I spent quite a long time today reading about Brock Chisholm (born 1896, Canada. died 1971), who was the first Director General of the World Health Organisation, which was formed in 1948.
According to Brock Chisholm, the World Health Organization, and the Cold War, he was a psychiatrist and an eugenicist:
Well before leading the WHO, he had been a vocal critic of organized religion and especially the Catholic Church. He favoured birth control, sterilization practices, negative eugenics, and even euthanasia.
And, as a WW1 veteran, he seems to have been as much interested in preventing war, as
After two cataclysmic world wars within thirty-one years, others besides
Chisholm were beginning to ask why they had happened and what could be
done to prevent a third. How could the prevalence of war be lessened? Some
believed that human nature was the root cause of wars; others placed the
blame on nation-states. The latter view posits that we are products of the
societies in which we are born and raised, and that it is these societies that
make wars. Thus the first group explained the world’s ills “by the evil in
man,” the second by “the evil qualities of some or all of the states.” Both
sides in this debate included pessimists and optimists. The former believed
that wars are inevitable, either because these evils are so deeply rooted in our
genes, as it were, that nothing can be done about them; or because nation-
states will always emphasize their own selfish interests. By contrast, the
optimists believed that we can either change human attitudes, by education
perhaps, and thereby produce people less likely to turn to war; or that we can
bring nations together so that they are less likely to wage war.
Initially, as a psychiatrist, Chisholm placed the blame on human nature
but believed that this could be addressed by changing the way children were
raised. His view was only strengthened during his tenure with the WHO,
where he witnessed close up the self-interest of nation-states. Like a piper,
the WHO “has to play those tunes which its political masters in the Assembly
were prepared to pay for,” and these masters were taking their orders
from governments. It is curious that even though he had little faith in the
capacity of nation-states to act in ways other than self-interest, he still
believed that the future belonged to the UN. But how could the UN act in an
enlightened way when its members were self-centred nation-states?
David Mitrany, a Romanian-born former professor of political economy at
Princeton and Harvard, and an officer in the British Foreign Office during the
Second World War, presented one answer to this dilemma in the 1940s. “The
evil of conflict and war springs from the division of the world into detached
and competing political units,” he wrote, and there were only two ways out
of this dilemma: world government or “spreading a web of international
activities … through which the interests and life of all nations would be
gradually integrated.” Thus, instead of concentrating on disarmament
conferences and other matters that cut to the very heart of national self-inte-
rest, and that never seemed to accomplish anything, efforts should be made to
“buy” nations through guile. Nation-states could be enticed into a cooperative
mode by building international organizations based on specific functions, such
as health, that obviously demanded international cooperation
and whose importance could be perceived immediately.
… the functionalists
were attempting to undermine what they viewed as the basic causes of war
“by establishing international functional organizations, which deal with
‘non-political’ issues such as public health, illiteracy and hunger more ad-
equately than individual states can possibly do. The cooperation built up in
the functional or ‘non-political’ sphere is ultimately expected to ‘spill over’
into the frankly ‘political’ sphere of human interactions, eventually render-
ing peaceful relations between nation-states the only viable and inevitable
This notion that nation-states are the cause of war is now a modern orthodoxy, routinely trotted out as a justification for the EU into which European states are to be dissolved, after being ‘bought through guile’, and bound by treaties of cooperation such as the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). Chisholm was also an advocate of world government, saying:
“To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.”
He seems to have been perfectly happy to tear up more or less everything. He regarded man’s worst enemy as man himself:
…in words that his countrymen would have instantly
recognized as pure Chisholm, he continued: “The world was sick, and the ills
from which it was suffering were mainly due to the perversion of man, his
inability to live at peace with himself. The microbe was no longer the main
enemy; science was sufficiently advanced to be able to cope admirably with
it, if it were not [for] such barriers as superstition, ignorance, religious intol-
erance, misery, and poverty. It was in man himself, therefore, that the cause
of present evils should be sought; and these psychological evils must be
understood in order that a remedy might be prescribed.”
He was even quite happy to dispense with Good and Evil, if that would prevent war:
This seems to have been a man who was more desperate to prevent war than to cure disease.
He didn’t like Santa Claus either, saying:
Such was the man who seems to have almost single-handedly founded the WHO. He strikes me as being more than slightly barmy. And I must say that I think that the idea that nation-states are the cause of war strikes me as rather naïve and simplistic. Instead, I think that the cause of war lies in the attempt by one group of people to take power over other people – something that is currently well exemplified by the WHO’s War on Smokers.
And in the case of the EU, we have the irony that a political entity that was intended to prevent internecine European wars has now expanded to the borders of Russia, sparking an international crisis.
“…Instead, I think that the cause of war lies in the attempt by one group of people to take power over other people – something that is currently well exemplified by the WHO’s War on Smokers. …”
One thing that exemplifies the current War On Smokers is the way in which an anti-smoking message or subliminal dose of anti-smoking propaganda MUST show up in EVERYTHING, even things nothing to do with modern smoking, per-se, just simply if there is an opening to slip something in, then the propaganda is slipped in – so the message is constant and applied over every little nuance of communication over which the anti-smoking-establishment currently and unfortunately has nearly full control, at least of the main-stream components where propaganda can be mass produced on the largest scale.
To wit, there is from ABC News America, a new report out stating that the oldest example of human bones has been found which indicates the presence of cancer as the cause for the person’s demise.
And, for the full anti-smoking propaganda effect, in order to keep it persuasive and consistent with the general pattern being employed, so that smoking is ALWAYS “the cause” and “the blame”, literally for EVERYTHING, but most certainly this example of 3,200 year old cancer ridden bones, the following explanation is given:
“… While cancer is usually blamed on modern lifestyle, a consequence of poor food choices, lack of exercise and excess smoking and drinking, Binder said that this discovery is evidence that the disease may be as old as humanity itself.
“It was likely a less prevalent disease than it is today but this shows that many factors in the environment that have been shown to cause cancer have been around a long time,” she told ABC News today.
Possible causes for the unfortunate young man’s cancer? He might have inhaled smoke from wood-burning fires. Binder said smoky fires can contain just as many unhealthy chemicals as cigarette smoke. Or, he may have been exposed to the parasite schistosomiasis, which is associated with bladder and breast cancer in the same geographical region today. It’s also possible the 25- to 35-year-old man may have had a genetic predisposition to cancer.
“We have no proof of the cause. We simply don’t know,” she said. …”
Yet, with “no proof”, an anti-smoking message manages to be embedded in the “news” story to make sure it conforms with other modern propaganda, to keep the campaign consistent.
Article can be found at:
Tom, I noticed that myself. They manage to cunningly slip the antismoking narrative into literally every health and wellbeing story. And of course damn near every story is about health and wellbeing and lifestyle to begin with. In the past we had Jack LaLane, Jane Fonda aerobics, Let’s Get Physical and whatnot, but they all mercifully came and went. The Health N’ Safety Twist just won’t bite the dust for some reason.
Notice how it’s “Welcome to our tobacco free campus” over at Facebook (and I have no doubt Google probably hires the same sign-making crew at their headquarters) which expresses friendliness while karate kicking smokers in the teeth. Ya’ see folks, we’re really not vile, cruel bigots who seek to deny housing, education and jobs to people who happen to smoke the unfashionable blend (golden brown rather than intoxicating green), no, we’re all ‘sunshine, lollipops and rainbows everywhere’ here in Silicon Valley.
Same thing happened a while back with the ‘cancer tidal wave’ story. The wise, spectacled professor who the trusted Public Broadcast gal, Judith Woodruff, interviewed first rattled off the standard party line obesity/smoking/exercise determinant spiel and then ever so covertly and gently added that the main reason for the tidal wave was an ageing population. She didn’t pursue that point at all. The viewers were left with the archetype defective lifestyle narrative buzzing through their numb skulls.
It’s all very North Korean. Everything eventually and surreptitiously relates back to the great leader and living your life for him (Almighty Health and the Obama’s in our case).
Nowadays the Chisolms seem to be in charge of the asylum. That some of us find ourselves unwilling inmates in a land of the willing is a tribute to a very canny understanding of human psychology converging with a technological explosion of a ubiquitous and far-reaching mass media along with a transformation of what used to be objective education into indoctrination. And all that is facilitated by destroying faith and family and both autonomy and community.
A new horror in my area. Just taken the grandchild to the local park. Notice on gate: Thank You for Not Smoking where We Play. With a picture, done to look as if a child painted it. Smug, hateful, horrible. I feel like scrawling all over it, “You don’t need to thank me – I AM smoking.” Or, “Don’t play where I smoke.” A public park in the open air, paid for by tax-payers for the enjoyment of all. What a nasty world they are making.
Mikles wall of hate from Tobacco Nacht
Government induced and sanctioned discrimination in a glance.
The “Wall Of Hate” poster created from the four pages of hate comments against people who enjoy tobacco.
Wiel Maessen – Google+ – The “Wall Of Hate” poster created from the four pages of…
The “Wall Of Hate” poster created from the four pages of hate comments summarized in one section of TobakkoNacht. All the collected comments…
No doubt we could add volumes to it too!
From today’s Sun, a report that Northerners tend to get sick 18 years before Southerners, at around the age 52.
“Tory MP Andrew Percy said:”Some of our most deprived communities have the highest rates of smoking and obesity. We have to break the link.”
Not poverty, cold, malnutrition, pollution then.
PS. Blackpool is also on the list at age 56.
Christopher Booker saying much the same as me:
…The hard fact is that, whatever we think of President Putin, this episode has been the most salutary fiasco the “European project” has ever brought upon itself in 60 years. It has always been driven by two paramount principles: one, that it can assume ever more power over the nations that belong to it; the other, that it can suck ever more of them into its embrace (echoed in David Cameron’s boast last year of how he saw the EU one day stretching “from the Atlantic to the Urals”). But with Ukraine, their fantasy of an ever-expanding empire has hit the buffers.
For years the EU has been wooing Ukraine with that “Association Agreement” as the next step towards making it a full member. But by pushing its “soft power” right up to the Russian border, this strange organisation dedicated to eliminating national identity has finally run up against the rock of a national interest that will not give way.
And to what a pitiful state this has reduced our own supposed “leaders” in the West. They haven’t a clue what to do. They blether about how Russia is “isolated”, and of those pathetic little “targeted” sanctions.
The EU is now more of a threat than Santa Claus.
From what I gather from the ‘conspiracy’ sites, that to create global government (that ambition has been true for yonks), WWI was started so as to bring in the League of Nations, the thinking being that weary of war, people would give up their country’s sovereignty in exchange for phony peace.
When that didn’t work, they used WWII so as to form the United Nations, which is somewhat more successful, especially with ‘manmade climate change’ and the ‘War on Terror’, not to mention ‘human rights’ to curb our freedoms and bring the countries together to fight all these imaginary/overblown threats.
Who are ‘they’?
Some say the Jesuits/Vatican/Freemasons – various secret orders who have spent centuries leading up to these times. That’s why the ‘right’ people are mostly in the right places in governments, intergovernmental organisations, down to fake charities, political parties, quangos, etc.
You may believe it all, but I don’t.
Personally I think the EU even installed their own Pope……………They say he is the most progressive Pope Ever.
Indeed. The roots of war are often complex. Simple solutions to complex issues are doomed. War has always plagued man. I think the presence of nuclear weapons has imposed a practical sanction to war, at least among the prominent nations.
Pingback: Political Correctness Was ‘Invented In Nazi Germany’ and How They Made the Most out of Socialised ‘Healthcare’ | Real Street
Pingback: Of Evolution and Global Government | Real Street
Pingback: Who Vs WHO: Who’s Who and What’s What… What? | Library of Libraries