🌐 The First WHO Chief Made No Secret of His Anti-Democratic Plans for the Organization
Dr. George Brock Chisholm (Canadian psychiatrist; 1896-1971) sowed the seeds for the bitter fruits we are (supposed to be) reaping today.
Interesting history lesson from German author Norbert Häring, who here gets to the roots of the WHO, which (from the beginning) was geared to totalitarianism.
By Norbert Häring, June 27, 2023 – English translation by DeepThought [all emphasis mine]
Brock Chisholm, founder and first Secretary-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), never made a secret of the fact that he wanted to strip people of all loyalty to and anchoring in groups, nations and cultures in order to establish a technocratic world government. His signature can still be seen today.
When the German Bundestag debated for the first time on May 12, much belatedly, the WHO pandemic treaty and the reform of the International Health Regulations, which would give WHO a hefty boost in power, the “Ampel”* factions dressed it up in praise on the occasion of the organization’s 75th birthday. Speakers from almost all factions, both the “Ampel” parties and the loyal opposition from the CDU/CSU and the left, condemned as conspiracy theory any criticism of relinquishing sovereignty in favor of a WHO that is barely democratically controlled and dependent on earmarked donations from corporations. *(Note: The current German governing coalition of SPD (red), FDP (yellow) and the Greens is known as the “Ampel” [= traffic light]).
One name that was surprisingly absent from the eulogies for 75 years of WHO was Brock Chisholm. In fact, his name is hardly ever mentioned. The Canadian was head of the interim commission that created the WHO and he became its first secretary general. Before that, he had been the chief medical officer of the Canadian army and briefly the Secretary of State for Health.
The fact that people are so reluctant to name him, even in his organization’s big anniversary year, presumably has to do with the fact that Chisholm was a bit too outspoken and forthcoming about his goals, even before he was elected head of the commission to found WHO.
His views and intentions were, to put it mildly, of limited consensus among the common people. Long before Chisholm was chosen as WHO founder, he publicly argued that it was necessary to remove family tradition and close family ties, loyalty to the homeland, and religious dogma from people’s minds in order to establish a rational world government.
The books and speeches of the psychiatrist and follower of psychoanalysis after Freud are difficult to obtain. I base the following on the kind portrait by John Farley in the 2008 book “Brock Chisholm, the World Health Organization, and the Cold War,” read on the Internet via Google Books. And to Chisholm’s 1957 book “Prescription for Survival,” which I was able to obtain. The latter shows that his views and intentions had not changed significantly by the end of his work at and with WHO.
According to Farley, in October 1945, as Canada’s deputy minister of health, Chisholm was invited to deliver the ‘William Alanson White Memorial Lectures’ in Washington to a distinguished audience. In it, he addressed the question of how to avert the threat to humanity of further wars.
Chisholm diagnosed the cause of wars as morality, the concept of right and wrong:
»The single lowest common denominator of all civilizations and the only psychological force that can produce these perversions is morality, the concept of right and wrong.«
The human race must be freed from “the crippling burden of good and evil.” Instead, the education of our children must “replace the certainties of old with intelligent and rational thinking,” for “freedom from moral codes means freedom to observe, think, and behave rationally.”
In his view, humanity had only 15 to 20 years to make this transition to an entirely new kind of education before another war would break out.
For these convictions, which he also expressed on other occasions, he was sharply criticized in Canada and the USA, because there, in contrast to him, people considered family, school and church to be places where children are ideally brought up to be responsible human beings.
But these convictions did not stand in the way of his election as the first WHO Secretary-General; on the contrary. For he was an ardent advocate of world citizenship and world government.
His worldview was ultra-materialistic and science-believing. He accepted as science only the mechanistic cause-effect relations of physics, as they seemed to be valid until the end of the 1920s, when Heisenberg, Bohr, Euler and others established quantum mechanics and its uncertainties. The same outdated mechanistic worldview, with clear cause-effect relationships, Chisholm applied to human thought and sensation.
He found myths and tales that stimulate the imagination, convey morals and the wisdom of past generations to be highly dangerous:
»Every man who tells his son that the sun sets at night contributes directly to the next war (...) Every child who believes in Santa Claus has had his ability to think permanently destroyed. (...) It will become a man who has stomach ulcers by the time he’s 40, who gets a sore back when there’s a tough job to do, and who refuses to think realistically when war threatens.«
It was through such controversial speeches that he gained some notoriety. Notwithstanding, at the 1946 New York International Health Conference, Chisholm was appointed executive secretary of the Interim Commission that was to establish the WHO.
In his speeches in this capacity, Chisholm called for replacing citizenships with world citizenship and went on to condemn culturally colored myths and fairy tales for preventing clear thinking in cause and effect, thereby causing wars and the world’s suffering. For rational people without irrational loyalties would not wage wars and would be committed to the welfare of all mankind.
Shortly before the founding of the WHO could be launched by the accession of the 26th country, he linked his theory to the work of the future WHO. He wrote that health was now understood not only as a healthy body and a healthy mind, “but also included social health, the ability to live together in harmony with other people with other ideas, traditions, religions and with other social systems throughout the world.”
Literally, the definition in the preamble to the WHO Constitution reads:
»Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.«
He wrote that with the WHO’s definition of health now firmly in place, unreasonable devotions and loyalties should be considered signs of mental or social health impairment.
In 1947 - also before he was elected WHO secretary-general - Chisholm announced:
»It is increasingly accepted that it is necessary for all of us to become global citizens and give up much of our national sovereignty.«
Despite or because of the many speeches and publications in which Chisholm had set out his world view and goals, he was elected in camera by the World Health Assembly on July 21, 1948, by 46 votes to 2, as the first Secretary-General of WHO. He was preferred to candidates who had considerably more experience in health policy than he.
Chisholm in 1957
According to John Farley, in selecting WHO personnel, Chisholm attached great importance to the fact that the successful candidates, like him, saw themselves as citizens of the world who had no irrational attachments to a religion or the culture and nation of their origin.
In his 1957 Prescriptions for Survival, he proudly tells of a WHO Secretariat staff member who returned from home leave very unhappy because he found it painful to see the petty worries and needs that surrounded his relatives, while he was busy saving the world:
»Their attitudes and their views were no longer his. He had become a functioning citizen of the world.«
These were the people Chisholm populated WHO with, something he was not just a little bit proud of.
At the very end of his book, after one has long wondered at his outlandish-seeming views and conclusions, Chisholm makes it quite clear what he thinks of cultural and national rootedness.
He invites us to take the “rational” standpoint of a visitor from outer space who is not closer to any culture, religion, or nation than to any other, but who considers reasonable only that which serves the good of the human family as a whole.
Chisholm never dwelt on the question of who defines that good. In his speeches and writings, it is unspokenly presupposed that it is obvious to the wise citizen of the world what serves the well-understood good of mankind.
These objective observers from space can do nothing with national borders, and with the explanations for their existence neither. And because the reasons for nations, religions and different cultures are apparently all unreasonable, they would conclude that loyalties implanted already in children are the problem, and a very big and dangerous problem at that.
Probably outside observers would conclude that humanity was best exterminated for such reasons. But Chisholm hopes that people can still learn in time to renounce all their loyalties to groups and profess sole membership in the great human family. His concluding paragraph reads:
»No one can think about the future of humanity without recognizing that some kind of world organization, some kind of world government or world confederation, is both inevitable and desirable.«
It is in this light that the WHO’s definition of health, which has guided its actions for 75 years, should be read, a definition of which Chisholm is very proud. He explains:
»The health of a person must refer to his ability to function fully in all circumstances - physical, mental and social. The truly healthy person can (...) use his social equipment in such a way that he becomes a valuable member of the human race.«
For his book, as well as implicitly for the WHO, he states that this definition of health allows to deal with very, very many social aspects under the rubric of health security. And this very broad definition, he says, is very firmly anchored in the WHO constitution and can only be changed by a three-quarters majority of the members.
Chisholm’s use of language - “functioning,” “valuable member of the human race” - is alarmingly like that of an engineer who has to worry about the functioning and improvement of a machine. This use of language and this extremely technocratic attitude run through his entire book. It becomes clear that he conceives of the ideal world as a well-functioning social mega-machine in which every human machine part functions without interference or conflict. (Note: The parallels to the eugenicists of the Nazi era (“Useless Eaters”) and the transhumanist theses of a Yuval Noah Harari are unmistakable here.)
Disturbance-free means: not affected by all the unreasonable cultural, familial, country, religious, or other spiritual influences and loyalties that distract it from its task of being a well-functioning piece of machinery.
Conflict-free results from: Without loyalties and ideological or spiritual beliefs, except that of being a functioning member of the human race.
Thus, Chisholm laments that our educational and moral authorities have embedded in us limited and limiting loyalties that “prevent us from functioning as members of the human race.”
His long tirades against telling children stories, myths, and fairy tales that are not true in the strict sense, and therefore impaired their ability to think clearly in terms of cause and effect, Chief Machinist Chisholm reasons thus:
»The human race cannot afford to spoil good material, good material that could contribute to its ultimate security.«
Conclusions
It should have become clear that the anti-democratic-global-technocratic views and goals of the first WHO Secretary-General were not an insignificant aberration. All those who put him in office knew full well. The WHO Constitution reflected his views, at least as he saw them. And it was he who selected WHO staff on the basis that they thought the same as he did, that they felt they were citizens of the world in his sense. An organizational culture created in this way often develops very strong inertial forces.
Looking to the present and the future as envisioned by WHO and its supporters, one can hardly help but notice continuities. For example, in the International Health Regulations, WHO’s jurisdiction is to be greatly expanded from “risk to public health” to “all risks that may affect public health.”
This would mean, among other things, that WHO could use its greatly expanded powers for anything that purports to help avert a climate emergency, which would pose a potential threat to health. It could also easily declare itself responsible for education, thanks to its broad definition of health.
The WHO is already working with increasing vigor on the goal of raising a new human being. It is controlling and manipulating social media around the world in NSA fashion and has had a resolution passed that requires WHO and member governments to systematically use behavioral science to change people’s attitudes around the world in line with WHO.
Chisholm’s anti-democratic-technocratic worldview can be found in strong expression among the WHO’s funders with great influence, such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, as well as among its close cooperation partners such as the World Economic Forum.
The goal of uprooting people culturally and spiritually, of depriving them of a sense of belonging to a group, has come very close to fulfillment, at least in North America and Europe. For historical reasons, patriotism has long ceased to be a positive word in Germany. But increasingly, not only in Germany, the nation, and everything connected with it, is equated with nationalism and devalued or condemned. The sense of solidarity with one’s homeland is seen as provincial and regressive, with an increasing tendency to the right, which in turn is increasingly equated with right-wing extremism. The same applies to all spiritual thinking and feeling and everything that cannot be explained by orthodox medicine and the mechanistic physics of 100 years ago.
Instead, welcome culture and migration pact should promote multiculturalism, in which people from all over the world live side by side without national loyalties or allegiances to groups other than humanity as a whole.
Unions have been gutted. There is no longer a workers’ movement. Demonstrating together for peace, civil liberties or social justice is considered radical right-wing. Not even being a man or a woman is considered a legitimate group affiliation anymore. Even those who see things differently must expect to be attacked as right-wing extremists.
The uncontrolled powers, which are to fall to the WHO Secretary General as an individual or to the WHO Board of Directors, still breathes recognizably the global-technocratic spirit of Chisholm and his comrades-in-arms from the early days of the WHO. According to this, it is so obvious for a true and rational world citizen at the levers of the desired world government what has to be done in the interest of mankind that he can and should be given the greatest possible powers without controls.
It is worth asking the question: If the dissolution of all group affiliations that the first WHO Director-General so enthusiastically advocated has progressed and been advanced in the eight decades to the present, does it perhaps serve the goals that Chisholm described? Does it serve to make people smoothly functioning links in a social mega-machine controlled by global technocrats?
***
Link to the original article in German.
About the author:
Norbert Häring (born 1963) works and lives in Frankfurt am Main. He grew up on a farm in Baden-Württemberg. During a three-month student exchange in Peru and Bolivia, he encountered rampant inflation, resource wealth and poverty, which inspired him to study economics in Heidelberg and Saarbrücken. In Saarbrücken, he earned a Dr. rer. pol. degree under Professor Olaf Sievert with a thesis on the political economy of regional development. He is the author of several popular economics books and was awarded the Keynes Society Prize for Economic Journalism in 2014. He now writes for the German business magazine Handelsblatt and on his blog norberthaering.de.
Very informative. Thank you.
Brock Chisholm is a diabolical figure whose monstrous meditations on education/indoctrination I include in this interview:
• “My Croatian Weekly (Hrvatski Tjednik) Interview” (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/my-croatian-weekly-hrvatski-tjednik)