Aoyama Shigeharu explains why he continues to call the crisis “Wuhan fever,” arguing that it was produced by China’s peculiar dictatorship and that the term is not prejudice or discrimination, but an objective form of risk hedging for the future.
This article examines the WHO’s naming of COVID-19, the Xi Jinping regime, the Chinese Communist Party, and the true essence of crisis management.

March 14, 2020
I first named the virus “Wuhan fever” and then began my activities.
That is because I believe this crisis was produced by China’s present peculiar dictatorship, and this contains no element of prejudice or discrimination.

The following is a continuation of an essay by Aoyama Shigeharu, a member of the House of Councillors, writer, visiting professor at Kindai University, and lecturer at the Free Research Seminar of the University of Tokyo, published in the monthly magazine Hanada, which is essential reading not only for the Japanese people but for people all over the world.

I Will Continue to Call It Wuhan Fever with Conviction

As unconfirmed information, there is information that the disposal of the remains of experimental animals used at the Wuhan Institute of Virology was entrusted to contractors, and that the actual disposal was handled by low-income people, and that instead of being incinerated, they may have been sold at markets in Wuhan as gibier, wild meat.
Please do not misunderstand me.
This is strictly unconfirmed information.
It is not very different from mere speculation.
At the same time, however, there is also the fact that not only in Wuhan but in inland China, rats, snakes, masked palm civets, bats, rabbits, foxes, and other animals have been eaten as valuable sources of protein for far more than 1,000 years in some places, and until now, the emergence and spread of a pathogen like this virus apparently did not occur.
The unofficial explanation that “the virus may have come from a gibier market” is always accompanied by the question, “Then why now?”
Also, regarding the aforementioned mysteries that the differences in incubation periods are abnormally large, and that there is a threat that seems to pick and choose the characteristics of existing viruses, if one assumes an accident such as the one mentioned above, they become easier to explain.

Omission

On that basis, I first named the present virus “Wuhan fever” and then began my activities.
Why?
Because I believe this crisis was produced by China’s present peculiar dictatorship, and this contains no element of prejudice or discrimination.
It is objective risk hedging as a humble specialist, and it is indispensable for the future.
Risk hedging means preventing in advance undesirable elements that may be feared in the future.
As mentioned above, I expected that the WHO would choose a name intended to erase, for the future, the fact that it was a virus originating in China.
As expected, it was given the name COVID-19, a name from which neither the essence nor anything else can be understood.
The dictatorship under which President Xi Jinping is rushing forward, even changing the Constitution, is not an ordinary dictatorship even for the Chinese Communist Party.
It is a dictatorship modeled on Chairman Mao Zedong.
Chairman Mao Zedong, for the purpose of regaining his own power, launched the Cultural Revolution and used even children to whom he gave the name Red Guards, killing tens of millions of his own people, in a peculiar dictatorship in which even now the number of dead cannot be confirmed.
President Xi does not launch a Cultural Revolution, but under the pretext of eliminating corruption, he has buried all his political enemies.
The fact that the mayor of Wuhan feared this central authority and did not report the truth about Wuhan fever is not merely a matter of the mayor’s personality.
It is, in the first place, the responsibility of the Xi system that made a yes-man mayor.
Furthermore, it is not the responsibility of President Xi alone.
It is the problem of the Chinese Communist Party system, which still displays the beautified, enormous face of Chairman Mao Zedong in Tiananmen Square.
What would happen if Prime Minister Abe in Japan had killed even one citizen?
If the virus of Wuhan fever had been dealt with at the same time as its outbreak, it would never have become a crisis that torments the world to this extent.
If China’s peculiar responsibility is made ambiguous this time, it is certain that our children and grandchildren will again face the threat of a new virus.
That is why I will continue to call it Wuhan fever with conviction.
And what I continued to say at the Liberal Democratic Party’s task force and divisional meetings, wishing it to penetrate the members of both houses of the Diet of the Liberal Democratic Party and the government, is the true essence of crisis management.
The purpose is not to manage the crisis.
Whether it is an infectious disease or terrorism, if we shrink back, we lose.
Management is a means in order not to lose.
When I first entered Jerusalem, I stayed at a hospice, an inn for pilgrims, in the Old City, where the Lord Jesus walked carrying the cross, and I learned that no terrorism occurs there.
Conversely, when I walked in the New City, I saw blood that could not be completely wiped away stuck to the floor of every restaurant.
Those restaurants are full every night.
The people of Israel told me again and again, “If we eat only at home, or if we go out only to the Old City, then we lose.”
I also listen to the claims of the Palestinians.
I am not saying this in defense of Israel.
The decrease in terrorism is not caused only by this.
But it is one of the reasons why it decreased.
This article continues.