1. International Health Regulations draft Amendments:
-Expand the definitions of pandemics and health emergencies, including the introduction of ‘potential’ for harm rather than actual harm. It also expands the definition of health products that fall under this to include any commodity or process that may impact on the response or “improve quality of life”.
-Change the recommendations of the IHR from ‘non binding’ to mandatory instructions that the States undertake to follow and implement.
-Solidify the Director General’s (DG’s) ability to -
- independently declare emergencies.
-Set up an extensive surveillance process in all States, which WHO will verify regularly through a country review mechanism
-Enable WHO to share country data without consent.
-Give WHO control over certain country resources, including requirements for financial contributions, and provision of intellectual property and know-how (within the broad definition of health products above).
-Ensure national support for promotion of censorship activities by WHO to prevent contrary approaches and concerns from being freely disseminated.
-Change existing IHR provisions affecting individuals from non-binding to binding, including border closures, travel restrictions, confinement (quarantine), medical examinations and medication of individuals. The latter would encompass requirements for injection with vaccines or other pharmaceuticals.
2. CA+ (treaty):
-Set up an international supply network overseen by WHO.
-Fund the structures and processes by requiring ≥5% of national health budgets to be devoted to health emergencies.
-Set up a ‘Governing Body’, under the auspices of WHO, to oversee the whole process.
-Expand scope by emphasising a ‘One Health’ agenda, defined as a recognition that a very broad range of aspects of life and the biosphere can impact health, and therefore fall under the ‘potential’ to spread harm across borders as an international health emergency.
"In abandoning its principles, WHO consigned millions of girls to nightly rape through child marriage...." The hyperlink on the "child marriage" leads to a unicef page, where this term is defined with the assertion that "Marriage before the age of 18 is a fundamental violation of human rights." There are millions of happily married women that would beg to differ with this definition, women who were married before the age of 18. In fact, it is arguable that many societies of history would never have survived if women hadn't married that young. It is not correct to equate rape with marriage just because a woman married younger than 18. Furthermore, a significant percentage of females in America engage in sex by the age of 14. Somehow this is fine while marriage is rape?
As much as I agree with the general thrust of this article, statements like these are actually at the heart of the problem with the WHO: people in power trying to making moral judgments against what has been the customs and norms of societies for generations, customs that have been pleasant, safe, moral, and rewarding. Instead, these people invent new moral codes, while subjecting women everywhere to frustration, fornication, and children out of wedlock.
Arranged marriages are bad and minors can't adequately make a decision like that. I disagree. One state has an age of consent at 14, it's usually 18 in America and should be across the country, barring closely similar ages like 19 and 17, or other nuanced circumstances. Consensual sex between teenagers of similar ages will happen, is not equivalent to rape, and is not equivalent to arranged marriage of a minor. Arranged marriage of a minor that results in sexual intercourse is in my mind, literally rape if the minor did not want the marriage. Since I have trouble thinking anyone under 18 is capable of making a life altering decision like marriage, then even if they "desire" to be wed, it still seems arranged. Marriage of minors does seem incredibly immoral. Would you say, murder is immoral? Would you condemn a "culture" that condones it? I would, and I feel the same with marriage of minors. They are both incredibly immoral actions regardless of their cultural justification
Indeed, and for anyone to claim that forced, coerced, and/or arranged marriages somehow "protect" women and girls, that is literally the logic of a protection racket. Combined with cultural relativism, false equivalence, begging the question, argument by outrage, and other logical fallacies.
Thank you!! Guy had me thinking I was the crazy one :P I had to block him. Honestly it was the weirdest conversation I've ever had the displeasure in engaging in
You have proven one of my points. You justify fornication between teenagers as normal and acceptable, while utterly condemning marriage. On what possible basis? What percentage of teenage fornication leads to broken young girls? Or to teenage single mothers? Or to harmful abortions? Or to drug addictions? Look around, if you really care about women as you claim to. The evidence of mass tragedy is screaming out in the west. That is fine, in your opinion? And normal? But marriage, where a man cares for, loves, cherishes, promises to support the woman, and builds a stable home for any forthcoming children, that is reprehensible? Is it not all because you detest the concept of "arranged marriages"? Why? Is it not that your moral values on this is based on 60 years of Hollywood movies that repeatedly depict arranged marriages as offensive to women, while fornication with complete strangers is depicted as wholesome, honorable, and heroic? I invite you to think again. Movies are made up fiction. In the real world, fornication is destroying women, and permits young men to be reckless, irresponsible and hurtful towards them - all with almost no cost to the man.
A custom and norm is not always moral, of course not. I made that clear in my post. But how many immoral customs do you turn a blind eye to in the world, while yet indignant at arranged marriages as if it's as bad as murder? At least be consistent with your own conclusions. If it is rape for a man to marry a 17 year old girl, then it is rape and pillaging for a man to fornicate with the same.
Two teenagers choosing of their own volition to have sex is not comparable to an adult deciding a child has to get married, you absolute nitwit. Do you even know what "free will" is? These replies are unhinged dude, you should be living in the middle east with this type of mindset. Imagine saying "you detest the concept of arranged marriages? Why?" and being fucking serious about it
Let me be perfectly blunt. I had an acquaintance in high school who at the age of 16 set a goal to have sex with as many virgins as possible. And he was sickeningly successful. He shared with me his procedure of seducing virgins and then dumping them, never to talk to them again. What he was doing was 100% legal. And by your comments, you think it normal and OK. I think he should have been executed as a serial rapist. Every girl or woman I have ever met could feel my deep love and respect for women. I suggest it is your position that hates women.
For the record, I grew up in Canada, and once thought similarly to you about arranged marriages - until I looked into the facts. I invite you to do the same. Thus far I've provided sound discourse. You've digressed to name calling and vulgar language.
"execute a 16 year old who had consensual sex because I want to call him a serial rapist". Lets be thankful you aren't making any important decisions then. You're weird as fuck. That blunt enough for you? Your unhinged attempt at justifying arranged child marriage is not "sound discourse", it's creepy.
You're literally coming off like one of these guys dude
"all women could feel my deep deep love, let me execute people I personally feel didn't express this same amount of lovvveeee when they had CONSENSUAL SEX (Somehow, that's rape), I'm awesome and everyone else is a scumbag, girls would be happy with me if it were arranged, so why should they get FREE WILL?? MUAHAHAH"
I'm trolling you a bit now, but yeah you're weird for real for all this stuff. Have a nice life
Although one may still be wrong, one is not weird when millions of people have and do think the same. I have said nothing about forced marriages nor marriages against free will. That is a false assumption on your part. You are skirting the issues, and continue to insult me without dealing with my points. What is clear is that you think it perfectly fine for a man to violate one girl after the other as long as each girl consents (though none of the girls - children as you call them - saw what he was up to) and he is near her age, yet if two people consentually agree to an arranged marriage, even though 2 years older than the fornicators, somehow that is wicked? And you think I'm messed up?
You discredit me for mentioning capital punishment of a 16 year old, yet fail to grasp that you have granted to 16 year olds full abilities to engage in consensual sex, while simultaneously denying them adult courts. And, for the record, he was 18 when he told me what I shared above.
All of this is my point: world health should stick to health, and let debates about morality and law be made by individual states, law makers, politicians and by theologians. If you have a different view than I do about what is rape, or what type of punishments serial rapists should receive, then discuss it honestly. But it is inappropriate to denigrate the practice of millions of people in a different country in the name of world health in an article addressing the overreach of the WHO into sovereign states.
"When WHO was set up in 1946 to help coordinate responses to major health problems, the world was emerging from the last great bout of fascism and colonialism. Both these societal models were sold on the basis of centralising power for a greater good."
Is it right to lump colonialism with fascism, as two equally evil models? The USA began as a colony of Great Britain. So did Canada and Australia. Are we to assume these were bad things? The British empire was fundamentally unique in world history, as it in general sought to educate, develop, heal,.and bless the peoples of the world. However much they failed here or there to achieve such lofty goals, to lump colonialism with fascism is a grave mistake.
Maybe you are unaware, but the majority of tribes in America were cannibals, honored cold blooded murder as essential for manhood, and struggled daily to obtain basic things like food and clothing. None had invented even the wheel. The avg life expectancy was typically less than 40. I'd be hard pressed to name one tribe that isn't substantially better off now, despite endless complaints by many of them.
Further, and more to the point, one would be hard pressed to say Britain even tried to colonize the American natives.
And finally, if you so wish, and believe, have you given all your own land and wealth back to the natives, as you seem to think proper?
The problem here is that David Bell has mixed morality with the WHO agenda and takeover. Let people discuss morality openly, honestly, and respectfully. But it is not necessary to assume basic propositions of the WHO in order to prove it has gone down a path of tyrany. As in my other post, that is a core problem with the WHO: people in power taking religious authority to force a specific moral code without regard to individual opinions, religious beliefs, cultural norms, or even historic proof. That, it seems to me, is the antithesis of world health.
Yeah I'm not going to read multiple paragraphs about how killing large amounts of people is justified because their violent culture sucks from the guy who just tried to justify arranged child marriage on the basis of "let the culture breath"
Sorry you're not willing to read. I never remotely justified killing large amounts of people. Nor did I imply anyone's culture sucks. Nor have you addressed any of my points.
I fail to see how I did either. What is certain is that you have insulted the cultures of nearly half the world's population when you tell me I should live in the middle east because I speak about arranged marriages and allowing marriages when one is younger than 18. Your hypocrisy is noticed.
"We are building an Orwellian future...." Who is meant by "we"? This word "we" is used more than 2 dozen times, not counting "our" or "us." Usually "we" means the author and his colleagues. Or, it could mean the author and his readers. But, and very oddly, I'm certain the author does not here wish to include himself in his own "We." In which case, who does he mean? Everybody else?
As a reader, I reject the notion that the author's "we" includes either myself or most of the people I know. I suggest an alternative writing style, please.
"Why it’s hard to acknowledge reality" might not be the best way to frame it, insofar as acknowledging their Reality is what Globocap demands we do. Another way of putting it is that, being as sick as our secrets, we deny what's happening. Since "Reality" has been co-opted, it might be more effective to talk about what's happening, what's really happening, the truth of what's happening.
Accomplishing anything worthwhile and cost-effective through the UN is like pissing on a violin to make music. All we need to remember is the UN track record in Haiti (child rape) and Rwanda (genocide), all under the UN’s watch.
Brilliant article. Will the illiberal professional middle-class 'liberal left' ever wake up to the fact that they are enabling fascism, under the guise of 'health security'? (This will in turn to be reinforced under the guise of 'climate security', with there being an overlap in the narrative).
It is all under the UN and the Resistance here will be fierce.
Which words did I not understand?
SUMMARY of WHO IHR proposals
1. International Health Regulations draft Amendments:
-Expand the definitions of pandemics and health emergencies, including the introduction of ‘potential’ for harm rather than actual harm. It also expands the definition of health products that fall under this to include any commodity or process that may impact on the response or “improve quality of life”.
-Change the recommendations of the IHR from ‘non binding’ to mandatory instructions that the States undertake to follow and implement.
-Solidify the Director General’s (DG’s) ability to -
- independently declare emergencies.
-Set up an extensive surveillance process in all States, which WHO will verify regularly through a country review mechanism
-Enable WHO to share country data without consent.
-Give WHO control over certain country resources, including requirements for financial contributions, and provision of intellectual property and know-how (within the broad definition of health products above).
-Ensure national support for promotion of censorship activities by WHO to prevent contrary approaches and concerns from being freely disseminated.
-Change existing IHR provisions affecting individuals from non-binding to binding, including border closures, travel restrictions, confinement (quarantine), medical examinations and medication of individuals. The latter would encompass requirements for injection with vaccines or other pharmaceuticals.
2. CA+ (treaty):
-Set up an international supply network overseen by WHO.
-Fund the structures and processes by requiring ≥5% of national health budgets to be devoted to health emergencies.
-Set up a ‘Governing Body’, under the auspices of WHO, to oversee the whole process.
-Expand scope by emphasising a ‘One Health’ agenda, defined as a recognition that a very broad range of aspects of life and the biosphere can impact health, and therefore fall under the ‘potential’ to spread harm across borders as an international health emergency.
Very scary indeed
"In abandoning its principles, WHO consigned millions of girls to nightly rape through child marriage...." The hyperlink on the "child marriage" leads to a unicef page, where this term is defined with the assertion that "Marriage before the age of 18 is a fundamental violation of human rights." There are millions of happily married women that would beg to differ with this definition, women who were married before the age of 18. In fact, it is arguable that many societies of history would never have survived if women hadn't married that young. It is not correct to equate rape with marriage just because a woman married younger than 18. Furthermore, a significant percentage of females in America engage in sex by the age of 14. Somehow this is fine while marriage is rape?
As much as I agree with the general thrust of this article, statements like these are actually at the heart of the problem with the WHO: people in power trying to making moral judgments against what has been the customs and norms of societies for generations, customs that have been pleasant, safe, moral, and rewarding. Instead, these people invent new moral codes, while subjecting women everywhere to frustration, fornication, and children out of wedlock.
Arranged marriages are bad and minors can't adequately make a decision like that. I disagree. One state has an age of consent at 14, it's usually 18 in America and should be across the country, barring closely similar ages like 19 and 17, or other nuanced circumstances. Consensual sex between teenagers of similar ages will happen, is not equivalent to rape, and is not equivalent to arranged marriage of a minor. Arranged marriage of a minor that results in sexual intercourse is in my mind, literally rape if the minor did not want the marriage. Since I have trouble thinking anyone under 18 is capable of making a life altering decision like marriage, then even if they "desire" to be wed, it still seems arranged. Marriage of minors does seem incredibly immoral. Would you say, murder is immoral? Would you condemn a "culture" that condones it? I would, and I feel the same with marriage of minors. They are both incredibly immoral actions regardless of their cultural justification
Indeed, and for anyone to claim that forced, coerced, and/or arranged marriages somehow "protect" women and girls, that is literally the logic of a protection racket. Combined with cultural relativism, false equivalence, begging the question, argument by outrage, and other logical fallacies.
Thank you!! Guy had me thinking I was the crazy one :P I had to block him. Honestly it was the weirdest conversation I've ever had the displeasure in engaging in
You're very welcome. I have long had the displeasure of debating insufferable people like him the in the past as well.
You have proven one of my points. You justify fornication between teenagers as normal and acceptable, while utterly condemning marriage. On what possible basis? What percentage of teenage fornication leads to broken young girls? Or to teenage single mothers? Or to harmful abortions? Or to drug addictions? Look around, if you really care about women as you claim to. The evidence of mass tragedy is screaming out in the west. That is fine, in your opinion? And normal? But marriage, where a man cares for, loves, cherishes, promises to support the woman, and builds a stable home for any forthcoming children, that is reprehensible? Is it not all because you detest the concept of "arranged marriages"? Why? Is it not that your moral values on this is based on 60 years of Hollywood movies that repeatedly depict arranged marriages as offensive to women, while fornication with complete strangers is depicted as wholesome, honorable, and heroic? I invite you to think again. Movies are made up fiction. In the real world, fornication is destroying women, and permits young men to be reckless, irresponsible and hurtful towards them - all with almost no cost to the man.
A custom and norm is not always moral, of course not. I made that clear in my post. But how many immoral customs do you turn a blind eye to in the world, while yet indignant at arranged marriages as if it's as bad as murder? At least be consistent with your own conclusions. If it is rape for a man to marry a 17 year old girl, then it is rape and pillaging for a man to fornicate with the same.
Two teenagers choosing of their own volition to have sex is not comparable to an adult deciding a child has to get married, you absolute nitwit. Do you even know what "free will" is? These replies are unhinged dude, you should be living in the middle east with this type of mindset. Imagine saying "you detest the concept of arranged marriages? Why?" and being fucking serious about it
Let me be perfectly blunt. I had an acquaintance in high school who at the age of 16 set a goal to have sex with as many virgins as possible. And he was sickeningly successful. He shared with me his procedure of seducing virgins and then dumping them, never to talk to them again. What he was doing was 100% legal. And by your comments, you think it normal and OK. I think he should have been executed as a serial rapist. Every girl or woman I have ever met could feel my deep love and respect for women. I suggest it is your position that hates women.
For the record, I grew up in Canada, and once thought similarly to you about arranged marriages - until I looked into the facts. I invite you to do the same. Thus far I've provided sound discourse. You've digressed to name calling and vulgar language.
"execute a 16 year old who had consensual sex because I want to call him a serial rapist". Lets be thankful you aren't making any important decisions then. You're weird as fuck. That blunt enough for you? Your unhinged attempt at justifying arranged child marriage is not "sound discourse", it's creepy.
You're literally coming off like one of these guys dude
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_xXzdBC2Gk&t=30s
"all women could feel my deep deep love, let me execute people I personally feel didn't express this same amount of lovvveeee when they had CONSENSUAL SEX (Somehow, that's rape), I'm awesome and everyone else is a scumbag, girls would be happy with me if it were arranged, so why should they get FREE WILL?? MUAHAHAH"
I'm trolling you a bit now, but yeah you're weird for real for all this stuff. Have a nice life
Although one may still be wrong, one is not weird when millions of people have and do think the same. I have said nothing about forced marriages nor marriages against free will. That is a false assumption on your part. You are skirting the issues, and continue to insult me without dealing with my points. What is clear is that you think it perfectly fine for a man to violate one girl after the other as long as each girl consents (though none of the girls - children as you call them - saw what he was up to) and he is near her age, yet if two people consentually agree to an arranged marriage, even though 2 years older than the fornicators, somehow that is wicked? And you think I'm messed up?
You discredit me for mentioning capital punishment of a 16 year old, yet fail to grasp that you have granted to 16 year olds full abilities to engage in consensual sex, while simultaneously denying them adult courts. And, for the record, he was 18 when he told me what I shared above.
All of this is my point: world health should stick to health, and let debates about morality and law be made by individual states, law makers, politicians and by theologians. If you have a different view than I do about what is rape, or what type of punishments serial rapists should receive, then discuss it honestly. But it is inappropriate to denigrate the practice of millions of people in a different country in the name of world health in an article addressing the overreach of the WHO into sovereign states.
"When WHO was set up in 1946 to help coordinate responses to major health problems, the world was emerging from the last great bout of fascism and colonialism. Both these societal models were sold on the basis of centralising power for a greater good."
Is it right to lump colonialism with fascism, as two equally evil models? The USA began as a colony of Great Britain. So did Canada and Australia. Are we to assume these were bad things? The British empire was fundamentally unique in world history, as it in general sought to educate, develop, heal,.and bless the peoples of the world. However much they failed here or there to achieve such lofty goals, to lump colonialism with fascism is a grave mistake.
Idk, maybe we should ask the native Americans. Oh wait. Nevermind.
Zing!
Maybe you are unaware, but the majority of tribes in America were cannibals, honored cold blooded murder as essential for manhood, and struggled daily to obtain basic things like food and clothing. None had invented even the wheel. The avg life expectancy was typically less than 40. I'd be hard pressed to name one tribe that isn't substantially better off now, despite endless complaints by many of them.
Further, and more to the point, one would be hard pressed to say Britain even tried to colonize the American natives.
And finally, if you so wish, and believe, have you given all your own land and wealth back to the natives, as you seem to think proper?
The problem here is that David Bell has mixed morality with the WHO agenda and takeover. Let people discuss morality openly, honestly, and respectfully. But it is not necessary to assume basic propositions of the WHO in order to prove it has gone down a path of tyrany. As in my other post, that is a core problem with the WHO: people in power taking religious authority to force a specific moral code without regard to individual opinions, religious beliefs, cultural norms, or even historic proof. That, it seems to me, is the antithesis of world health.
Yeah I'm not going to read multiple paragraphs about how killing large amounts of people is justified because their violent culture sucks from the guy who just tried to justify arranged child marriage on the basis of "let the culture breath"
Indeed. It's the (neo)colonialist mindset in a nutshell, which dovetails with the neoreactionary mindset.
Sorry you're not willing to read. I never remotely justified killing large amounts of people. Nor did I imply anyone's culture sucks. Nor have you addressed any of my points.
Uhh huh sure you didn't
I fail to see how I did either. What is certain is that you have insulted the cultures of nearly half the world's population when you tell me I should live in the middle east because I speak about arranged marriages and allowing marriages when one is younger than 18. Your hypocrisy is noticed.
"We are building an Orwellian future...." Who is meant by "we"? This word "we" is used more than 2 dozen times, not counting "our" or "us." Usually "we" means the author and his colleagues. Or, it could mean the author and his readers. But, and very oddly, I'm certain the author does not here wish to include himself in his own "We." In which case, who does he mean? Everybody else?
As a reader, I reject the notion that the author's "we" includes either myself or most of the people I know. I suggest an alternative writing style, please.
"Why it’s hard to acknowledge reality" might not be the best way to frame it, insofar as acknowledging their Reality is what Globocap demands we do. Another way of putting it is that, being as sick as our secrets, we deny what's happening. Since "Reality" has been co-opted, it might be more effective to talk about what's happening, what's really happening, the truth of what's happening.
Accomplishing anything worthwhile and cost-effective through the UN is like pissing on a violin to make music. All we need to remember is the UN track record in Haiti (child rape) and Rwanda (genocide), all under the UN’s watch.
Brilliant article. Will the illiberal professional middle-class 'liberal left' ever wake up to the fact that they are enabling fascism, under the guise of 'health security'? (This will in turn to be reinforced under the guise of 'climate security', with there being an overlap in the narrative).