THE BBC science fiction television series Doctor Who has been a part of British popular culture since 1963. It is centred on the Doctor figure, a scientist who works to save civilisations, help people in need and to prevent evil forces from harming people. Remember that description.
A Doctor Who fanatic once told me that the ‘Who’ of the Doctor’s name obliquely refers to the other WHO, the World Health Organisation. There appears to be something in this, however implausible. I find the strange coincidences between fiction and reality curious and uncanny.
The Doctor is a scientific adviser to the organisation UNIT, standing for United Nations Intelligence Unit, which happens to be based in Geneva, home of the WHO. UNIT has its military element in the form of ‘the brigadier’ who liaises with the government and occasionally has to reach out to Geneva to ‘gain authority’ when government does not co-operate.
The most famous Doctor Who monsters will always be the Daleks. In the story Genesis of the Daleks (1975), the Doctor’s nemesis is Davros, the creator of the Daleks. Davros sounds rather like Davos, the home of the World Economic Forum, the WEF.
In the story, the Doctor is tasked with preventing the creation of the Daleks and faces a moral dilemma when confronted with the means to destroy them. He ponders in a renowned scene, ‘Have I the right [to destroy them]?’ Declining to destroy the Daleks, the Doctor escapes, and the Daleks continue on their path of evil.
Doctor Who’s other famous monsters, the Cybermen, are cyborgs – amoral, unfeeling transhuman creatures of our nightmares; surely the creations of mad or evil persons. Yet the idea of cyborgs and transhumanism is being pushed enthusiastically by the WEF, inspired by the ideas of Yuval Noah Harari who sees human beings merely as ‘hackable animals’ to be augmented as necessary.
The WHO acronym is the emblem of an organisation supposedly formed, like the Doctor, to help people and protect them. Instead, in the last three years we have seen, at the behest of the WHO, the poorest and weakest of the world economically hammered, a swathe of unnecessary deaths from a treatable coronavirus, worldwide harms and deaths through forced vaccination, all of which break every human right established in the wake of WWII. This is outlined in devastating detail by Toby Green and Thomas Fazi in their book, The Covid Consensus: The Global Assault on Democracy and the Poor – A Critique from the Left.
Now the WHO is preparing a new treaty which ultimately will result in signing member states becoming legally subordinate to the WHO. It is designed to subsume us all into a malleable collective. In other words, as per the sprawling EU project, our politicians will be able to blame the WHO for mandating medical treatments, lockdowns and prevention of travel, all of which could happen at the whim of the director general. Or more likely, its biggest, unelected, non-medically trained funder Bill Gates.
The lack of any public discussion of such crucial changes should ring loud alarm bells. In the olden days of three years ago (pre-Covid) one would expect the fourth estate to hold politicians to account; in particular the national broadcaster, Doctor Who’s very own BBC. However, the now familiar Gates-funded BBC silence continues.
How have we come to this? Arguably, through incremental micro steps intended to bring us right to this place: the setting for the launch of a one-world, unaccountable and undemocratic government where the collective rules over the individual. You will ‘own nothing’ says WEF’s founder Klaus Schwab, and I suspect this includes your own body.
The changing role of the WHO, as David Bell of Brownstone Institute discusses, has involved ‘remarkable reversals in human rights, poverty reduction, education, and physical, mental and social health indices in the name of responding to the Covid-19 pandemic’.
Bell continues: ‘The WHO proposes that the term “with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons” be deleted from the text, replacing them with “equity, coherence, inclusivity”, vague terms the applications of which are then specifically differentiated in the text according to levels of social and economic development.’
Bell says this is ‘a totalitarian approach to society’, that the proposals are feudal, situating us in a monarch-subject relation, and moreover, one without any intervening constitution: ‘It is difficult to imagine a greater issue facing society, yet the media that is calling for reparations for past slavery is silent on a proposed international agreement consistent with its reimposition.’
As Bell points out, the WHO’s proposals are incompatible with its once-guiding principles.
It is tempting to ask whether the writers of Doctor Who intentionally fostered a connection with the ideals of the WHO, to inculcate a positive outlook towards the WHO for viewers. And whether this, though maybe subliminal, could be the reason for the programme’s resurrection after a long break? And whether the world’s new Doctor Who fans will, as a result, subconsciously favour the WHO’s actions without question?
In the WHO’s woke world of forced equality, simply making the doctor switch sexes was not enough. In a world where the Leader of the Opposition (and quite possibly the BBC) says he prefers the WEF Davos to British democracy, must the Doctor–as-WHO be made switch sides to represent the new globalists as goodies, bad though we know they are? This is truly terrifying, and I am not sure that I can come out from behind the sofa this time round.