The WHO and The Loss Of Sovereignty: How It Happens, How It's Not Unusual

According to International Law---hold up. International Law?

If there is such a thing as International Law, there is no such thing as national sovereignty; or, at least, not completely. For International Law is by definition authority higher than the State. An entity which decides on the law above the State.

Loss of sovereignty is not without precedent.

Enter the WHO, which as you have heard has a new pandemic treaty to which the elite, desiring to signal their eliteness to other elites, want to sign on to. Many complain that this treaty cedes sovereignty to a mysterious global---let's not say cabal---a mysterious global council. They will make "public health" decisions that others are bound to follow.

The critics who complain about ceding sovereignty are right: it does. But, as International Law shows, and as The Science shows, this is not the first time sovereignty has been ceded. And it won't be the last. Because of the longing for globalization.

Globalization was in the works for quite some time, and involves more than corporations' shortsighted attempts at squeezing profits without regard to their homelands or their own peoples.

Globalization starts with very simple and seductive premises. One is Equality, and not even in the extreme form found here, but in the rough idea that people are much the same everywhere. Which is true to a certain extent: but only to a certain extent.

It's when this premise is married to Fairness that the trouble begins.

This is idea is that all peoples should be treated the same. With exceptions, this is largely false. Fairness ignores differences past that certain extent; it ignores history, culture, the land, everything that distinguishes peoples. The rich and highly educated suffer this premise more than others. They are never quite happy that laws and mores, at least as they apply to themselves, are not globally uniform. "What do you mean there is no gay marriage/strong wifi/consideration for my odd desires here? That's not fair."

Specifically to the WHO's power grab, the other premise is The Science. This begins with its own premise, that science is the same everywhere, which is likely true (but impossible to check everywhere). That doesn't mean what a scientist in one place thinks is right, becomes what all scientists everywhere should think is right. But that happens, too, by education, as explained in a moment.

The uncontroversial uniform science premise becomes, in time, scientism, the idea that The Science dictates what is the good (and evil) and what is best, that the "solutions" decided by rulers is The Science.

Hardly anybody notices scientism. Certainly few in power do, or desire to. We saw the other day how the success of science led to scientism and thus to The Science.

We also discussed before how the premises above led to the globalization of education. Especially elite education. Well, a diode works here the same as in England, so if want to learn how diodes function, and diodes function the same everywhere, we should have the same education everywhere. Yes?

Because of Equality, Fairness, and The Science, this idea of the necessity of the uniformity of education spread to areas other than science, and elites the world over come closer and closer to seeing things their way, and only their way.

But it is especially in science (and math) that uniformity is found. That's good to the extent science grasps Truth. But it's bad, and real bad, when it doesn't, because it leads to enforcing Falsity as Truth. Science becomes The Science, and Consensus decides Official Truths.

Even that wouldn't be awful, except to practicing scientists, but that scientism intrudes via those other educational pathways. Again, elites come to believe their "solutions" are unquestionably true because they are The Science. Object, and you are a Denier.

Scientism is pernicious and dangerous. For it is a large matter of luck whether Experts' (those who are charged with promulgating The Science) "solutions" are best. Which they likely won't be. Not everywhere, not all times, not for all peoples in all circumstances. And because non-Exerts (Deniers) aren't given authority to object to these "solutions". After all, Deniers aren't Experts.

Which brings us back to WHO and the next pandemic, for which this treaty will allow globally picked Experts to decide uniform "solutions". Reading through the document, it's clear the writers can scarcely contain their enthusiasm for trying out their new "solutions" models and theories. This is why they are gettin' giddy over monkey pox. This could be it!

As time goes on, and the premises above are believed even more strongly. It will take unique men to resist the conclusions that follow from them.

We'll do more later on the treaty itself, and on providing proof for my contentions.

Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.

Visit wmbriggs.com.