Hmmm....

It would be easier to ignore the World Health Assembly’s (WHA) deliberations in Geneva this week, but the opening address of the Director-General, Tedros Ghebreyesus, deserves a response. Both the WHO and its director are completely divorcing themselves from reality, illustrating how dangerous and unfit for purpose the WHO has become. There is clearly no way that any vote should proceed on anything of importance that the WHO may be required to implement in the coming week of WHA deliberations.

Tedros’s emphasis was on pandemics, and the faltering agreements intended to address their risk, the new Pandemic Agreement, and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR). While these are watered down and the Pandemic Agreement may not even get to a vote, his continued justification for centering greater coordination and power at the WHO speaks volumes about the problem we face.

In Australia, conservatives and libertarians tend to get along.   

Neither has sympathy for the woke, neither declares their pronouns, chooses their gender, or seeks to cancel those with whom they disagree. They both believe in things such as equality before the law, the presumption of innocence, parental responsibility, religious freedom and democracy. Indeed, some conservatives tend to think that libertarianism is merely conservatism under another name. 

That is not the case though; libertarianism and conservatism originate from quite different places.

It is worth understanding those places so that when they do diverge, it is not unexpected. It also helps those who are unsure of their own position.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recently put up a defense of its violation of its own legal requirements by submitting draft amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) for a vote at the 77th World Health Assembly (WHA) this May.

This was in response to various concerns raised in parliaments and civil society. This matters because (i) in ignoring legal requirements and rushing a vote the WHO is putting global health and economies at risk, and (ii) the WHO is acting like a spoiled child, which suggests the organization is no longer fit for its mandate.

A Rush Without Reason

Our WEF-captured Australian Government is attempting to use the device of "violent men" to impose “age-assurance technologies” to surveil and censor, and to remove all anonymity from the internet.

"I will walk with women across Australia to say enough is enough," Albanese said on social media platform X. "Violence against women is an epidemic. We must do better." - Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, 27 April, 2024

The British government is funding leftist activist organizations that are lobbying against the government's own policies.

Fourteen years in government and what have the British Conservative Party got to show for it? The highest tax burden since World War II, radical anti-freedom green policies, and critical race and gender theory being applied throughout all institutions.

Some simply blame this all on government incompetence. Others doubt the politicians actually believe what they’re advocating and suspect they are just doing it to appease special-interest groups. While these may play a part in it, one largely overlooked factor is that the British government itself is funding left-wing activism.

They don’t call it that, of course, but that’s what’s effectively happening. The way it works is that leftist organizations identify as charities—which are really a trojan horse for radical leftist lobbying. The idea of a charity creates the image of a kind old lady selling cookies to raise money for cancer research, so the government gives them public money for their efforts. However, the reality is that these organizations are lobbying for a restriction of freedom and state expansion, and they are taking millions of pounds out of the taxpayer’s pocket to fund their campaigning.

There are well over 100,000 of these organizations, with the sector having grown 27% over the past decade. Activism has transformed from altruistic volunteering for little to no pay to a high-status profession with a fat paycheck.

Enabled by this funding, these organizations are able to pressure the government, influence the media, and promote their viewpoint in the workforce and educational institutions.

One example of this is the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change, a collaboration of several dozen health organizations which has received £110 million from the British government since 2017. At the expense of taxpayers, the alliance has called for climate reparations and collaborated with the extremist climate group Extinction Rebellion. They have also been involved with public disturbances such as blocking roads to demand an end to fossil fuel use.

Another example of a state-funded activist group is Stonewall, the UK’s largest LGBT charity, which has made statements that “some lesbians have penises,” and “children as young as 2 recognise their trans identity.” Stonewall is deep rooted within the British state: from the millions of pounds they receive in government grants to the hundreds of public-sector organizations which are advised by Stonewall.

The thousands of organizations like these have made it very difficult to shift policy in a different direction. Regardless of whoever is in government, the juggernaut of leftist policies are unstoppable unless real institutional change is made to stop these activist organizations from receiving government money.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.