Streetwise Professor

April 10, 2021

“Public Health”: The Mask for Fascism

Filed under: CoronaCrisis,Politics — cpirrong @ 10:39 am

In the Time of Covid, numerous liberties, and indeed Constitutional rights, have been sacrificed in the name of “public health.” The ruling class has learned this lesson well: these enemies of freedom realize that claims of “public health” are the perfect Trojan horse to achieve their dreams of subjugating the proles.

Now everything is a “public health” crisis. Guns–“public health” issue. Racism–“public health” issue. CO2–“public health” issue. The Supreme Court–“public health” issue.

I kid you not!:

“There’s growing recognition that the Supreme Court poses a danger to the health and well-being of the nation and even to democracy itself,” said Aaron Belkin, the director of the group Take Back the Court. “A White House judicial reform commission has a historic opportunity to explain the gravity of the threat and to help contain it by urging Congress to add seats, which is the only way to restore balance to the court.”

Appeals to health are particularly seductive in this era of safetyism, when ironically most of the true health scourges of humanity have been eliminated, or at least greatly reduced, and marginal risks have been transmogrified into horrific threats. Moreover, by appending the term “public” to the emotive word “health”, the ruling class denies individual responsibility or insinuates the abject irresponsibility of individuals, and asserts the necessity of controlling you. For your own good, you know, and that of “the public.” You are a selfish bastard if you resist, right?

The public health profession has always attracted statist control freaks. There are indeed limited circumstances in which external health effects of individual decisions are so damaging that some constraints on individual choice are justified, and it would be acceptable if public heath authorities stayed within that small box. But the profession has striven mightily to expand its authority to wider and wider spheres of personal behavior. And particularly in the midst (would that it be in the aftermath) of covidmania the totalitarians among us, who presume to rule us, have found public health claims to be a powerful weapon in their relentless campaign to destroy freedom and rights.

Which is why unless proven otherwise, subject to a very high burden of proof, we should view any assertion that something is a public health issue as a mask for fascist assaults on our liberties.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

17 Comments »

  1. That’s about the size of it.

    Comment by dearieme — April 10, 2021 @ 1:12 pm

  2. Amen brother. amen. I have been pounding this drum for decades. There is literally NOTHING that cannot be subsumed under the rubric of Public Health.

    Comment by JC Collins — April 10, 2021 @ 9:56 pm

  3. A Declaration everyone knows, or should do:

    That to secure these rights [to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it …

    … But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

    Comment by Pat Frank — April 10, 2021 @ 11:05 pm

  4. I admire the Constitution. The Declaration, however, seems to me to be a seamy advertising flyer. How Americans can allude to it with a straight face puzzles me; indoctrination since the cradle, perhaps?

    Comment by dearieme — April 11, 2021 @ 8:40 am

  5. @dearieme — one can see why you might disapprove of a document that exposed the failings of your monarchy and set England on its ear.

    Comment by Pat Frank — April 11, 2021 @ 12:10 pm

  6. Ah, Pat, but I admire the Constitution. Apart from his treason I rather admire Washington. ditto Franklin. My objection to the Declaration is that so much of it is empty vapouring, pearl-clutching, and lying, with a bit of racial/religious nastiness thrown in. But it’s hard for you to cast off childish indoctrination, I assume.

    Comment by dearieme — April 12, 2021 @ 5:34 am

  7. Well, if the boot fits… After all, the American right have normalised all kinds of batsh*t behaviour over recent years (“It wasn’t a revolution, they just let us in!”).

    Perhaps this blog ought to be proscribed on health grounds too? (Only joking! Its only my replies which send some participants’ blood pressure off-scale).

    Comment by David Mercer — April 12, 2021 @ 9:27 am

  8. “…urging Congress to add seats, which is the only way to restore balance to the court”

    Gee, if that precedent is set, I wonder what the next Republican president will do… Oh, hey, is that the UK House of Lords? Could you tell us about how you went from 300 members in 2010 to 794 today?

    Comment by HibernoFrog — April 12, 2021 @ 9:34 am

  9. @5 Dearieme, the colonists were English subjects, for decades systematically denied their rights under English law and exploited for profit.

    Under conditions of directed governmental abuse, rebellion is not treason unless you consider it treason to oppose a domestic tyranny. Should you do, your label has no moral force.

    @6, David, you never fail to get it wrong. And, like others of your progressivist leanings, you can’t abide critical confutation.

    Comment by Pat Frank — April 12, 2021 @ 11:19 am

  10. I always liked this clause,

    “ He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”

    If that were a reason for rebelling, we need to think about doing so again, because today’s Federal government would make Lord North wild with envy.

    Comment by The Pilot — April 12, 2021 @ 4:01 pm

  11. “the colonists were English subjects”: British subjects, actually.

    “for decades systematically denied their rights under English law and exploited for profit”: for decades heavily subsidised financially by the taxpayers of Britain who paid for their defence from the French. The most lightly taxed civilisation in history rebelled based on a purported desire to escape paying their taxes. The irony!

    If their position was so dire why did only 25% or so support the rebellion? Why did 25% oppose it? Why did about 50% sit on the fence? The drivel with which US children have been indoctrinated doesn’t stand up to the most elementary scrutiny. Apart from the obvious motivation of a bunch of conspirators thinking “why should that bunch of people in Parliament in London have any power here when we can grab it for ourselves?”, what other motivations genuinely – rather than purportedly – led to the rebellion?

    Presumably there were several motives – one of the daftest that I’ve come across is preachers in New England advocating war because the British government intended to impose Anglicanism on them all. Bonkers – complete invention – but it led to a successful jihad I suppose. What, you say, go to war on a fake pretext? Unheard of! Except that in US history it then turned out that most wars were based on false pretexts. Remember the Maine! It’s pretty common elsewhere too – remember Hitler’s claim that Polish troops had attacked Germany in 1939.

    All this is a different question from the question of whether the British government should have fought a war against the rebellion. Maybe it would have been wiser to shrug it off – but few governments in history would have shown such wisdom in the same situation. Did the US government shrug it off when the southern states decided to secede? Nah. What had been sauce for the goose was not to be sauce for the gander.

    Comment by dearieme — April 13, 2021 @ 5:52 am

  12. @11 dearieme — timelines of the British colonial wars in North America:

    https://www.history.nd.gov/exhibits/lewisclark/colonialwars.html
    https://www.preceden.com/timelines/281901-french-and-indian-war
    https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/american-revolution-timeline

    The British fought their wars for empire. The wars were in British imperial self-interest. They had nothing to do with ‘colonial defense from the French.

    The third link – timeline of the American Revolution – lists peremptory treatments of the colonies.

    One can view only with cynicism that you’d denounce invention and then equate the US Rebellion with jihad.

    Your “why should that bunch of people in Parliament in London have any power here when we can grab it for ourselves? is the plaint of one unacquainted with The Federalist.

    Yeah, remember the Maine. Forget the British love of their tyranny (in evidence once again). Remember secession in favor of slavery. There’s a US pretense for war. Or WWI and WWII both of which the US entered under the pretense of aiding a Britain with its back to the wall.

    Or the Korean and Vietnam wars, which involved the US pretense to stop the spread of the most murderous ideology in all of history. The war against Iraq, under the pretense to save access to oil for Europe and the US, and following 10 years of low intensity conflict to prevent further genocidal attacks on Kurdish and Shia Iraqis.

    Your attempted connection of intent between the US and Nazi Germany is a shamelessly opportunistic villainy. Likewise your equation of the British attempt to preserve Empire with the American attempt to preserve a contractual union and end slavery.

    Not a good show, dearieme.

    Comment by Pat Frank — April 13, 2021 @ 4:14 pm

  13. Prof: Biden – or whoever is pulling his strings – is going to force war with Russia.

    They’ve wanted this for ages. This is criminally irresponsible. What a disaster.

    Comment by Ex-Global Super-Regulator on Lunch Break — April 15, 2021 @ 9:12 pm

  14. @13 Ex-GlobalSRoLB — Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia.

    George Orwell was a prophet. Who knew?

    Comment by Pat Frank — April 16, 2021 @ 3:24 pm

  15. Yep, confrontational rhetoric combined with constant rolling over for Putin everywhere it matters (e.g. failure to impose sanctions on Nordstream 2) is just

    Comment by Ivan — April 16, 2021 @ 6:38 pm

  16. Putin moving troops to the Krim…. do tell how that’s Biden’s fault ?

    Comment by [email protected] — April 16, 2021 @ 6:40 pm

  17. a perfect show of weakness to invite aggression from the Kremlin gopniks.

    Comment by Ivan — April 16, 2021 @ 6:42 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress