be held on this. (Art. 44/3 B-VG)

According to the constitution, a referendum is required

If, as a result, legislative and subsequently also executive powers are outsourced to institutions outside the constitutionally prescribed institutional framework and fundamental rights are overridden, thus violating the basic liberal principle, this is how it is such an approach requires such direct democratic legitimation.

Regrettably, a referendum is only a minor obstacle, since appropriate media preparation, i.e. propaganda, can “conjure up” practically any result of a referendum. The problem of direct influence on election results through illegal result corrections should only be mentioned in passing here.

In terms of a globalization strategy, I naturally recommend entrusting international organizations with such tasks. The classic for such an approach was and is of course the EU. As part of the so-called European integration – a so-called peace project – numerous legislative competences were outsourced to this supranational organization and thus the legislative process and subsequently also the legal protection in the nation states, if not eliminated, then at least considerably limited.

A global legislative concept is sought

Now the WHO has been discovered for this purpose, firstly to legally outsource the entire health sector and to get it away from the nation states worldwide and secondly to bring a global legislative concept into the world. The EU itself refers only to Europe.

It can be assumed that further concepts of this type are being planned. It worksi but then not about European integration or about health in the world, but exclusively about the weakening and elimination of national democratic, liberal and constitutional structures. They are being replaced by an international and global totalitarianism.

This can then go so far that a state as a whole is “captured” and misused, for example to wage war in foreign interests and to sacrifice the local population for foreign interests. Here too (the Ukraine is meant) the population has and had no say in the matter, rather contrary votes in the sense of the right of self-determination of peoples are ignored and declared inadmissible under international law.

This global, fascist totalitarianism is literally walking over dead bodies. This development must be stopped, because in war, in fascism and in totalitarianism there are no winners and nobody needs to hope for any personal advantages.

Visit Dr. Schiessler’s blog for further interesting background analyses.