Becky Akers #quack #conspiracy #wingnut lewrockwell.com
If we have learned nothing else from COVID19, we finally understand the outrageous authority that “Public Health’s” quacks wield.
Though these bureaucrats now hog the limelight while destroying our country and liberty, they formerly scurried on the fringes of government. There they spewed advice (“Quit smoking: it causes cancer!” “Seat belts save lives, so buckle up!”) that we were free to reject until they could persuade legislatures to codify their opinions as law. That itch to control, to force everyone to heed them, should have warned us of “Public Health’s” threat.
Most Americans are subject to three or four “Public Health” bureaus: a “Department of Public Health” often infests cities and counties, and one curses each state as well as the Feds. The latter’s Department of Health and Human Services harbors such agencies as the CDC, the FDA, the Indian Health Service, and the Surgeon General as well as “an elite group of over 6,000 uniformed officers who are public health professionals.” Just what criminals want in a cop: temperature-guns.
At whatever level of government they lurk, each outpost of “Public Health” boasts an atomic bomb’s power: they can and will raze everything in their path, as they’ve proved since March. Collaborating with politicians, they crushed life as we knew it. They bankrupted companies and kicked employees off payrolls with the ruthless abandon of Mr. Potter; the list of institutions and businesses they thereby destroyed is too lengthy and notorious to recite here. As if such crimes weren’t enough, they ordered us to imperil ourselves with masks and “anti-social distancing.” No wonder rates of suicide and addiction have skyrocketed.
And we haven’t even mentioned their enthusiasm for the rioting that’s ravaged American streets. These authoritarians obligingly declared “racism” a “public health” crisis when BLM threw its tantrum.
Unfortunately, most victims of “public health” don’t realize its menace, either because they have only a dim idea of its evil (“They issue birth certificates, don’t they?”) or because they buy “public health’s” lie, that its “mission is to protect, promote, and advance the health of our nation.” Actually, its mission is to protect, promote and advance Marxism.
That hellish philosophy permeates “public health”: it weaves itself into not only its warp and woof but its foundation and all its biases, too. Unlike communism’s more dramatic barbarities (genocide, mass murder, torture), “public health” allows its perpetrators to feel good about themselves. They are “professionals” trying to save us germy, diseased subjects from ourselves (though only “public health doctors” have medical degrees. The rest are mere bureaucrats—and dishonest ones at that). Unlike the Cheka, these hygienic busybodies go home at night without their prey’s screams ringing in their ears. Rather, they congratulate themselves on their compassion, foresight, and superiority. C.S. Lewis damned such relentless despotism: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” Who would dispute that after the last five months?
“Public health’s” Marxism—and logical fallacies—begin with the term itself. There is no “Public,” healthy or otherwise, but only individuals. These folks may share a neighborhood, true. But from that innocent fact “Public Health” leaps to many conclusions, none of them good.
Which brings us to “Principles of the Ethical Practice of Public Health,” a brochure the “Public Health Leadership Society” published in 2002. It lists “Key Principles of the Ethical Practice of Public Health” as well as the “Values and Beliefs Underlying the Code.” The latter begins, “Humans have a right to the resources necessary for health. The Public Health Code of Ethics affirms Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states in part ‘Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family…’”
Any document that quotes from the Orwellian “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” should automatically raise our hackles. And yep, the “right to resources” is a positive one that all lovers of liberty excoriate. You have no right to “resources” of any kind, even those “necessary for health.” You do have the right to earn those resources without masks and anti-social distancing and all of COVIDiocy’s other nonsense–in short, free from “public health’s” coercion.
The second “Value and Belief” prates, “Humans are inherently social and interdependent. Humans look to each other for companionship in friendships, families, and community; and rely upon one another for safety and survival. Positive relationships among individuals and positive collaborations among institutions are signs of a healthy community.”
Not as frontal an assault as No. 1, though that word “community” is suspect…
“The rightful concern for the physical individuality of humans and one’s right to make decisions for oneself must be balanced against the fact that each person’s actions affect other people.”
Whoa! And nooooo, most emphatically. We never “balance” the fundamental and essential right “to make decisions for oneself” against anything else—and those who suggest such an atrocity are almost always totalitarians.
I’ll spare you a blow-by-blow of the ten additional “principles.” Suffice to say that each degrades personal autonomy on behalf of the collective, some more blatantly than others.
Underlying the whole of “public health” is another supremely offensive premise: that human society is an organized “structure” rather than an organic web of relationships arising spontaneously from our interactions with one another. And that edifice must be managed: after all, these are Marxists. “Managing” necessarily involves decisions. Someone must determine all issues, large or small, for our controlled “society.” Will that “society” permit smoking indoors—or at all? Will it require seat belts in cars? And, in COVIDiocy, will it compel the wearing of masks and anti-social distancing? “Public health’s” bureaucrats assume we are too bestial to settle these questions ourselves, so they do it for us. Their literature and training reek of this arrogance. I browsed a cache of “Public Health’s” texts on an empty stomach one day; I suggest that if you brave this library, you, too, delay lunch or keep a barf-bag handy.
Departments of “Public Health” first plagued cities in the nineteenth century. Their coercion and cruelty completely broke with the mores of private, voluntary medicine. They are as much creatures of government as prisons and taxation are.
For example, when Sam Serf falls ill, he solicits a doctor’s services. And he expects to pay for them. The doctor advises his patient based on Sam’s peculiar history, physical idiosyncrasies and circumstances. He addresses the problem that brought Sam to him without intruding into other areas of Sam’s life.
But “Public Health” doesn’t wait for the sick to find it. Rather, its busybodies inflict themselves on everyone within a specified area—even those who are healthy. Nor does it even pretend to understand every person as an individual. Via data, it “examines” the group as a whole and prescribes for it that way, too—regardless of whether Sam’s situation renders its commands harmful or irrelevant to him: witness the “mandates” for masks. Because our taxes pay them regardless of results, the bureaucrats blithely pry into the neighborhood’s affairs, without their guinea pigs’ knowledge or consent, for as long and as deeply as they please.
“Public Health’s” diktats (exercise more, avoid eggs, wear masks, etc.) weren’t as overwhelming a problem when Americans could ignore them. But COVIDiocy has obliterated that freedom. These bullies have imposed their values on us, declaring life and health to be the supreme goods and ordering us to sacrifice everything to them.
Now certainly, life and health are blessings everyone prizes—but more than satisfying work or family or travel or freedom? Some folks would rather die than lose their autonomy; others prize a beloved spouse or child above their own well-being; many choose to spend their health and lives on a career. Those of us who cherish liberty consider existence worthless without it. And Christians should love the Lord their God with all their minds and souls and strength—far more than they love health or even life itself. Ergo, when bureaucrats command us to stay home from worship for our health’s sake, we inexcusably bow the knee to Baal if we obey.
Speaking of Jezebel, Shrillary Clinton once warned, “We need to be as well prepared to defend ourselves against public health dangers as we should be to defend ourselves against any foreign dangers of any kind.”
Especially when the danger is “Public Health” itself.