This is a jolly essay, but as a lifelong Doctor Who fan, I can say with some confidence that there is no connection between the name of the show and the United Nations offshoot, the World Health Organisation. The name came from a random idea scribbled on a napkin, at a time when awareness of the WHO was negligible and the nascent show was seen as a means of educating children in history. It was an aim that it succeeded in fulfilling rather well during the reign of the original showrunner, Verity Lambert. She was in charge throughout William Hartnell's time, when all the purely historical stories were made.
(Neither, for what little it's worth, was Alan Davis' WHO - the Weird Happenings Organisation - in the comic Excalibur a reference to the UN WHO... it was, amusingly, a reference to Doctor Who.)
I would suggest it was only when the vaccine profiteers (of whom Bill Gates is the most prominent) began to push their fear of pandemic into international policy that the UN WHO changed from a statistic-collating bureaucracy to a rook on the globalist chessboard.
Nice to hear from you Chris! Well, Doctor Who fans are always reliable for and on detail, and as such I happily accept your explanation. (I enjoy the 'old Doctor' as a childhood nostalgia indulgence!) The coincidences are uncanny though. The Doctor Who 'fanatic' I describe told me that tale long before the recent debacle and it was curious to say the least. Former WHO associates such as Bell have described the disintegration of the WHO as taking place over quite some time. It is not about the facts though, it is about what I notice in terms of coincidences. It seems to be really handy to have a positive Doctor/scientist figure (etymologically at least) linked with one of the organs of world domination rather than one that prevents it as it were!
I do think you're correct that it's been heading for trouble for a long time - but not, I think, as far back as the 60s! 😂 I don't, however, have any contacts in or around the UN WHO, to be sure. And obviously, the BBC seems more than happy to sign up for the post-rights order right now, so we have every reason to be suspicious of their motives and political biases.
Oh, and regarding the revival of the show: it seems it was just that they asked Russell Davies if there was a show he wanted, and he went for Doctor Who because he was such a fan. Davies did pursue a lot of ideological subjects during his first tenure... but it was all largely in the manner of the tired 'religion vs science' clichés. (I have an old essay on this if it's of interest).
I don't think he was thinking about these wider 'New World Order' style issues, at least not then. I have not yet had a chance to analyse his thinking now, as we only have four episodes to go on, but my reading so far is that any support he might be providing for what's happening is of the 'naïve but useful fool' kind, not the 'witting handmaiden' kind.
We shall see, I suppose...
And yes - sometimes the parallels become worthy of discussion simply because of how they present in our experiences. This, I think, was what I most enjoyed about your essay. That, and the classic Who stills, of course. 😉
I liked that sentence '...sometimes the parallels become worthy of discussion simply because of how they present in our experiences.' This is what interests me, the unintended unconcealment that occurs in our cultural creations, the messages that somehow get there with no essential authorial responsibility. I know about Davies, and in addition, there was a massive on-going campaign in Britain for years to bring the show back. We have forgotten that it was a programme intended for children, and it is lamentable how so many political, adult (sexual) themes have been shoe-horned in. The older shows are terrific fun. And yes, Tom Baker remains my favourite Doctor!
Tom Baker was the one I was most familiar with as a teenager in the 70's so I think I might feel the same way although I would probably put Jon Pertwee who preceded Tom as equal.
Excellent if I may say. I have been thinking along these lines myself. I would say that I suppose, but it is true. Dr who? The WHO that's who! And Davos, ah Davos. This sounds like R Davos. Anagram and get Davros. Add in the Daleks and we have 'Exterminate, exterminate, destroy, destroy!
All of which is the theme of the WEF in so many words. Davos is in Switzerland as you know, a nice and Nazi place it seems.
This is a jolly essay, but as a lifelong Doctor Who fan, I can say with some confidence that there is no connection between the name of the show and the United Nations offshoot, the World Health Organisation. The name came from a random idea scribbled on a napkin, at a time when awareness of the WHO was negligible and the nascent show was seen as a means of educating children in history. It was an aim that it succeeded in fulfilling rather well during the reign of the original showrunner, Verity Lambert. She was in charge throughout William Hartnell's time, when all the purely historical stories were made.
(Neither, for what little it's worth, was Alan Davis' WHO - the Weird Happenings Organisation - in the comic Excalibur a reference to the UN WHO... it was, amusingly, a reference to Doctor Who.)
I would suggest it was only when the vaccine profiteers (of whom Bill Gates is the most prominent) began to push their fear of pandemic into international policy that the UN WHO changed from a statistic-collating bureaucracy to a rook on the globalist chessboard.
Stay wonderful!
Nice to hear from you Chris! Well, Doctor Who fans are always reliable for and on detail, and as such I happily accept your explanation. (I enjoy the 'old Doctor' as a childhood nostalgia indulgence!) The coincidences are uncanny though. The Doctor Who 'fanatic' I describe told me that tale long before the recent debacle and it was curious to say the least. Former WHO associates such as Bell have described the disintegration of the WHO as taking place over quite some time. It is not about the facts though, it is about what I notice in terms of coincidences. It seems to be really handy to have a positive Doctor/scientist figure (etymologically at least) linked with one of the organs of world domination rather than one that prevents it as it were!
I do think you're correct that it's been heading for trouble for a long time - but not, I think, as far back as the 60s! 😂 I don't, however, have any contacts in or around the UN WHO, to be sure. And obviously, the BBC seems more than happy to sign up for the post-rights order right now, so we have every reason to be suspicious of their motives and political biases.
Oh, and regarding the revival of the show: it seems it was just that they asked Russell Davies if there was a show he wanted, and he went for Doctor Who because he was such a fan. Davies did pursue a lot of ideological subjects during his first tenure... but it was all largely in the manner of the tired 'religion vs science' clichés. (I have an old essay on this if it's of interest).
I don't think he was thinking about these wider 'New World Order' style issues, at least not then. I have not yet had a chance to analyse his thinking now, as we only have four episodes to go on, but my reading so far is that any support he might be providing for what's happening is of the 'naïve but useful fool' kind, not the 'witting handmaiden' kind.
We shall see, I suppose...
And yes - sometimes the parallels become worthy of discussion simply because of how they present in our experiences. This, I think, was what I most enjoyed about your essay. That, and the classic Who stills, of course. 😉
With unlimited love,
Chris.
I liked that sentence '...sometimes the parallels become worthy of discussion simply because of how they present in our experiences.' This is what interests me, the unintended unconcealment that occurs in our cultural creations, the messages that somehow get there with no essential authorial responsibility. I know about Davies, and in addition, there was a massive on-going campaign in Britain for years to bring the show back. We have forgotten that it was a programme intended for children, and it is lamentable how so many political, adult (sexual) themes have been shoe-horned in. The older shows are terrific fun. And yes, Tom Baker remains my favourite Doctor!
Tom Baker was the one I was most familiar with as a teenager in the 70's so I think I might feel the same way although I would probably put Jon Pertwee who preceded Tom as equal.
There is the weird sense also that Davros seems to resemble Soros....
The WHO has been a long term Nazi project. It has always been on the globalist chessboard.
Anything spelled organization with a 'z' might be Nazi.
https://baldmichael.substack.com/p/organisation-vs-organization-whats
The WHO is not so much a rook as a crook!
https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/2023/02/08/globalism-and-globalist-globalization-or-globalisation-whats-in-the-words/
Excellent if I may say. I have been thinking along these lines myself. I would say that I suppose, but it is true. Dr who? The WHO that's who! And Davos, ah Davos. This sounds like R Davos. Anagram and get Davros. Add in the Daleks and we have 'Exterminate, exterminate, destroy, destroy!
All of which is the theme of the WEF in so many words. Davos is in Switzerland as you know, a nice and Nazi place it seems.
https://baldmichael.substack.com/p/switzerland-nice-and-nazi
Anyway, the time lord is intervening for good as it is Time, Times and Half a Time as per the book of Revelation.