Why Getting Rid Of The World Health Organization Is A Benefit To Humanity’s Well Being

Since its inception WHO has politicised public health and has been in the forefront of underminingtraditional Cultural Norms.

I was delighted to hear that last week President Donald Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the U.S. from the World Health Organization. Consequently, the U.S. will leave this globalist institution within a year from the official notification to the United Nations.

I was even more delighted when I read last week that the Italian Deputy Prime Minister, Matteo Salvini echoed Trump’s sentiments and proposed a law to withdraw his nation from WHO. In his post on social media he declared that ‘Italy must no longer have to deal with a supranational power center’[i]

At first sight Trump and Salvini’s decision to take their nation out of an international organization devoted to protecting global health makes little sense. Both Trump and Salvini referred to WHO’s profligate use of their tax-payers’ money. But although WHO’s use of the money it receives from its member states and the pharmaceutical industry is a concern, there are far graver problems with this institution.

The real problem with the WHO is that under the cover of public health, it works as a globalist political institution promoting its own political agenda. The consequences of WHO’s politicization of public health was demonstrated during the COVID epidemic where it appeared to be more interested in covering up China’s role in its spread than in taking a lead to protect humanity from this deadly disease.

Most people do not realise that WHO exploits concern about global public health to pursue its project of social engineering. Since the 1940s this institution has sought to re-engineer our lifestyle and alter the values that influence our behaviour.

Targeting Western Culture

The founders of WHO in 1940s were activists devoted to tackling not only problems of physical health but also what they referred to as the sick culture of the Western world. They frequently denounced the supposed ‘sick culture of the West’ and often focused on challenging its morality, particularly its alleged deleterious impact on the socialisation of children.

Brock Chisholm, the first Director General of the WHO, personified the 1940s moral engineer committed to undermining the traditional norms and values of the western societies. His views anticipated the outlook of 21st-century culture warriors. He complained that,

‘Old ideas and customs are generally called “good” or “sound,” and new ideas, or experimental thinking or behavior, are usually labeled “bad,” “unsound,” “communist,” “heretical,” or any of many other words. The power these words have obtained over much of the race is astonishing. They are the symbols of the control that older people and the past have, and cling to, over young people and the future’.[ii]

Chisholm blamed the outbreak of world wars and conflicts on the imposition of outdated ways on young people. ‘We have swallowed all manner of poisonous certainties fed us by our parents, our Sunday and day school-teachers, our politicians, our priests’, argued Chisholm.[iii] From its outset to the present-day, WHO has been continously in the business of morally distancing children from their parents.

Under the leadership of Chisholm the issue of health became thorough politicised. Health was redefined as not so much a physical condition as a political right. From its birth in 1948, the WHO has assumed that it possesses an extremely broad remit, not only to deal with medical and scientific matters but also with issues to do with people’s lifestyle and personal behaviour. From the perspective of this organisation, health is much more than the absence of disease. According to the definition adopted in 1948, health is a ‘state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’[iv]. Such a broad definition of health goes way beyond the problems that doctors and medical science can fix.

Given its interest in a complete state of well-being, it is not surprising that in 1974 the WHO expanded the meaning of health by inventing the term ‘sexual health’. The WHO called for ‘the integration of the somatic, emotional, intellectual, and social aspects of sexual being, in ways that are positively enriching’. In the decades to follow, its focus became the provision of a ‘pleasurable and safe sexual experience’.[v] The medicalisation of sex in effect robbed of any intrinsic meaning. Sexual health was now represented as analogous to the possession of a sound functioning kidney.

The WHO’s ever-broadening definition of health underpinned an obsession with the politics of lifestyle regulation and the management of people’s personal behaviour. The engineering of pleasurable sex – satirised by Aldous Huxley in his Brave New World – was adopted as one of the WHO’s missions. In 2002, the WHO adopted a broader definition of sexual health which added concepts of mental health and sexual rights to the mix.

In line with fashionable LGBTQ+ ideology, WHO has undertaken to promote gender affirming care.

Gender-affirming care, as defined by the WHO, encompasses a range of social, psychological, behavioral, and medical interventions ‘designed to support and affirm an individual’s gender identity’ when it conflicts with the gender they were assigned at birth. As noted by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), that identity can run anywhere along a continuum that includes man, woman, a combination of those, neither of those, and fluid. In effect WHO has embraced the premise of transgender ideology.

WHO’s obsession with gender and sexuality is bad enough. But it also plays an active role in promoting its ideology to school children throughout the world. It calls its programme of indoctrination comprehensive sexuality education(CSE). And its is certainly very comprehensive! Its seeks to sexualise young people’s life to the point that their identity becomes synonymous with their sexual preference.

In 2010, WHO published a set of standards for teaching CSE that have also been widely promoted, including by the European Parliament[vi]. The Standards set out what WHO considers to be the key outcomes of CSE. Children are expected:

● to contribute to a social climate that is tolerant, open and respectful towards sexuality, various lifestyles, attitudes and values;

● to respect sexual diversity and gender differences and to be aware of sexual identity and gender roles;

● to empower people to make informed choices based on understanding, and acting responsibly towards oneself and one’s partner;

● to be aware of and have knowledge about the human body, its development and functions, in particular regarding sexuality;

● to be able to develop as a sexual being, meaning to learn to express feelings and needs, to experience sexuality in a pleasurable manner and to develop one’s own gender roles and sexual identity;

● to have gained appropriate information about physical, cognitive, social, emotional and cultural aspects of sexuality, contraception, prevention of sexually transmitted infections (STI) and HIV and sexual coercion; to have the necessary life skills to deal with all aspects of sexuality and relationships;

● to have information about provision of and access to counselling and medical services, particularly in the case of problems and questions related to sexuality;

● to reflect on sexuality and diverse norms and values with regard to human rights in order to develop one’s own critical attitudes;

● to be able to build (sexual) relationships in which there is mutual understanding and respect for one another’s needs and boundaries and to have equal relationship

● to be able to communicate about sexuality, emotions and relationships and have the necessary language to do so.^[1]

In her report on CSE for the thibk-tank MCC Brussels[vii], Dr, Jo Williams noted that ‘the priority given to children becoming ‘open and respectful towards sexuality, various lifestyles, attitudes and values’, incites a permissiveness that is tolerant of everything other than limits on expressions of sexuality as imposed by traditional religious or moral codes. In other words, what is being asked of CSE teachers is little short of the wholesale transformation of prevailing social norms.

WHO’s commitment to resocialise and sexualise young people is integral to the war that it wages against traditional western cultural values. Getting rid of this institution would represent real progress in turning back the tide of illiberal woke culture. The fastwe that we get rid of WHO and its influence the better.

We desperately need an international institution that is genuinely committed to looking after the health of the world’s population. But that requires that the energy of such an international institution should be entirely devoted to the protection of public health. That is why governments who are in the forefront of challenging the insidious politics of WHO’s should begin to work out a plan for replacing this bankrupt organisation with an effective alternative.

Take the World Health Organisation’s definition of health. It states that “health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of diseases or infirmity”. In other words, the absence of sickness does not signify that you are healthy.

The growing tendency to erode the distinction between health and illness is underpinned by a radical redefinition of what it means to a person. In recent decades, the very idea of a person has been re-defined downwards to the point that mental health entrepreneurs can claim that people cannot be expected to make difficult decisions about life without professional support.

---

---

[i] https://www.politico.eu/article/italys-far-right-league-party-backs-trumps-pullout-from-who/

[ii] Chisholm (1947) p.107.

[iii] Chisholm (1946) pp. 7 & 9.

[iv] https://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf

[v] https://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf

[vi] European Parliament. Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs. (2022) Comprehensive Sexuality Education: why is it important? Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2022/719998/IPOL_STU(2022)719998_EN.pdf (Accessed 30/01/24). P. 14

[vii] https://brussels.mcc.hu/publication/sexualising-children-the-rise-of-comprehensive-sexuality-education