WHO Power Grab: Health Minister Rauch Admits--in Writing--that Procedural Shenanigans are used to subvert accountability and parliamentary oversight

MP Gerald Hauser recently sent some questions to Minister of Health Rauch whose answers speak volumes about how he sees the world, his role, and confirm the danger we're in

Today’s piece is about the recently derailed, and hence temporarily in limbo, international health regulations (IHR) that have been in (some of) the news lately. Long story short: the proposals by the US and its ‘friends and allies’ (esp. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the EU/EEA) has failed for now due to ‘technical issues’ as well as the resistance by countries in the Global South as well as Russia and China.

The devilish scheme was first brought to light (I think) by James Roguski, whose Substack I herewith recommend to you for further information about this utterly despicable scheme by the Swamp Creatures to abuse Covid-19 as a smoke screen and push through changes that would, in all likelihood, resulted in the transfer of power from states to the unelected and accountable ‘geniuses’ over at the WHO (as well as their funders; source here)

Bonus Q: Rotary Int’l, really? Note that, according to the Ministry of Truth, ‘the most notable current global project, PolioPlus, is contributing to the global eradication of polio.’—Here’s MP Hauser as quote in the Wochenblick piece on this factoid: ‘Hauser researched for his bestseller Raus aus dem Corona-Chaos, which he wrote together with Dr. Hannes Strasser revealed who owns the WHO and who finances it (page 16 of the book). Most of these are the USA (14.67 percent) and Bill Gates with GAVI (18.15%), followed only then by Great Britain (7.79%), Germany (5.68%), the UN (5.09%) , EU (3.3%) and so on. The World Bank (3.42%) and Rotary International (3.3%) are also on the list. The fact that Rotary International – the association is considered to be the preliminary organization of international Freemasonry – “sponsors” as much as the EU is particularly explosive.’

Make of that what you will, but one of the consistent themes mentioned by Mr. Roguski, Dr. Robert Malone (e.g., here), Steve Kirsch (here), Dr. Tess Lawrie (here), Astrid Stuckelberger, Ph.D. (here and here, with the latter link incl. the proposed amendments), and many others is that the powers-that-be are trying to use the backdoor to engineer outcomes that subvert sovereignty at both the nation-state and individual levels.

While it is easy to make such claims, I’ve read quite a bit around the topic, and I think that the above concerns and reservations are, in fact true to the extent that the pending WHO machinations contain certain elements that should raise everyone’s eyebrows, including:

The fact that the IHR were proposed by the US Government (USG) whose trustworthiness is quite…low, in particular among those countries that have long been on the receiving end of US imperialism (the perhaps best description I found is by Russian diplomats who, for quite some time now, call their American counterparts ‘недоговороспособны’, or ‘non-agreement capable’)

The fact that the modellers, ‘experts’, and otherwise unaccountable ‘advisors’ have quite a catastrophic track record in, you know, actually being correct (here’s specifically looking at you, Prof. Neil Ferguson of Imperial College), to say nothing about ‘right’.

As well as the problematic assumption that the many mistakes of the hap-hazard and improvised responses (to Sars-Cov-2) would be ‘improved’ upon by more planning, wargaming, and the like. It’s an intellectual fallacy, for ‘Public Health’ claimed to be quite prepared before 2019 and we all know what happened…

Sidenote on ‘planning’: keep in mind that virtually everything is planned in our societies, from ‘big government’ to ‘the economy’ to a whole host of other issues. Note, further, that ‘planning’ stands in for ‘over-centralised decision-making’, which is one of, if not the, key features of the political-economic régime of the world as it emerged during and after WW1 (1914-19).

In this regard, ‘planning’ relates to virtually all aspects of our life, and in this key aspect the major ideological fault lines vanish rapidly: irrespective of ‘liberal-democratic’, ‘fascist/national-socialist’, and ‘communist/socialist’ monikers and descriptors, the overarching, if not unifying, principles were centralised planning and decision-making by big government and (or) big business.

In our world today, centralised planning and decision-making occur in what’s lovingly, if quite erroneously, called ‘the private sector’ (big business), quite often, if not usually, in cahoots with ‘big government’, but there’s no fundamental difference to earlier iterations (and before you yell ‘but Hitler!’ or ‘come on, the Soviets were bad’ at me, well, I’d respond that this is a) not an argument and b) look at the facts: in both ‘fascist’ and ‘communist’ régimes, the state retained a certain modicum of influence over production and distribution—much like in China today—while this isn’t as overtly the case in ‘western’ countries).

MP Gerald Hauser Questions the Covidistan Régime

As reported by the small outlet Wochenblick, the implications of the WHO amendments are enormous, and the ‘justifications’ by Minister of Health, given in response to Freedom Party MP Gerald Hauser’s enquiries, is something to behold.

The above-linked article has been translated by Global Research in its entirety, hence I shall only quote from it selectively:

A few weeks ago, Gerald Hauser made a parliamentary enquiry about these scandalous events, which mean the end of our democracy in terms of health policy. But he hardly got any answers.

‘I’m really shocked at how casually the answers were passed over and my questions weren’t specifically addressed at all’, explains Gerald Hauser in an interview with Wochenblick. The whole thing reminds him of the 137 resolutions in the first few weeks after the lockdown [in spring 2020], where Parliament was passed without an assessment, the East Tyrolean describes indignantly.

In addition, Hauser does not believe that it is up to the government to outsource our health policy to the WHO: ‘In my view, the government has no mandate to negotiate this. Who gave them legitimacy to negotiate the ceding of our rights, our state, to the WHO? And thus to a supranational institution that was not elected by the people!’

Who is Gerald Hauser, one may ask? Here’s his official parliamentary bio; suffice it to mention that he’s a member of the Freedom Party (FPÖ), and he’s among the very few to read the below issues into the parliamentary record (even though I remain wary that this will actually bring any good…)

The specific questions from the Freedom Party brought the Minister of Health, who is already the third Green in this position, into such distress that he simply refused many answers. Nevertheless, he admits that the handover of our democracy (so far limited to our health policy) to the largely private organization WHO will first be negotiated internationally and then taken over ‘according to our constitution’. As is well known, the judgment of the Constitutional Court on pandemic legislation showed that absolutely everything is now constitutional as soon as it is advertised by a ‘government expert’. Gerald Hauser is shocked that the Pandemic Treaty plays no role at all in Parliament, that there is no discussion about it.

‘We are in the middle of negotiations without Parliament even remotely involved—the strategy seems to be that the government presents us with a fait accompli. Formally, this is not only a circumvention of the parliament but an undermining of parliamentary democracy’—Gerald Hauser, shocked by the abolition of our democracy

The liberal people’s representative has the impression that many MPs know nothing about it:

‘This state of affairs is untenable, you only find out about what’s going on here through alternative media such as Wochenblick and AUF1. Parliament was never informed! If we didn’t make any inquiries, we wouldn’t know anything anyway. And these inquiries are only answered sloppily, if at all, anyway.’

But in the response to the question, Rauch at least admits that in the end, Parliament will be faced with a fait accompli:

‘As with any international instrument, the domestic procedure will follow the Austrian Federal Constitution. Only when the legal nature of the WHO convention to be drawn up and negotiated by the INB, a treaty or another international instrument is certain, a decision on the domestic procedure in accordance with the Federal Constitution can be made.’ – Health Minister Johannes Rauch to Gerald Hauser.

Mr. Rauch Confirms the Attempted Ending of Representative Gov’t in Writing

MP Hauser’s Questions—And Minister of Health Rauch’s Answers

Source here; Q = question by MP Hauser, A = answer by Mr Rauch; all emphases mine.

Q1: What is the Austrian government’s position on the pandemic pact currently negotiated under the auspices of the WHO?

A: The members of the European Council (EC)—and thus also Austria—have spoken out in favour of improved pandemic control on the basis of global multilateral cooperation and a better legal framework. In their declaration of 25 February 2021 on Covid-19 and public health, the members of the EC stated that global multilateral cooperation is critical to addressing current and future health threats. and future health threats, and that the members of the EC are committed to promoting global health security, for example, by working towards an international pandemic treaty within the framework of the World Health Organisation (WHO).

Q2, 3, 5, 6, and 9: What is the Austrian Federal Government’s position on the fact that in future an unelected and thus not democratically legitimised body is to decide on pandemic measures in Austria?

What is the position of the Federal Government regarding the transfer of national rights to an organisation that is financed to a considerable extent by donations from private foundations and in which governments of Member States with little understanding of democracy are also involved?

Why should it be necessary to cede national government rights to the WHO?

Are we also ceding part of our sovereignty in this pandemic treaty?

What consequences/penalties could there be if in future we do not comply with the pandemic treaty adopted in the WHO? pandemic treaty, but were to adopt our own measures instead? would adopt our own measures?

A: Austria is a party to the Statutes of the World Health Organisation (see Bundesgesetzblatt No. 96/1949 as amended by BGBl. III No. 7/2006), and it is thus a voting member of the World Health Assembly, the main decision-making body of the World Health Organisation, the World Health Assembly (WHA). Decisions of the WHA are generally reached via consensus of the member states. As a member of the WHO with a seat and a vote in the WHA, Austria supported the consensus acceptance of the decision of the World Health Assembly of 1 December 2021 in the context of its extraordinary session, according to which an intergovernmental negotiating body (INB) open to all member states and associate members to negotiate a WHO convention, treaty, or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, to be developed and negotiated in accordance with Art. 19 or other provisions of the WHO statutes [Satzung] as the INB deems appropriate. can be adopted. To date [16 May 2022], no discussions have taken place within the framework of INB meetings on the possible and legal form, but only on the procedural questions concerning the INB.

Q4: The WHO is funded to a significant extent by foundations, international organisations, NGOs, and private individuals, so that these organisations/individuals can override the will of democratically elected governments and pursue their own interests—what is the Federal Health Ministry’s assessment of this circumstance?

A: The decision-making bodies are made up of the Member States. Only these are entitled to vote. In accordance with Article 56 of the WHO statutes, the WHA examines and approves the budget proposal and divides the expenditure among the members according to a key to be determined by the WHO. The key to be determined is based on the rating scale of the United Nations.

Note the non-answer by Mr. Rauch, which I deem particularly heinous in light of the above budget figures. I only wish that Mr. Hauser would have mentioned the EU Commission as one of these unaccountable institutions (but since I’m in touch with him, maybe I can get him to do so in the future).

Q7: What options would Austria have not to implement any of these provisions in the event of the adoption of this pandemic treaty?

A: As with any international instrument, the domestic procedure will be in accordance with the Austrian Federal Constitution. Only after the legal nature of the WHO treaty to be negotiated by the INB, a treaty or any other international instrument to be negotiated by the INB has been established, a decision may be made on the national procedure in accordance with the Federal Constitution.

Read this again: in December 2021, the WHO voted on establishing a number of working parties (the intergovernmental negotiating body, or INB) to prepare the procedural and other relevant materials.

Here, Mr. Rauch admits that whatever the government may decide is derivative of the outcome of the closed-door negotiations by the INB.

In other words: this is how popular sovereignty, legitimacy, and accountability are ended by procedural shenanigans.

Furthermore, the fact of the matter remains that whatever powers the executive branch has, they clearly derive, at least in theory, from the sovereign (the people, in republican states at least) embodied and represented in parliament. This is why there is a distinction between primary (parliamentary acts and laws) and secondary legislation (executive orders, regulations, etc.), with the latter clearly derivative of the former.

Mr. Rauch and his ilk, however, have chosen to use prior governmental (executive) authority to accede to the INB talks whose results will then be presented to parliament to ‘discuss’ and ‘vote’ on them, thereby confirming—officially, if you like, that the reservations expressed above are, in fact, true.

Here’s the last question by Mr. Hauser, for completeness’ sake:

Q8: What would happen if we did not implement the WHO’s guidelines in the event of a pandemic?

A: As the leading international organisation for global health issues, the WHO collects and has at its disposal proven expertise, which is left to the member states as legally non-binding recommendations to the member states.

Accountability’s Last Stand

Here’s more from the Wochenblick piece:

The Minister of Health does not even begin to answer other very specific questions from the FPÖ MP. What is the government’s position on the pandemic contract?

Blank answer full of letters. Rauch ignores the fact that Austria could cede its sovereignty to the WHO through this infamous agreement, as well as the question of how the government stands on the fact that a non-democratically legitimate body could possibly decide on future pandemic measures in Austria in the future. What comes out of the Ministry of Health is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Hauser reacted like this: ‘I think it’s pathetic. One does not have the courage to admit that one is part of these international elites of the World Economic Forum, which are successively taking over the powers. Just not answering very specific questions tells me: Something is up!’

Gerald Hauser calls for the immediate involvement of Parliament in the legislative process:

‘I call for the immediate involvement of Parliament, for immediate decision-making as to whether Parliament even wants the WHO to decide on our health policy in the future. We at the FPÖ do not want this, this systematic undermining of the National Council as a legislative body. We want to retain national sovereignty and we don’t want Bill Gates and Co. to decide on health policy and measures in Austria in the future and the representative, parliamentary democracy in Austria to be undermined for this. The legislative body must remain the Austrian Parliament! And it is supposed to represent the Austrians. The sovereign should decide. We want to get through the next pandemic, as defined by the WHO, with common sense and a sense of proportion, without lockdowns and without collateral damage to society. I don’t want unequal treatment of the unvaccinated. The law emanates from the people and is represented by the elected institutions.’

I concur with Mr. Hauser, and I hope that more people will come forward to drag these shenanigans out into the light of day.

Furthermore, the only two words that come to my mind when reading Mr. Rauch’s ‘answer’ are these:

High treason.