The WHO Pandemic Agreement: A Guide By David Bell, Thi Thuy Van Dinh March 22, 2024 Government, Society 30 minute read The World Health Organization (WHO) and its 194 Member States have been engaged for over two years in the development of two ‘instruments’ or agreements with the intent of radically changing the way pandemics and other health emergencies are managed. One, consisting of draft amendments to the existing International health Regulations (IHR), seeks to change the current IHR non-binding recommendations into requirements or binding recommendations, by having countries “undertake” to implement those given by the WHO in future declared health emergencies. It covers all ‘public health emergencies of international concern’ (PHEIC), with a single person, the WHO Director-General (DG) determining what a PHEIC is, where it extends, and when it ends. It specifies mandated vaccines, border closures, and other directives understood as lockdowns among the requirements the DG can impose. It is discussed further elsewhere and still under negotiation in Geneva. A second document, previously known as the (draft) Pandemic Treaty, then Pandemic Accord, and more recently the Pandemic Agreement, seeks to specify governance, supply chains, and various other interventions aimed at preventing, preparing for, and responding to, pandemics (pandemic prevention, preparedness and response – PPPR). It is currently being negotiated by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB). Both texts will be subject to a vote at the May 2024 World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva, Switzerland. These votes are intended, by those promoting these projects, to bring governance of future multi-country healthcare emergencies (or threats thereof) under the WHO umbrella. The latest version of the draft Pandemic Agreement (here forth the ‘Agreement’) was released on 7th March 2024. However, it is still being negotiated by various committees comprising representatives of Member States and other interested entities. It has been through multiple iterations over two years, and looks like it. With the teeth of the pandemic response proposals in the IHR, the Agreement looks increasingly irrelevant, or at least unsure of its purpose, picking up bits and pieces in a half-hearted way that the IHR amendments do not, or cannot, include. However, as discussed below, it is far from irrelevant. Historical Perspective These aim to increase the centralization of decision-making within the WHO as the “directing and coordinating authority.” This terminology comes from the WHO’s 1946 Constitution, developed in the aftermath of the Second World War as the world faced the outcomes of European fascism and the similar approaches widely imposed through colonialist regimes. The WHO would support emerging countries, with rapidly expanding and poorly resourced populations struggling under high disease burdens, and coordinate some areas of international support as these sovereign countries requested it. The emphasis of action was on coordinating rather than directing. In the 80 years prior to the WHO’s existence, international public health had grown within a more directive mindset, with a series of meetings by colonial and slave-owning powers from 1851 to manage pandemics, culminating in the inauguration of the Office Internationale d’Hygiene Publique in Paris in 1907, and later the League of Nations Health Office. World powers imposed health dictates on those less powerful, in other parts of the world and increasingly on their own population through the eugenics movement and similar approaches. Public health would direct, for the greater good, as a tool of those who wish to direct the lives of others. The WHO, governed by the WHA, was to be very different. Newly independent States and their former colonial masters were ostensibly on an equal footing within the WHA (one country – one vote), and the WHO’s work overall was to be an example of how human rights could dominate the way society works. The model for international public health, as exemplified in the Declaration of Alma Ata in 1978, was to be horizontal rather than vertical, with communities and countries in the driving seat. With the evolution of the WHO in recent decades from a core funding model (countries give money, the WHO decides under the WHA guidance how to spend it) to a model based on specified funding (funders, both public and increasingly private, instruct the WHO on how to spend it), the WHO has inevitably changed to become a public-private partnership required to serve the interests of funders rather than populations. As most funding comes from a few countries with major Pharma industrial bases, or private investors and corporations in the same industry, the WHO has been required to emphasize the use of pharmaceuticals and downplay evidence and knowledge where these clash (if it wants to keep all its staff funded). It is helpful to view the draft Agreement, and the IHR amendments, in this context. Why May 2024? The WHO, together with the World Bank, G20, and other institutions have been emphasizing the urgency of putting the new pandemic instruments in place earnestly, before the ‘next pandemic.’ This is based on claims that the world was unprepared for Covid-19, and that the economic and health harm would be somehow avoidable if we had these agreements in place. They emphasize, contrary to evidence that Covid-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2) origins involve laboratory manipulation, that the main threats we face are natural, and that these are increasing exponentially and present an “existential” threat to humanity. The data on which the WHO, the World Bank, and G20 base these claims demonstrates the contrary, with reported natural outbreaks having increased as detection technologies have developed, but reducing in mortality rate, and in numbers, over the past 10 to 20 years.. A paper cited by the World Bank to justify urgency and quoted as suggesting a 3x increase in risk in the coming decade actually suggests that a Covid-19-like event would occur roughly every 129 years, and a Spanish-flu repetition every 292 to 877 years. Such predictions are unable to take into account the rapidly changing nature of medicine and improved sanitation and nutrition (most deaths from Spanish flu would not have occurred if modern antibiotics had been available), and so may still overestimate risk. Similarly, the WHO’s own priority disease list for new outbreaks only includes two diseases of proven natural origin that have over 1,000 historical deaths attributed to them. It is well demonstrated that the risk and expected burden of pandemics is misrepresented by major international agencies in current discussions. The urgency for May 2024 is clearly therefore inadequately supported, firstly because neither the WHO nor others have demonstrated how the harms accrued through Covid-19 would be reduced through the measures proposed, and secondly because the burden and risk is misrepresented. In this context, the state of the Agreement is clearly not where it should be as a draft international legally binding agreement intended to impose considerable financial and other obligations on States and populations. This is particularly problematic as the proposed expenditure; the proposed budget is over $31 billion per year, with over $10 billion more on other One Health activities. Much of this will have to be diverted from addressing other diseases burdens that impose far greater burden. This trade-off, essential to understand in public health policy development, has not yet been clearly addressed by the WHO. The WHO DG stated recently that the WHO does not want the power to impose vaccine mandates or lockdowns on anyone, and does not want this. This begs the question of why either of the current WHO pandemic instruments is being proposed, both as legally binding documents. The current IHR (2005) already sets out such approaches as recommendations the DG can make, and there is nothing non-mandatory that countries cannot do now without pushing new treaty-like mechanisms through a vote in Geneva. Based on the DG’s claims, they are essentially redundant, and what new non-mandatory clauses they contain, as set out below, are certainly not urgent. Clauses that are mandatory (Member States “shall”) must be considered within national decision-making contexts and appear against the WHO’s stated intent. Common sense would suggest that the Agreement, and the accompanying IHR amendments, be properly thought through before Member States commit. The WHO has already abandoned the legal requirement for a 4-month review time for the IHR amendments (Article 55.2 IHR), which are also still under negotiation just 2 months before the WHA deadline. The Agreement should also have at least such a period for States to properly consider whether to agree – treaties normally take many years to develop and negotiate and no valid arguments have been put forward as to why these should be different. The Covid-19 response resulted in an unprecedented transfer of wealth from those of lower income to the very wealthy few, completely contrary to the way in which the WHO was intended to affect human society. A considerable portion of these pandemic profits went to current sponsors of the WHO, and these same corporate entities and investors are set to further benefit from the new pandemic agreements. As written, the Pandemic Agreement risks entrenching such centralization and profit-taking, and the accompanying unprecedented restrictions on human rights and freedoms, as a public health norm. To continue with a clearly flawed agreement simply because of a previously set deadline, when no clear population benefit is articulated and no true urgency demonstrated, would therefore be a major step backward in international public health. Basic principles of proportionality, human agency, and community empowerment, essential for health and human rights outcomes, are missing or paid lip-service. The WHO clearly wishes to increase its funding and show it is ‘doing something,’ but must first articulate why the voluntary provisions of the current IHR are insufficient. It is hoped that by systematically reviewing some key clauses of the agreement here, it will become clear why a rethink of the whole approach is necessary. The full text is found below. The commentary below concentrates on selected draft provisions of the latest publicly available version of the draft agreement that seem to be unclear or potentially problematic. Much of the remaining text is essentially pointless as it reiterates vague intentions to be found in other documents or activities which countries normally undertake in the course of running health services, and have no place in a focused legally-binding international agreement. REVISED Draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement. 7th March, 2024 Preamble Recognizing that the World Health Organization…is the directing and coordinating authority on international health work. This is inconsistent with a recent statement by the WHO DG that the WHO has no interest or intent to direct country health responses. To reiterate it here suggests that the DG is not representing the true position regarding the Agreement. “Directing authority” is however in line with the proposed IHR Amendments (and the WHO’s Constitution), under which countries will “undertake” ahead of time to follow the DG’s recommendations (which thereby become instructions). As the HR amendments make clear, this is intended to apply even to a perceived threat rather than actual harm. Recalling the constitution of the World Health Organization…highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition. This statement recalls fundamental understandings of public health, and is of importance here as it raises the question of why the WHO did not strongly condemn prolonged school closures, workplace closures, and other impoverishing policies during the Covid-19 response. In 2019, WHO made clear that these dangers should prevent actions we now call ‘lockdowns’ from being imposed. Deeply concerned by the gross inequities at national and international levels that hindered timely and equitable access to medical and other Covid-19 pandemic-related products, and the serious shortcomings in pandemic preparedness. In terms of health equity (as distinct from commodity of ‘vaccine’ equity), inequity in the Covid-19 response was not in failing to provide a vaccine against former variants to immune, young people in low-income countries who were at far higher risk from endemic diseases, but in the disproportionate harm to them of uniformly-imposed NPIs that reduced current and future income and basic healthcare, as was noted by the WHO in 2019 Pandemic Influenza recommendations. The failure of the text to recognize this suggests that lessons from Covid-19 have not informed this draft Agreement. The WHO has not yet demonstrated how pandemic ‘preparedness,’ in the terms they use below, would have reduced impact, given that there is poor correlation between strictness or speed of response and eventual outcomes. Reiterating the need to work towards…an equitable approach to mitigate the risk that pandemics exacerbate existing inequities in access to health services, As above – in the past century, the issue of inequity has been most pronounced in pandemic response, rather than the impact of the virus itself (excluding the physiological variation in risk). Most recorded deaths from acute pandemics, since the Spanish flu, were during Covid-19, in which the virus hit mainly sick elderly, but response impacted working-age adults and children heavily and will continue to have effect, due to increased poverty and debt; reduced education and child marriage, in future generations. These have disproportionately affected lower-income people, and particularly women. The lack of recognition of this in this document, though they are recognized by the World Bank and UN agencies elsewhere, must raise real questions on whether this Agreement has been thoroughly thought through, and the process of development been sufficiently inclusive and objective. Chapter I. Introduction Article 1. Use of terms (i) “pathogen with pandemic potential” means any pathogen that has been identified to infect a human and that is: novel (not yet characterized) or known (including a variant of a known pathogen), potentially highly transmissible and/or highly virulent with the potential to cause a public health emergency of international concern. This provides a very wide scope to alter provisions. Any pathogen that can infect humans and is potentially highly transmissible or virulent, though yet uncharacterized means virtually any coronavirus, influenza virus, or a plethora of other relatively common pathogen groups. The IHR Amendments intend that the DG alone can make this call, over the advice of others, as occurred with monkeypox in 2022. (j) “persons in vulnerable situations” means individuals, groups or communities with a disproportionate increased risk of infection, severity, disease or mortality. This is a good definition – in Covid-19 context, would mean the sick elderly, and so is relevant to targeting a response. “Universal health coverage” means that all people have access to the full range of quality health services they need, when and where they need them, without financial hardship. While the general UHC concept is good, it is time a sensible (rather than patently silly) definition was adopted. Society cannot afford the full range of possible interventions and remedies for all, and clearly there is a scale of cost vs benefit that prioritizes certain ones over others. Sensible definitions make action more likely, and inaction harder to justify. One could argue that none should have the full range until all have good basic care, but clearly the earth will not support ‘the full range’ for 8 billion people. Article 2. Objective This Agreement is specifically for pandemics (a poorly defined term but essentially a pathogen that spreads rapidly across national borders). In contrast, the IHR amendments accompanying it are broader in scope – for any public health emergencies of international concern. Article 3. Principles 2. the sovereign right of States to adopt, legislate and implement legislation The amendments to the IHR require States to undertake to follow WHO instructions ahead of time, before such instruction and context are known. These two documents must be understood, as noted later in the Agreement draft, as complementary. 3. equity as the goal and outcome of pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, ensuring the absence of unfair, avoidable or remediable differences among groups of people. This definition of equity here needs clarification. In the pandemic context, the WHO emphasized commodity (vaccine) equity during the Covid-19 response. Elimination of differences implied equal access to Covid-19 vaccines in countries with large aging, obese highly vulnerable populations (e.g. the USA or Italy), and those with young populations at minimal risk and with far more pressing health priorities (e.g. Niger or Uganda). Alternatively, but equally damaging, equal access to different age groups within a country when the risk-benefit ratio is clearly greatly different. This promotes worse health outcomes by diverting resources from where they are most useful, as it ignores heterogeneity of risk. Again, an adult approach is required in international agreements, rather than feel-good sentences, if they are going to have a positive impact. 5. …a more equitable and better prepared world to prevent, respond to and recover from pandemics As with ‘3’ above, this raises a fundamental problem: What if health equity demands that some populations divert resources to childhood nutrition and endemic diseases rather than the latest pandemic, as these are likely of far higher burden to many younger but lower-income populations? This would not be equity in the definition implied here, but would clearly lead to better and more equal health outcomes. The WHO must decide whether it is about uniform action, or minimizing poor health, as these are clearly very different. They are the difference between the WHO’s commodity equity, and true health equity. Chapter II. The world together equitably: achieving equity in, for and through pandemic prevention, preparedness and response Equity in health should imply a reasonably equal chance of overcoming or avoiding preventable sickness. The vast majority of sickness and death is due to either non-communicable diseases often related to lifestyle, such as obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus, undernutrition in childhood, and endemic infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDS. Achieving health equity would primarily mean addressing these. In this chapter of the draft Pandemic Agreement, equity is used to imply equal access to specific health commodities, particularly vaccines, for intermittent health emergencies, although these exert a small fraction of the burden of other diseases. It is, specifically, commodity-equity, and not geared to equalizing overall health burden but to enabling centrally-coordinated homogenous responses to unusual events. Article 4. Pandemic prevention and surveillance 2. The Parties shall undertake to cooperate: (b) in support of…initiatives aimed at preventing pandemics, in particular those that improve surveillance, early warning and risk assessment; .…and identify settings and activities presenting a risk of emergence and re-emergence of pathogens with pandemic potential. (c-h) [Paragraphs on water and sanitation, infection control, strengthening of biosafety, surveillance and prevention of vector-born diseases, and addressing antimicrobial resistance.] The WHO intends the Agreement to have force under international law. Therefore, countries are undertaking to put themselves under force of international law in regards to complying with the agreement’s stipulations. The provisions under this long article mostly cover general health stuff that countries try to do anyway. The difference will be that countries will be assessed on progress. Assessment can be fine if in context, less fine if it consists of entitled ‘experts’ from wealthy countries with little local knowledge or context. Perhaps such compliance is best left to national authorities, who are more in use with local needs and priorities. The justification for the international bureaucracy being built to support this, while fun for those involved, is unclear and will divert resources from actual health work. 6. The Conference of the Parties may adopt, as necessary, guidelines, recommendations and standards, including in relation to pandemic prevention capacities, to support the implementation of this Article. Here and later, the COP is invoked as a vehicle to decide on what will actually be done. The rules are explained later (Articles 21-23). While allowing more time is sensible, it begs the question of why it is not better to wait and discuss what is needed in the current INB process, before committing to a legally-binding agreement. This current article says nothing not already covered by the IHR2005 or other ongoing programs. Article 5. One Health approach to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response Nothing specific or new in this article. It seems redundant (it is advocating a holistic approach mentioned elsewhere) and so presumably is just to get the term ‘One Health’ into the agreement. (One could ask, why bother?) Some mainstream definitions of One Health (e.g. Lancet) consider that it means non-human species are on a par with humans in terms of rights and importance. If this is meant here, clearly most Member States would disagree. So we may assume that it is just words to keep someone happy (a little childish in an international document, but the term ‘One Health’ has been trending, like ‘equity,’ as if the concept of holistic approaches to public health were new). Article 6. Preparedness, health system resilience and recovery 2. Each Party commits…[to] : (a) routine and essential health services during pandemics with a focus on primary health care, routine immunization and mental health care, and with particular attention to persons in vulnerable situations (b) developing, strengthening and maintaining health infrastructure (c) developing post-pandemic health system recovery strategies (d) developing, strengthening and maintaining: health information systems This is good, and (a) seems to require avoidance of lockdowns (which inevitably cause the harms listed). Unfortunately other WHO documents lead one to assume this is not the intent…It does appear therefore that this is simply another list of fairly non-specific feel-good measures that have no useful place in a new legally-binding agreement, and which most countries are already undertaking. (e) promoting the use of social and behavioural sciences, risk communication and community engagement for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. This requires clarification, as the use of behavioral science during the Covid-19 response involved deliberate inducement of fear to promote behaviors that people would not otherwise follow (e.g. Spi-B). It is essential here that the document clarifies how behavioral science should be used ethically in healthcare. Otherwise, this is also a quite meaningless provision. Article 7. Health and care workforce This long Article discusses health workforce, training, retention, non-discrimination, stigma, bias, adequate remuneration, and other standard provisions for workplaces. It is unclear why it is included in a legally binding pandemic agreement, except for: 4. [The Parties]…shall invest in establishing, sustaining, coordinating and mobilizing a skilled and trained multidisciplinary global public health emergency workforce…Parties having established emergency health teams should inform WHO thereof and make best efforts to respond to requests for deployment… Emergency health teams established (within capacity etc.) – are something countries already do, when they have capacity. There is no reason to have this as a legally-binding instrument, and clearly no urgency to do so. Article 8. Preparedness monitoring and functional reviews 1. The Parties shall, building on existing and relevant tools, develop and implement an inclusive, transparent, effective and efficient pandemic prevention, preparedness and response monitoring and evaluation system. 2. Each Party shall assess, every five years, with technical support from the WHO Secretariat upon request, the functioning and readiness of, and gaps in, its pandemic prevention, preparedness and response capacity, based on the relevant tools and guidelines developed by WHO in partnership with relevant organizations at international, regional and sub-regional levels. Note that this is being required of countries that are already struggling to implement monitoring systems for major endemic diseases, including tuberculosis, malaria, HIV, and nutritional deficiencies. They will be legally bound to divert resources to pandemic prevention. While there is some overlap, it will inevitably divert resources from currently underfunded programs for diseases of far higher local burdens, and so (not theoretically, but inevitably) raise mortality. Poor countries are being required to put resources into problems deemed significant by richer countries. Article 9. Research and development Various general provisions about undertaking background research that countries are generally doing anyway, but with an ’emerging disease’ slant. Again, the INB fails to justify why this diversion of resources from researching greater disease burdens should occur in all countries (why not just those with excess resources?). Article 10. Sustainable and geographically diversified production Mostly non-binding but suggested cooperation on making pandemic-related products available, including support for manufacturing in “inter-pandemic times” (a fascinating rendering of ‘normal’), when they would only be viable through subsidies. Much of this is probably unimplementable, as it would not be practical to maintain facilities in most or all countries on stand-by for rare events, at cost of resources otherwise useful for other priorities. The desire to increase production in ‘developing’ countries will face major barriers and costs in terms of maintaining quality of production, particularly as many products will have limited use outside of rare outbreak situations. Article 11. Transfer of technology and know-how This article, always problematic for large pharmaceutical corporations sponsoring much WHO outbreak activities, is now watered down to weak requirements to ‘consider,’ promote,’ provide, within capabilities’ etc. Article 12. Access and benefit sharing This Article is intended to establish the WHO Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (PABS System). PABS is intended to “ensure rapid, systematic and timely access to biological materials of pathogens with pandemic potential and the genetic sequence data.” This system is of potential high relevance and needs to be interpreted in the context that SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen causing the recent Covid-19 outbreak, was highly likely to have escaped from a laboratory. PABS is intended to expand the laboratory storage, transport, and handling of such viruses, under the oversight of the WHO, an organization outside of national jurisdiction with no significant direct experience in handling biological materials. 3. When a Party has access to a pathogen [it shall]: (a) share with WHO any pathogen sequence information as soon as it is available to the Party; (b) as soon as biological materials are available to the Party, provide the materials to one or more laboratories and/or biorepositories participating in WHO-coordinated laboratory networks (CLNs), Subsequent clauses state that benefits will be shared, and seek to prevent recipient laboratories from patenting materials received from other countries. This has been a major concern of low-and middle-income countries previously, who perceive that institutions in wealthy countries patent and benefit from materials derived from less-wealthy populations. It remains to be seen whether provisions here will be sufficient to address this. The article then becomes yet more concerning: 6. WHO shall conclude legally binding standard PABS contracts with manufacturers to provide the following, taking into account the size, nature and capacities of the manufacturer: (a) annual monetary contributions to support the PABS System and relevant capacities in countries; the determination of the annual amount, use, and approach for monitoring and accountability, shall be finalized by the Parties; (b) real-time contributions of relevant diagnostics, therapeutics or vaccines produced by the manufacturer, 10% free of charge and 10% at not-for-profit prices during public health emergencies of international concern or pandemics, … It is clearly intended that the WHO becomes directly involved in setting up legally binding manufacturing contracts, despite the WHO being outside of national jurisdictional oversight, within the territories of Member States. The PABS system, and therefore its staff and dependent entities, are also to be supported in part by funds from the manufacturers whom they are supposed to be managing. The income of the organization will be dependent on maintaining positive relationships with these private entities in a similar way in which many national regulatory agencies are dependent upon funds from pharmaceutical companies whom their staff ostensibly regulate. In this case, the regulator will be even further removed from public oversight. The clause on 10% (why 10?) products being free of charge, and similar at cost, while ensuring lower-priced commodities irrespective of actual need (the outbreak may be confined to wealthy countries). The same entity, the WHO, will determine whether the triggering emergency exists, determine the response, and manage the contracts to provide the commodities, without direct jurisdictional oversight regarding the potential for corruption or conflict of interest. It is a remarkable system to suggest, irrespective of political or regulatory environment. 8. The Parties shall cooperate…public financing of research and development, prepurchase agreements, or regulatory procedures, to encourage and facilitate as many manufacturers as possible to enter into standard PABS contracts as early as possible. The article envisions that public funding will be used to build the process, ensuring essentially no-risk private profit. 10. To support operationalization of the PABS System, WHO shall…make such contracts public, while respecting commercial confidentiality. The public may know whom contracts are made with, but not all details of the contracts. There will therefore be no independent oversight of the clauses agreed between the WHO, a body outside of national jurisdiction and dependent of commercial companies for funding some of its work and salaries, and these same companies, on ‘needs’ that the WHO itself will have sole authority, under the proposed amendments to the IHR, to determine. The Article further states that the WHO shall use its own product regulatory system (prequalification) and Emergency Use Listing Procedure to open and stimulate markets for the manufacturers of these products. It is doubtful that any national government could make such an overall agreement, yet in May 2024 they will be voting to provide this to what is essentially a foreign, and partly privately financed, entity. Article 13. Supply chain and logistics The WHO will become convenor of a ‘Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network’ for commercially-produced products, to be supplied under WHO contracts when and where the WHO determines, whilst also having the role of ensuring safety of such products. Having mutual support coordinated between countries is good. Having this run by an organization that is significantly funded directly by those gaining from the sale of these same commodities seems reckless and counterintuitive. Few countries would allow this (or at least plan for it). For this to occur safely, the WHO would logically have to forgo all private investment, and greatly restrict national specified funding contributions. Otherwise, the conflicts of interest involved would destroy confidence in the system. There is no suggestion of such divestment from the WHO, but rather, as in Article 12, private sector dependency, directly tied to contracts, will increase. Article 13bis: National procurement- and distribution-related provisions While suffering the same (perhaps unavoidable) issues regarding commercial confidentiality, this alternate Article 13 seems far more appropriate, keeping commercial issues under national jurisdiction and avoiding the obvious conflict of interests that underpin funding for WHO activities and staffing. Article 14. Regulatory systems strengthening This entire Article reflects initiatives and programs already in place. Nothing here appears likely to add to current effort. Article 15. Liability and compensation management 1. Each Party shall consider developing, as necessary and in accordance with applicable law, national strategies for managing liability in its territory related to pandemic vaccines…no-fault compensation mechanisms… 2. The Parties…shall develop recommendations for the establishment and implementation of national, regional and/or global no-fault compensation mechanisms and strategies for managing liability during pandemic emergencies, including with regard to individuals that are in a humanitarian setting or vulnerable situations. This is quite remarkable, but also reflects some national legislation, in removing any fault or liability specifically from vaccine manufacturers, for harms done in pushing out vaccines to the public. During the Covid-19 response, genetic therapeutics being developed by BioNtech and Moderna were reclassified as vaccines, on the basis that an immune response is stimulated after they have modified intracellular biochemical pathways as a medicine normally does. This enabled specific trials normally required for carcinogenicity and teratogenicity to be bypassed, despite raised fetal abnormality rates in animal trials. It will enable the CEPI 100-day vaccine program, supported with private funding to support private mRNA vaccine manufacturers, to proceed without any risk to the manufacturer should there be subsequent public harm. Together with an earlier provision on public funding of research and manufacturing readiness, and the removal of former wording requiring intellectual property sharing in Article 11, this ensures vaccine manufacturers and their investors make profit in effective absence of risk. These entities are currently heavily invested in support for WHO, and were strongly aligned with the introduction of newly restrictive outbreak responses that emphasized and sometimes mandated their products during the Covid-19 outbreak. Article 16. International collaboration and cooperation A somewhat pointless article. It suggests that countries cooperate with each other and the WHO to implement the other agreements in the Agreement. Article 17. Whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches A list of essentially motherhood provisions related to planning for a pandemic. However, countries will legally be required to maintain a ‘national coordination multisectoral body’ for PPPR. This will essentially be an added burden on budgets, and inevitably divert further resources from other priorities. Perhaps just strengthening current infectious disease and nutritional programs would be more impactful. (Nowhere in this Agreement is nutrition discussed (essential for resilience to pathogens) and minimal wording is included on sanitation and clean water (other major reasons for reduction in infectious disease mortality over past centuries). However, the ‘community ownership’ wording is interesting (“empower and enable community ownership of, and contribution to, community readiness for and resilience [for PPPR]”), as this directly contradicts much of the rest of the Agreement, including the centralization of control under the Conference of Parties, requirements for countries to allocate resources to pandemic preparedness over other community priorities, and the idea of inspecting and assessing adherence to the centralized requirements of the Agreement. Either much of the rest of the Agreement is redundant, or this wording is purely for appearance and not to be followed (and therefore should be removed). Article 18. Communication and public awareness 1. Each Party shall promote timely access to credible and evidence-based information …with the aim of countering and addressing misinformation or disinformation… 2. The Parties shall, as appropriate, promote and/or conduct research and inform policies on factors that hinder or strengthen adherence to public health and social measures in a pandemic, as well as trust in science and public health institutions and agencies. The key word is as appropriate, given that many agencies, including the WHO, have overseen or aided policies during the Covid-19 response that have greatly increased poverty, child marriage, teenage pregnancy, and education loss. As the WHO has been shown to be significantly misrepresenting pandemic risk in the process of advocating for this Agreement and related instruments, its own communications would also fall outside the provision here related to evidence-based information, and fall within normal understandings of misinformation. It could not therefore be an arbiter of correctness of information here, so the Article is not implementable. Rewritten to recommend accurate evidence-based information being promoted, it would make good sense, but this is not an issue requiring a legally binding international agreement. Article 19. Implementation and support 3. The WHO Secretariat…organize the technical and financial assistance necessary to address such gaps and needs in implementing the commitments agreed upon under the Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations (2005). As the WHO is dependent on donor support, its ability to address gaps in funding within Member States is clearly not something it can guarantee. The purpose of this article is unclear, repeating in paragraphs 1 and 2 the earlier intent for countries to generally support each other. Article 20. Sustainable financing 1. The Parties commit to working together…In this regard, each Party, within the means and resources at its disposal, shall: (a) prioritize and maintain or increase, as necessary, domestic funding for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, without undermining other domestic public health priorities including for: (i) strengthening and sustaining capacities for the prevention, preparedness and response to health emergencies and pandemics, in particular the core capacities of the International Health Regulations (2005);… This is silly wording, as countries obviously have to prioritize within budgets, so that moving funds to one area means removing from another. The essence of public health policy is weighing and making such decisions; this reality seems to be ignored here through wishful thinking. (a) is clearly redundant, as the IHR (2005) already exists and countries have agreed to support it. 3. A Coordinating Financial Mechanism (the “Mechanism”) is hereby established to support the implementation of both the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations (2005) This will be in parallel to the Pandemic Fund recently commenced by the World Bank – an issue not lost on INB delegates and so likely to change here in the final version. It will also be additive to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and other health financing mechanisms, and so require another parallel international bureaucracy, presumably based in Geneva. It is intended to have its own capacity to “conduct relevant analyses on needs and gaps, in addition to tracking cooperation efforts,” so it will not be a small undertaking. Chapter III. Institutional and final provisions Article 21. Conference of the Parties 1. A Conference of the Parties is hereby established. 2. The Conference of the Parties shall keep under regular review, every three years, the implementation of the WHO Pandemic Agreement and take the decisions necessary to promote its effective implementation. This sets up the governing body to oversee this Agreement (another body requiring a secretariat and support). It is intended to meet within a year of the Agreement coming into force, and then set its own rules on meeting thereafter. It is likely that many provisions outlined in this draft of the Agreement will be deferred to the COP for further discussion. Articles 22 – 37 These articles cover the functioning of the Conference of Parties (COP) and various administrative issues. Of note, ‘block votes’ will be allowed from regional bodies (e.g. the EU). The WHO will provide the secretariat. Under Article 24 is noted: 3. Nothing in the WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be interpreted as providing the Secretariat of the World Health Organization, including the WHO Director-General, any authority to direct, order, alter or otherwise prescribe the domestic laws or policies of any Party, or to mandate or otherwise impose any requirements that Parties take specific actions, such as ban or accept travellers, impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures, or implement lockdowns. These provisions are explicitly stated in the proposed amendments to the IHR, to be considered alongside this agreement. Article 26 notes that the IHR is to be interpreted as compatible, thereby confirming that the IHR provisions including border closures and limits on freedom of movement, mandated vaccination, and other lockdown measures are not negated by this statement. As Article 26 states: “The Parties recognize that the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations should be interpreted so as to be compatible.” Some would consider this subterfuge – The Director-General recently labeled as liars those who claimed the Agreement included these powers, whilst failing to acknowledge the accompanying IHR amendments. The WHO could do better in avoiding misleading messaging, especially when this involves denigration of the public. Article 32 (Withdrawal) requires that, once adopted, Parties cannot withdraw for a total of 3 years (giving notice after a minimum of 2 years). Financial obligations undertaken under the agreement continue beyond that time. Finally, the Agreement will come into force, assuming a two-thirds majority in the WHA is achieved (Article 19, WHO Constitution), 30 days after the fortieth country has ratified it. Further reading: WHO Pandemic Agreement Intergovernmental Negotiating Board website: https://inb.who.int/ International Health Regulations Working Group website: https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/index.html On background to the WHO texts: Amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations: An Annotated Guide An Unofficial Q&A on International Health Regulations On urgency and burden of pandemics: https://essl.leeds.ac.uk/downloads/download/228/rational-policy-over-panic Disease X and Davos: This is Not the Way to Evaluate and Formulate Public Health Policy Before Preparing for Pandemics, We Need Better Evidence of Risk Revised Draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement: Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author. Authors David Bell David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA. View all posts Thi Thuy Van Dinh Dr. Thi Thuy Van Dinh (LLM, PhD) worked on international law in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Subsequently, she managed multilateral organization partnerships for Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund and led environmental health technology development efforts for low-resource settings. View all posts Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work. https://brownstone.org/articles/the-who-pandemic-agreement-a-guide/ https://www.minds.com/donshafi911/blog/the-who-pandemic-agreement-a-guide-1621719398509187077

The Black Nobility Jesuit Order: Founders of Fascism, Freemasonry, Illuminati, The Vatican & Zionism This article acts as an introductory discussion for you to familiarize yourself with humanity's consistent true enemy; the Jesuits. The Jesuits are an ancient pagan cult that infiltrated the Roman Catholic church long ago, they are the originators of fascism as seen through their fasces symbology. The Jesuits are often referred to as "Black Nobility" or "Papal Bloodlines." The best and quickest direct evidence of the order's agenda is that Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Illuminati was a Jesuit as he openly attended a Jesuit school, easily proving that the Jesuits started the Illuminati as one of their control methods (...) Full article: https://www.humorousmathematics.com/post/the-black-nobility-jesuit-order-founders-of-fascism-freemasonry-illuminati-the-vatican-and-zionism

The crimes of Winston Churchill Crimes of Britain Churchill was a genocidal maniac. He is fawned over in Britain and held up as a hero of the nation — voted ‘Greatest Briton’ of all time. Below is the real history of Churchill. The history of a white supremacist whose hatred for Indians led to four million starving to death. The man who loathed Irish people so much he conceived different ways to terrorise them. A racist thug who waged war on black people across Africa and in Britain. This is the trial of Winston Churchill, the enemy of all humanity. Afghanistan: Churchill found his love for war during the time he spent in Afghanistan. While there he said “all who resist will be killed without quarter” because the Pashtuns need “recognise the superiority of race”. He believed the Pashtuns needed to be dealt with, he would reminisce in his writings about how he partook in the burning villages and peoples homes. “We proceeded systematically, village by village, and we destroyed the houses, filled up the wells, blew down the towers, cut down the great shady trees, burned the crops and broke the reservoirs in punitive devastation.” — Churchill on how the British carried on in Afghanistan, and he was only too happy to be part of it. Churchill would also write of how “every tribesman caught was speared or cut down at once”. Proud of the terror he helped inflict on the people of Afghanistan Churchill was well on the road to becoming a genocidal maniac. Cuba: Churchill wrote that he was concerned Cuba would turn in to “another black republic” in 1896. By “another” he was referring to Haiti which was the first nation in modern times to abolish slavery. Haiti has been punished for doing so ever since. Egypt: “Tell them that if we have any more of their cheek we will set the Jews on them and drive them into the gutter, from which they should never have emerged” — Winston Churchill on how to deal with Egypt in 1951. Greece: The British Army under the guidance of Churchill perpetrated a massacre on the streets of Athens in the month of December 1944. 28 protesters were shot dead, a further 128 injured. Who were they? Were they supporters of Nazism? No, they were in fact anti-Nazis. The British demanded that all guerrilla groups should disarm on the 2nd December 1944. The following day 200,000 people took to the streets, and this is when the British Army on Churchill’s orders turned their guns on the people. Churchill regarded ELAS (Greek People’s Liberation Army) and EAM (National Liberation Front) as “miserable banditti” (these were the very people who ran the Nazis out). His actions in the month of December were purely out of his hatred and paranoia for communism. The British backed the right-wing government in Greece returned from exile after the very same partisans of the resistance that Churchill ordered the murder of had driven out the Nazi occupiers. Soviet forces were well received in Greece. This deeply worried Churchill. He planned to restore the monarchy in Greece to combat any possible communist influence. The events in December were part of that strategy. In 1945, Churchill sent Charles Wickham to Athens where he was put in charge of training the Greek security police. Wickham learned his tricks of the trade in British occupied Ireland between 1922–1945 where he was a commander of the colonial RUC which was responsible for countless terror. In April 1945 Churchill said “the [Nazi] collaborators in Greece in many cases did the best they could to shelter the Greek population from German oppression” and went on to say “the Communists are the main foe”. Guyana: Churchill ordered the overthrowing of the democratically elected leader of ‘British Guiana’. He dispatched troops and warships and suspended their constitution all to put a stop to the governments nationalisation plan. India: “I’d rather see them have a good civil war”. — Churchill wishing partition on India Very few in Britain know about the genocide in Bengal let alone how Churchill engineered it. Churchill’s hatred for Indians led to four million starving to death during the Bengal ‘famine’ of 1943. “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion” he would say. Bengal had a better than normal harvest during the British enforced famine. The British Army took millions of tons of rice from starving people to ship to the Middle East — where it wasn’t even needed. When the starving people of Bengal asked for food, Churchill said the ‘famine’ was their own fault “for breeding like rabbits”. The Viceroy of India said “Churchill’s attitude towards India and the famine is negligent, hostile and contemptuous”. Even the right wing imperialist Leo Amery who was the British Secretary of State in India said he “didn’t see much difference between his [Churchill] outlook and Hitler’s”. Churchill refused all of the offers to send aid to Bengal, Canada offered 10,000 tons of rice, the U.S 100,000. Churchill was still swilling champaign while he caused four million men, women and children to starve to death in Bengal. Throughout WW2 India was forced to ‘lend’ Britain money. Churchill moaned about “Indian money lenders” the whole time. The truth is Churchill never waged war against fascism. He went to war with Germany to defend the British Empire. He moaned “are we to incur hundreds of millions of debt for defending India only to be kicked out by the Indians afterwards”. In 1945 Churchill said “the Hindus were race protected by their mere pullulation from the doom that is due”. The Bengal famine wasn’t enough for Churchill’s blood lust, he wished his favourite war criminal Arthur Harris could have bombed them. When India was partitioned in 1947 millions of people died and millions more were displaced. Churchill said that the creation of Pakistan, which has been an imperialist outpost for the British and Americans since its inception, was Britain’s “bit of India”. Iran: “A prize from fairyland beyond our wildest dreams” — Churchill on Iran’s oil When Britain seized Iran’s oil industry Churchill proclaimed it was “a prize from fairyland beyond our wildest dreams”. He meddled in Iranian affairs for decades doing his utmost to exclude Iranians from their natural resources. Encouraging the looting of the nation when most lived in severe poverty. In June 1914 Churchill proposed a bill in the House of Commons that would see the British government become become the major shareholder of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The company would go on to refrain from paying Iran its share of the dividends before paying tax to the British exchequer. Essentially the British were illegally taxing the Iranian government. When the nationalist government of Mohammad Mosaddegh threatened British ‘interests’ in Iran, Churchill was there, ready to protect them at any cost. Even if that meant desecrating democracy. He helped organise a coup against Mosaddegh in August 1953. He told the CIA operations officer that helped carry out the plan “if i had been but a few years younger, I would have loved nothing better than to have served under your command in this great venture”. Churchill arranged for the BBC to send coded messages to let the Shah of Iran know that they were overthrowing the democratically elected government. Instead of the BBC ending their Persian language news broadcast with “it is now midnight in London” they under Churchill’s orders said “it is now exactly midnight”. Churchill went on to privately describe the coup as “the finest operation since the end of the war [WW2]”. Being a proud product of imperialism he had no issue ousting Mosaddegh so Britain could get back to sapping the riches of Iran. Iraq: “I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against the uncivilized tribes… it would spread a lively terror.” — Churchill on the use of gas in the Middle East and India Churchill was appointed ‘Secretary of State for the Colonies’ in 1921. He formed the ‘Middle East Department’ which was responsible for Iraq. Determined to have his beloved empire on the cheap he decided air power could replace ground troops. A strategy of bombing any resistance to British rule was now employed. Several times in the 1920s various groups in the region now known as Iraq rose up against the British. The air force was then put into action, indiscriminately bombing civilian areas so to subdue the population. Churchill was also an advocate for the use of mustard and poison gases. Whilst ‘Secretary for War and Air’ he advised that “the provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs” should be used “for use in preliminary operations against turbulent tribes” in order to take control of Iraq. When Iraqi tribes stood up for themselves, under the direction of Churchill the British unleashed terror on mud, stone and reed villages. Churchill’s bombing of civilians in ‘Mesopotamia’ (Kurdistan and Iraq) was summed up by war criminal ‘Bomber Harris’: “The Arab and Kurd now know what real bombing means within 45 minutes a full-sized village can be practically wiped out, and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured, by four or five machines which offer them no real target, no opportunity for glory as warriors, no effective means of escape”. — Arthur ‘Bomber’ Harris. Ireland: “We have always found the Irish a bit odd. They refuse to be English” — Churchill In 1904 Churchill said “I remain of the opinion that a separate parliament for Ireland would be dangerous and impractical”. Churchill’s ancestry is linked to loyalism to Britain. He is a direct descendent of the ‘Marquis of Londonderry’ who helped put down the 1798 United Irishmen rising. He would live up to his families reputation when it came to suppressing revolutionary forces in Ireland. The Black and Tans were the brainchild of Churchill, he sent the thugs to Ireland to terrorise at will. Attacking civilians and civilian property they done Churchill proud. Rampaging across the country carrying out reprisals. He went on to describe them as “gallant and honourable officers”. It was also Churchill who conceived the idea of forming the Auxiliaries who carried out the Croke Park massacre. They fired into the crowd at a Gaelic football match, killing 14. Of course this didn’t fulfill Churchill’s bloodlust to repress a people who he described as “odd” for their refusal “to be English”. He went on to advocate the use of air power in Ireland against Sinn Fein members in 1920. He suggested to his war advisers that aeroplanes should be dispatched with orders to use “machine-gun fire or bombs” to “scatter and stampede them”. Churchill was an early advocate for the partitioning of Ireland. During the treaty negotiations he insisted on retaining navy bases in Ireland. In 1938 those bases were handed back to Ireland. However in 1939 Churchill proposed capturing Berehaven base by force. In 1941 Churchill supported a plan to introduce conscription in the North of Ireland. Churchill went on to remark”the bloody Irish, what have they ever done for our wars”, reducing Ireland’s merit to what it might provide by way of resources (people) for their imperialist land grabs. Kenya: Britain declared a state of emergency in Kenya in 1952 to protect its system of institutionalised racism that they established throughout their colonies so to exploit the indigenous population. Churchill being your archetypical British supremacist believed that Kenya’s fertile highlands should be only for white colonial settlers. He approved the forcible removal of the local population, which he termed “blackamoors”. At least 150,000 men, women and children were forced into concentration camps. Children’s schools were shut by the British who branded them “training grounds for rebellion”. Rape, castration, cigarettes, electric shocks and fire all used by the British to torture the Kenyan people on Churchill’s watch. In 1954 during a British cabinet meeting Churchill and his men discussed the forced labour of Kenyan POWs and how to circumvent the constraints of two treaties they were breaching: “This course [detention without trial and forced labour] had been recommended despite the fact that it was thought to involve a technical breach of the Forced Labour Convention of 1930 and the Convention on Human Rights adopted by the Council of Europe” The Cowan Plan advocated the use of force and sometimes death against Kenyan POWs who refused to work. Churchill schemed to allow this to continue. Caroline Elkins book gives a glimpse into the extent that the crimes in Kenya were known in both official and unofficial circles in Britain and how Churchill brushed off the terror the colonial British forces inflicted on the native population. He even ‘punished’ Edwina Mountbatten for mentioning it, “Edwina Mountbatten was conversing about the emergency with India’s prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, and the then colonial secretary, Oliver Lyttleton. When Lyttleton commented on the “terrible savagery” of Mau Mau… Churchill retaliated, refusing to allow Lord Mountbatten to take his wife with him on an official visit to Turkey”. Palestine: “I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger.” In 2012 Churchill was honoured with a statue in Jerusalem for his assistance to Zionism. He regarded the Arab population Palestine to be a “lower manifestation”. And that the “dog in a manger has the final right to the manger”, by this he meant the Arabs of Palestine. In 1920 Churchill declared “if, as may well happen, there should be created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection of the British Crown which might comprise three or four millions of Jews, an event will have occurred in the history of the world which would from every point of view be beneficial”. A year later in Jerusalem he told Palestinian leaders that “it is manifestly right that the Jews, who are scattered all over the world, should have a national centre and a National Home where some of them may be reunited. And where else could that be but in this land of Palestine, with which for more than 3,000 years they have been intimately and profoundly associated?”. At the Palestine Royal Commission (Peel) of 1937, Churchill stated that he believed in intention of the Balfour Declaration was to make Palestine an “overwhelmingly Jewish state”. He went on to also express to the Peel Commission that he does “not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place”. Four years later he wrote of his desire for a ‘Jewish state’to be established after the second war world. The establishment of the colonial settler state however was done by the British Labour Party under Attlee, who were always there to back their Tory counterparts when it came to British foreign policy. Russia: Churchill’s hatred and paranoia about communism saw him suggest that an atomic bomb should be dropped on the Kremlin. He believed this would “handle the balance of power”. Saudi Arabia: “My admiration for him [Ibn Saud] was deep, because of his unfailing loyalty to us.” — Churchill Prior to 1922 the British were paying Ibn Saud a subsidy of £60,000 a year. Churchill, then Colonial Secretary, raised it to £100,000. Churchill knew full well of the dangers of wahhabism. He gave a speech to the House of Commons in 1921 where he stated that Ibn Saud’s followers “hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children. Women have been put to death in Wahhabi villages for simply appearing in the streets… [they are] austere, intolerant, well-armed and bloodthirsty”. He was however content to use the House of Saud’s twisted ideology for the benefit of British imperialism. Churchill went on to write that his “admiration for him [Ibn Saud] was deep, because of his unfailing loyalty to us”. He showered Ibn Saud with money and presents — gifting Ibn Saud a special Rolls-Royce in the mid 1940s. South Africa: Thousands were sent to British run concentration camps during the Boer wars. Churchill summed up his time in South Africa by saying “it was great fun galloping about”. Churchill wrote that his only “irritation” during the Boer war was “that Kaffirs should be allowed to fire on white men”. It was Churchill who planted the seed to strip voting rights from black people in South Africa. In June 1906, Churchill argued that Afrikaners should be allowed a self-rule which would mean black people would be excluded from voting. He went on to state to Parliament that “we must be bound by the interpretation which the other party places on it and it is undoubted that the Boers would regard it as a breach of that treaty if the franchise were in the first instance extended to any persons who are not white”. In conclusion: There have been a number of attempts to rehabailtate the image of the British Empire in Britain in recent years. Particularly via the medium of cinema. The film Darkest Hour didn’t show you anything about Churchill’s crimes. On the contrary it presented him as a hero. Gary Oldham won an Oscar for his portrayal of one of the most evil, imperialists ever. British Nationalist groups in Britain hold Churchill up as their posterboy. And so they should. He was a racist to the core. In response to migration from the Caribbean to Britain he said England should “be kept white”. Throughout worl war two his cabinet obsessed over British people viewing American Black GI’s favourably. They were concerned that they would fraternised with white English women. A true believer in white supremacy, Churchill blamed the Native American and Aboriginal Australian people for their genocides. He said he did “not admit that a great wrong has been done to the red Indians and the black people of Australia.” Winner of the Noble Prize in Literature, Churchill actually plagiarised his most well known speech from an Irish Republican called Robert Emmet who was hanged and then beheaded by the British in 1803. Winston’s famous “we shall fight them on beaches” line was lifted from Emmet’s speech from the dock. When it came to his own fellow Brits he was less than complimentary and displayed a deep hatred for the working classes. He suggested “100,000 degenerate Britons should be forcibly sterilised”. And that for “tramps and wastrels there ought to be proper labour colonies where they could be sent”. It needs to be put once and for all that Churchill was despicable, racist, war criminal. Some will argue his “sins” are expiated for his actions during the second world war. It is nothing but nonsense to suggest Churchill went out to fight fascism. He lauded Mussolini as a “roman genius”, donated to Nazi war criminal Erich Von Manstien’s criminal defence and sought to desperatly cling on to the British Empire from which Hitler himself took inspiration for his Reich. What we have to remember is Churchill was not a uniquely villianous British Prime Minister. He was not out of ordinary but in fact a true representation of Britain. https://medium.com/@write_12958/the-crimes-of-winston-churchill-c5e3ecb229b3

Apple Works Hard At Destroying Your Freedoms And We All Pay Happily For it Story Time When it comes to censorship and propaganda, Apple is no stranger. At every turn, they scheme to erode your constitutional rights. While simultaneously profiting from it; they rape your pockets while giving it to you up the literal backside. Keeping it PG-13 for now. And, of course, the media goes along lockstep, go figure. Their angle to tyranny, personalized content at your expense. They already know everything you do on your phone, the locations you travel, the places you attend. So, now, they'll continue to brainwash the masses with ease. It’s best served with the iPhone you paid for but will never own. What they now claim, coercion — the new business model. Don't shoot the messenger folks, just sharing the facts. In recent years, Apple has been actively working to expand its services and diversify its revenue streams beyond hardware sales. To them, customers are serfs prime for exploitation. Nothing more, nothing less. Whatever they can push to drive sales and help the government control your behavior is all that matters. Reminds me of a Metallica song, “Nothing else matters.” But at least the song was enjoyable, which I can’t say for Apple’s new business model. I never did like Fascism, but 2024 seems to welcome it with open arms. As the digital media landscape continues to evolve, publishers are constantly seeking new ways to engage audiences and monetize their content. Remember how I always stated, look at words. They have hidden messages to mislead while at the same time expose their agendas. Engage is another term for fear tactics to push compliance. Think COVID on steroids. And one last point. They mention this will have “far-reaching implications for the future of journalism.” A.K.A. more propaganda. They have already destroyed journalism. The end game, remove all human interaction that might push back. But in the land of wokeness, they have nothing to worry about. I have no more words. Well, at least not today. Leave a comment Reference Gregory, Robin. 2023. “Apple Aims to Harness News for AI Training - Bio Prep Watch.” BioPrepWatch (blog). December 23, 2023. https://open.substack.com/pub/walkinverse/p/apple-works-hard-at-destroying-your?r=29hg4d&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post

Deciding that a person who has not been charged with, let alone convicted of, insurrection is guilty of insurrection and therefore cannot run for president…that is “protecting our democracy” in action. Velvet fascism.

Greywarden > As stated on my previous post, the source for this ridiculous Meme is found here: https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1331942-virgin-vs-chad. #1. The Chad wants Corporations to be Overthrown. Answer: Corporations are State Controlled Socialist Organizations. The Chad seems to be against State controlled monopolies (such as Corporations), which Marx himself was in favor of. #2. The Chad does not believe in Hierarchies according to the Marxist author. Answer: If this were actually true that the Chad does not believe in hierarchies, then that would mean the Chad is not a Communist, but an Anarcho Capitalist. Anarcho Communism is an Oxymoron as you cannot have Anarchism which is Anti-Government and Communism Which is Pro State Simultaneously. Simply put, the author of this Meme does not know what he is talking about. #3. The Chad Covers his face because his actions are all that matters, not his identity according to the Marxist Author. Response: Well, we have seen many Obedient Socialist Statist Covering their faces per the orders of the Public Sector State Hierarchy. #4. The Chad Believes in the Liberation of Women from oppressive gender roles according to the Marxist author. Answer: Oppressive Gender Roles can only play out in an economy that is collectively owned or controlled. Such as male born transgender individuals in women sports ect. This right there classifies as oppressive gender roles, and this is just one example of the Stupidities Marxist are pushing for. Traditional Gender Roles are not at all oppressive. Traditional Gender Roles are actual facts and correlate properly with the individual's gender. #5. The Chad comes from poverty and has experienced oppression Answer: Not to many victims of oppression come out of poverty by using oppression as an excuse for not being able to come out of oppression. In fact, the fact that the Chad comes out of oppression in the first place is because he isn't even really oppressed. If he were oppressed, and he had no opportunities to grow because of his gender, race or whatever. He would never come out of oppression nor poverty because the system is rigged against him. #6. The Chad wants everything Publicized according to the Marxist author. Answer: And there you have it ladies and gentlemen. The author just spilled out the beans with the above. If the Chad really is an Anarchist, then he wouldn't want everything publicized as that only empowers the Public Sector Hierarchy. The Marxist said in point #2 of his ridiculous Meme, that the Chad does not believe in Hierarchies. This right here is a contradiction, as Public Sector Control of the means of production is Socialism, and by definition it is Hierarchical, and is completely unrelated to Anarchism. #7. The Chad wants money abolished according to the Marxist author. Answer: Money's Abolishment is exactly what the Public Sector State Hierarchy wants in order to control the Private Individual. So, the Chad is not exactly against Hierarchies now is he? He is not a real Anarchist, but only one in name i guess. #8. The Chad could easily get laid if he wanted to, but chooses to fight Capitalism and Fascism according to the Marxist author. Answer: The Chad only fights Capitalism because he is against the individual, and does indeed believe in Hierarchies. This is the Chad's real problem with Capitalism. Fascism is not another word for Capitalism as the Marxist Pseudo Definiton says. Fascism is Syndicalism with a Philosophy of Actualism. Fascism is Trade Unionism and it is a complete opposite of Capitalism. #9. I skipped a few of them because I've already addressed similar stupidities. On this one the Chad says property is theft. Answer: This doesn't make much sense. I do understand if the Marxist is trying to say that Private Property Rights is theft, as the Marxist do believe that the Government should have ownership of all properties, not the individual. So much for not believing in Hierarchies SMH. #10. The Chad ignored Bitcoin because its another Capitalist ploy. Answer: Good for the Marxist. I am glad the Crypto Market is a Capitalist Market and close to impossible to control. I am glad the Public State Hierarchies of the World cannot control it. I am glad the Crypto Market is an enemy of Socialism, for Socialism is an enemy of the Individual, and individuals do exist and not to be blamed by association for the crimes of another individual just because he/she belongs to the same ethnic group as the criminal.

Today i will be exposing the Virgin Anarcho Capitalist VS the Chad Anarcho Communist Meme here: https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1331942-virgin-vs-chad. Lets start with the Virgin Anarcho Capitalist. #1. The Virgin Anarcho Capitalist wants Corporations deregulated according to the Marxist that wrote this. Answer: Corporations are Organs of the state and are collectively owned not individually owned. Corporations are Syndicates, and as I've mentioned before the Soviet Union called them Syndicates and the Italian Fascist called their Syndicates Corporations. Corporations are Marxist Fascist Socialist Organization. They have nothing at all to do with Capitalism nor a free market. #2. The Virgin Anarcho Capitalist comes from an incredibly wealthy family according to the Marxist that wrote this. Answer: I would actually argue that Those of the Public Sector State Hierarchy Controlling the means of production are the extremely wealthy socialist group. There aren't to many rich Capitalist as those of the Private Sector are having their wealth siphoned away by the State. But not only that, they are also having their businesses crushed by the State and considered none essential as what happened with the Covid lie. The State, through the Covid lie attempted to crush competition, thus they attempted to crush Capitalism which is private individual control of his/her own economy. Through Taxations our wealth is being redistributed to the Giant Corporations which are funded by the State giving these Corporation a huge advantage over Private Individually owned businesses. With all of the Government funding Corporations receive, they have no problem paying employees 20 dollars per hour minimum wage. Price control and minimum wage only affect the small privately owned businesses, not the Giants the Public Sector State Hierarchy supports. #3. The Anarcho Capitalist Virgin always wears suits with bow ties according to the Marxist that wrote this. Answer: Actually, it is the Socialist thugs of the Mainstream Media and those that have collective shareholder ownership of the of the means of production in the Stock Exchange Socialist Market who wear suits with bow ties. #4. According to this Marxist, the Anarcho Capitalist Virgin is a big believer in Traditionalist gender roles. Answer: You don't have to be a Capitalist to be a Traditionalist in Gender Roles. The differences is when one has individual control of his/her own economy, He/She doesn't care about controlling anybody else's life. Individual control of your own economy is freedom. I would however argue that it is Socialism that brings about the crisis and wars amongst the genders putting males against females and females against males, Whites against Blacks and Blacks against Whites, Employers against Workers and Workers against their Employers, Aryan Germans against Jews and Jews against Germans. All of these crisis are caused by collective control of the means of production, not private individual control of the means of production. #5. The Anarcho Virgin Capitalist according to the Marxist author, Thinks the 50's and 60's America were the best. Response: I have no idea how this belief defines someone as Capitalist #6. The Virgin Anarcho Capitalist somehow believes in both individualism and tribulism. Answer: The above is Oxymoronic, as you cannot have both Invidualism and Tribulism. This contradiction is explicitly evident in Hitler's writings, who was a Socialist by the way. Hitler says in Mein Kampf that National Socialism also promotes individual worth.. Hitler however could never solve the contradiction this brought about. As if he really promoted individual worth as he said, then there was no way he could Nationalize the Masses or Socialize the people as he also said he would do. If there was individual worth, then the Germans couldn't be working for the betterment of their race, and there was no way for Hitler to Socialize the Aryan Race, as they would be competing with each other. Capitalism is strictly about the Private Individual and has nothing to do with groups or tribes who's effort is to strip the individual of his individuality. It is Socialism who promotes Tribalism and Collectivism. What the Marxist that created this Meme has proven is that the Virgin Anarcho Capitalist is actually a Socialist. I would however agree that he is not a Marxist Socialist. But by definiton he is a Socialist! #7. The Virgin Anarcho Capitalist according to the Marxist that created this Meme, is scared of black and brown people and wants to create his own ethnostate. Answer: As we already know that it is collective control of the means of production that brings about the clash between racial groups (Race Socialism), not individual control of the means of production. It is therefore easy to decipher that the Marxist author of this trash Meme is lying. Coupled with the fact that the Virgin Anarcho Capitalist wants a (White Enthnostate), which proves he is not a Capitalist but a Socialist, as State Control of the Economy is Socialism. Capitalism is Anti-State. Capitalism is the Antithesis of Socialism and therefore cannot be Socialism at the same time. There is no State in an economy that is controlled by individuals. #8. The Virgin Anarcho Capitalist thinks Liberals are Left according to the Marxist Author. Answer: Actually this is more proof that the Virgin Anarcho Capitalist is actually a leftist Socialist, very possibly a National Socialist. Classic Liberals are on the Right for the most part and are libertarians. #9. The Virgin Anarcho Capitalist is a useful idiot to Fascists according to the Marxist author. Answer: The author doesn't even understand the definiton of Fascism and is resorting to pseudo definitons as is common with Collectivist, that is, if the author even knows a pseudo definiton to the Term Fascist at all. As is common with most Marxist Fascist, they can't even define what Fascism is. Or else, they would understand that they are indeed the Fascist Trade Unionist. As Fascism in its simplist definition is Trade Unionism. The Soviet Union was Marxist Fascist. It is literally in the name, Soviet Union. Italian Fascism was Trade Unionism. All you have to do is read the writings of Gentile the creator of Fascism and Mussolini. They make explicitly clear what Fascism is, and what their political ideology was, which is contrary to what Marxist Historians and Sympathizers on Wikipedia are saying. #10. The Virgin Anarcho Capitalist has no praxis, just whines about liberals on the internet. Response: This sounds more like a National Socialist. Classic Liberals are on the Right not the Left. Meaning of classic liberalism: Classical liberalism is a political tradition and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics; civil liberties under the rule of law with special emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech. #11. The Virgin Anarcho Capitalist uses Statist and Collectivist as insults. Answer: As i have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. The Virgin Anarcho Capitalist according to how this Marxist describes him, is not an Anarcho Capitalist but a Utopian Socialist. He is indeed a collectivist no different than the Marxists and is living in a world of Contradictions and pseudo definition of terms identically to the Marxist. #12. The Virgin Anarcho Capitalist believes in Hierarchies according to the Marxist author. Answer: And Hierarchies are Public not Private. The Marxist has literally spelled out here that the Virgin Anarcho Capitalist is really a Socialist. You can't have a Hierarchy when every individual is fending for themselves. Only collectivism brings about Hierarchies. #13. The Virgin Anarcho Capitalist says Richard Spencer's ideas could work according to the Marxist author. Answer: Richard Spencer is a leftist Race Socialist lol. Richard Spencer is so on the left that he voted for Biden. He made his voting registration public on twitter for everyone to see. #14. The Virgin Anarcho Capitalist Invested in Bitcoin according to the Marxist Author. Answer: Many Socialists are invested in Bitcoin as well. I don't see how this indicates that all who invest in Bitcoin must be Capitalist. #15. The Virgin Anarcho Capitalist believes in White Genocide according to the Marxist author. Answer: The reason why the Virgin Anarcho Capitalist believes in White Genocide is because he is a Socialist lol. Done with the Virgin Anarcho Capitalist who should actually be renamed the Virgin National Socialist instead. Later on when i have more time, i will refute the Chad Anarcho Communist part of the Meme as well.

I will start with an introduction. My parents are of Jewish Ancestry. My Dad is specifically of mostly Ashkenazi Jewish Descent. My dad taught me that Socialism was a good thing, and that Capitalism was the reason for Tyranny, Oppression, divisiveness and greed. My dad defended Countries such as Cuba and Venezuela, and opposed the U.S for intervening in their Affairs. My dad always painted the U.S as a greedy evil Capitalist Country that coerced and sanctioned other Countries that weren't doing its bidding. So, you can imagine. Just the Mention of right leaning Conservatism to me was repugnant. I could never understand why Conservatives cared not about the poor, yet professed a Christian faith. I was also taught that Jesus was a Socialist. Bear in mind however, that i did not know the real definition of Socialism. The only definition i knew was the watered down pseudo definition taught by State Controlled entities such as Public Schools and what my father taught me. I was taught Hitler was an example of NEO Liberailism, and that he privatized the Industries and crushed the Trade Unions, which is a real distortion of the actual facts. My wife is also of Ashkenazi Jewish descent. People however, were persecuted in Moldova because of their Jewish heritage. So, her family needed to keep that fact silenced in order to survive. My wife experienced real socialism first hand. My wife knew what a disaster leftist ideology is. When my wife was first introduced to me by a friend. The whole purpose of us meeting was to study the Torah, and because i had sat at Yeshivot, know hermaneutics ect, was the reason as to why my wife wanted to meet me and why she wanted to study with me. Little did i know that i had no understanding of the true definiton of my political ideology. Although i did conquer her misconceptions and misunderstandings of the bible, and offered irrefutable evidence and context from the Hebrew and other sources. I was not very effective when it came to politics. When she would tell me about the Socialism she lived through. I would tell her that it wasn't real Socialism, and would even tell her that her country was right leaning and conservative, and that is why only a few in her country were extremely rich, and the rest of the population was extremelly poor. It took me years before i finally opened my eyes, decided to investigate and challenge my ideology. I was a green partier and thought we were fighting for people's civil rights and were against the Central bankers and Government. I was truly deceived in believing that Socialism was a fight against tyranny, and that the revolution was an act of righteousness. My dad was a huge proponent of Franklin D. Roosevelt. I was taught that FDR did great things, such as levi high taxations for the rich. In fact, my dad praised FDR's 96% tax on the rich. Mussolini considered FDR a Fascist like him, and FDR was enamoured by Italian Fascism, which made no sense to me, as being a proponent of the left, Fascism was repugnant to me. The reality really was that my ideology was Fascist, i was just completely in the dark about it. I was taught that Government controlled Trade Unions were good and were there to defend my rights. Fascism by definiton is Trade Unionism. All of those people blaming right leaning Conservatives of being Fascist on one hand, and on the other they are supporting the Unions are by definiton the Fascist. Mussolini was an Anarcho Syndiclist, which is an oxymoron, but lets just role with it. Syndicates are Trade Unions. The Difference is that the Italians called them Corporations and the Soviets called them Syndicates. Hence, Syndicalism is Trade Unionism, and Trade Unionism is Fascism. So, when the Marxist call you a Fascist for being on the right. Make them aware that by definition, they are the Syndicalist and therefore they are the Fascist. None of these Marxist even know what they are saying when they call people Fascist. None of them can even define fascism. All of that being said. I am now ready to begin on explaining the Title of my post which is Holocaust VS National Socialism, and Holocaust VS Marxism. I owe a lot of the Knowledge I've acquired to Tik who has indepth Documentaries Explaining the differences between Public and Private, Socialism and Capitalism. If i had known the meaning of these terms, i would have never been a Socialist. Tik challenged my ideology, which led me in challenging my own ideology to see if it passes the test of scrutiny. It indeed did not. #1. Holocaust VS National Socialism The National Socialist Trolls as i have mentioned before know the Holocaust did Happen. The only purpose of them denying it, is because they know this is a direct attack on the Marxist who say the Holocaust did happen. It is clear as Tik puts it, that the National Socialists know that Hitler did Socialise the Aryan Racial Collective by removing the Jews from Society. If Hitler did not remove the Jews from Society, that only means that Hitler was not a "National Socialist" and did not Nationalize the masses nor Socialise the Aryan Race as he promised. Hitler did what he promised and the National Socialist know this. And therefore, the Holocaust did happen. 2. Holocaust VS Marxism The Marxist claim the Holocaust happened. Yet, they deny the ideology that led to the Holocaust. The Marxist Deny that Hitler was a Socialist and place Hitler on the far right. By denying that Hitler was a Socialist, the Marxist are denying that Hitler Socialized the Aryan Race and are indirectly saying Hitler did not remove the Jews from Society, which is a denial of the Holocaust. The Marxist and other Socialists believe the Holocaust happened. Yet they deny the ideological driver of the Holocaust!

Greywarden > The Collectivist Ideology is a baseless and stupid ideology. This is why the Countries of the world are doing so poorly. That is because of the childish and ignorant Collectivist ideology. One White person commits a crime, therefore, all White people are to blame. Same goes for the other side. One Black Person commits a crime, therefore all black people are guilty. The Collectivist (Socialist) remove people's individuality and make them part of the wider Collective. Marx, Lenin and Stalin considered every bourgeoisie to be part of their class collective. Therefore, every bourgeoisie is deserving of death and are judged collectively by their class from birth. The Bourgeoisie are born evil and need to be erradicated. A Bourgeoisie would commit a crime, that meant all born Bourgeoisie were guilty. To Marx, Lenin and Stalin, you were born into your class and nothing can possibly change that. This was precisely why Mussolini's Fascism is so misunderstood. Mussolini was a Marxist who basically ended the Class War between the Proletariat and Bourgeoisie Classes. Marxism was way worse than Italian Fascism and so was National Socialism. Hitler unlike Marx did not add the class conflict to his Socialism. But instead he added the race element. A couple of ethnically born Jews were part of the Bolshevik party and violent overthrow of the Russian regime. Therefore, all Jews living in Germany were planning to do the same thing, and that also made all Jews in Germany Communist and guilty for Russia. This is how Collectivists see the world. This is how Socialists see the world. They can judge you by association because to them you are not an individual. Look around everyone. Most of what we see is socialism. We are trained to think and believe like Socialists. It is to the point that we ignore very basic definitions because we want to defend our ideology instead. I am 100% done with Socialism. I know what it is and i know what it isn't. Knowledge is power!

Greywarden > Fascism explained: Mussolini attempted to solve the class war by creating a Syndicate to look after the workers and their bosses as well. Mussolini United Italy under 6 State Controlled Trade Unions which were called Corporations. Corporations did not mean "Big Business" in Mussolini's era. Corporations were Giant Trade Unions as the Fascist were the Creators of Corporations with the Intentions of bringing the Italian people together under these Corporations in order to end the class war caused by Marxism.

The GreyWarden deconstructs a Marxist Black Hand's dissertation. Enjoy reading our discussion and tell me who you think has the stronger arguments. @Iblegend > I respectfully disagree with the argument presented. The definition of socialism varies depending on the particular ideology or political movement, and it is not accurate to claim that one specific interpretation is the only valid one. Furthermore, the argument seems to conflate different concepts and historical examples in a way that is not accurate or supported by evidence Greywarden > And i thank you for actually debating the subject with me rather than running away. And no, definitions do not vary, they are clear cut. Socialism is the collective control or ownership of the means of production or state control of the economy. And you haven't proven how the arguments conflate different concepts that are unsupported by evidence. There is a plethora of evidence for the murder of the Kulax and for what were the intentions of the Marxist Socialists. But whatever. @Iblegend > Firstly, the argument seems to suggest that collective control of the means of production can only be achieved by a specific group, such as a race, gender, or class collective. However, this is not necessarily the case. Socialism is based on the idea that the means of production should be owned and controlled collectively by society as a whole, rather than by private individuals or corporations. This can be achieved through a variety of means, such as worker cooperatives, state ownership, or community ownership Greywarden > I never excluded society. You are creating a Strawman. Public Control, State Control, National Control, Group Control, Race Control, Worker Control or ownership of any of these are different forms of Socialism. I never claimed they are all the same. But for you to suggest that some how they are Capitalism because some forms of socialism are different is precisely where your error is, and you can't find a solution to this problem. I see you returned to the Corporation Fallacy again. Corporations are not Private, they are Publicly held and traded. Private cannot be Public Simultaneously and are two completely different things. Private individuals are you, i and Jose. If a collective owns or controls our economy than we as individuals are slaves of the State. Capitalism is none State. How do you address this problem? @Iblegend > Secondly, the argument suggests that corporations are public sector entities and are a form of state-controlled syndicates. While it is true that some corporations are partially or wholly owned by the state, the majority of corporations are privately owned and operated for the benefit of their shareholders. Greywarden > The above presents a major problem for you. You just said they are operated for the benefit of their shareholders? If Corporations are traded in the Stock Exchange than they aren't Private. They are owned by Society which is the Public. You make it seem as if Public Ownership is the samething as Private Ownership. No, Corporations aren't Privately owned. They are owned by a collective which is Society not indviduals. Even the "Private Corporations" are not Privately owned. If you look into the Koch Brothers Corporations you will see that a collective owns them. David Koch only had 42% ownership of Koch brothers industry before he died. There are a plethora of Coprations bundled together with the Koch brothers Industries. By definition they aren't really private, even if the Central State weren't to control them as they are controlled by their own collective who are deeply involved in Politics and swaying elections through dark money. @Iblegend > Corporations operate within a market economy, where the means of production are owned by private individuals or corporations, not by society as a whole. This is fundamentally different from the socialist ideal of collective ownership and control of the means of production Greywarden > No no no, that is rubbish. The Private Individual does not own the means of production of the Market Economy. The market is state controlled which gives the state defacto ownership of the means of production, not the private individual as you assert. Greywarden > The majority of Corporation are in the Stock Exchange which are Publicly Traded and State Controlled which in turn is Socialism not Capitalism. The Public owns Corporations. The Public Sector cannot simultaneously be the Private Sector. Furthermore, to conclude that Socialism is none Market is erroneous. Marxism may be non market. But in no way does Marxism define Socialism accurately other than being another form of Socialism. If a Market is controlled by the State, then it isn't a free market and thus not a Capitalist Market. You do not accurately understand the definition of Socialism. Just because a Market exists does not automatically mean it is a Capitalist Market. Greywarden > Moreover, where there are Black Markets, that only means there is Socialism. Black Markets cannot exist in Capitalist Economies where everyone is fending for themselves. The U.S has a black market which proves it is a Socialist Economy. The Black Markets are the Capitalists lol. Greywarden > But if you still believe the individual has private ownership in the U.S. Why don't you put this to the test. Buy a home with Cash without depending on banks. Then try never agreeing to pay your property taxes. Comeback to me and tell me if you are able to keep your home. You are not a private owner of what you are led to believe is your own property. Even Cuba is more Capitalist when it comes to property. Any property that are Purchased in Cuba are yours and you aren't tax for it. The property actually belongs to you the individual.. @Iblegend > Thirdly, the argument makes an inaccurate and unfair comparison between socialism and fascism. Fascism is a far-right ideology that is based on authoritarianism, nationalism, and the suppression of individual rights and freedoms. Greywarden > You haven't proven that Fascism is a Far Right Ideology. Doesn't seem like you have read the works of Mussolini as i have been doing. Mussolini had State Control of the Means of Production during his Reign. Mussolini said like this in his speech in Milan and you can look it up if you'd like, "Everything in the State, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." If you study Mussolini closely, which i am sure you haven't. You will see that Mussolini Socialized the people through their Italian Nationality. His Socialism was based on the Italian Nationality as he tried to bring all Italians together under the State. There is no possible way Mussolini was a Capitalist. Mussolini and even the inventor of Fascism Gentile were opponents of Capitalism. They hated Capitalism! Moreover, Nationalism and Socialism are one and the same. To Nationalise a business is the same as Socialising a Business. To Nationalise the people is the same as Socialisng the people. What exactly is the difference between Nationalizing the Economy or Socializing the Economy? What is the difference between Nationalization of the Private Sector or Socialization of the Private Sector? You tell me.. @Iblegend > It is not accurate to claim that fascism is a form of socialism, or that Mussolini was a socialist. Mussolini and the fascist regime in Italy were fiercely anti-socialist and anti-communist, and actively suppressed socialist and labor movements. Greywarden > Actually they weren't Anti-Socialist lol. Mussolini tried to end the Class Crisis Marxism had caused by offering people another version of Socialism Gentile called Fascism. Mussolini was the man that put Gentile's ideas into practice. Mussolini offered Fascism as a third way between Marxism and Capitalism. Even if you are able to prove that Mussolini hated Marxism because he was kicked out of the Marxist anti war party of Italy for being a warmonger. You still can't prove that by default that makes him a Capitalist as he also hated Capitalism. You see, your ideas blind you from the facts that Mussolini hated Capitalism as well, and thus couldn't be a Capitalist just because he was not a Marxist. @Iblegend > Finally, the argument suggests that individualism and collectivism are polar opposites, and that socialism necessarily entails state control of the economy and the suppression of individual freedom. However, this is a simplistic and inaccurate view of both individualism and collectivism. In reality, most political and economic systems contain elements of both individualism and collectivism, and the relationship between the two is complex and multifaceted. It is possible to have a socialist system that allows for individual autonomy and freedom, while still maintaining collective control over the means of production. Greywarden > There is no argument that says that Collectivism and Individualism are Polar Opposites. Collectivism and Individualism by definition are Polar Opposites and that is a fact. The only reason why some socialist economies allow for some individual freedoms is because they haven't implemented full socialism. Individual ownership and control of your own economy is Capitalism not Socialism. You haven't proven how individualism can be one and the same as collectivism. You are dancing around the points I've made by trying to prove that Individualism can mean two things at once which isn't possible. And mocking arguments you can't refute by calling them simplistic does not make your case that Individualism can mean the same thing as Collectivism stronger. It actually exposes a huge contradiction with your line of reasoning that you can't resolve. @Iblegend > In conclusion, the argument presented contains several inaccuracies and conflations of different concepts and historical examples. It is important to approach these complex issues with nuance and accuracy, rather than resorting to simplistic and inaccurate comparisons and generalizations. Greywarden > Again you accuse me of being simplistic because i am taking definitions of terms at face value and not trying to explain away how Private can mean Public at the same time and how an individual can mean a collective at the same time. If you weren't blinded by the doctrines of Marxists you would be able to see how illogical your position is. You are not going to win a debate through illogic

Greywarden > As for some babbling idiots that claim to be on the right, yet defend Hitler's Leftist race based Socialism, Scapegoat him and even compare him to former United States President Donald J Trump who is not a Socialist nor has anything in common with Hitler. Today, i will be refuting your claims that Hitler was a Scapegoat and not a Racist. I will be providing evidence that proves he was nothing like Trump, but a Leftist Socialist Dictator instead. That the media lied about Hitler is obvious. But definitely not as you put it. The mainstream media and Historians have lied by saying Hitler was a Capitalist. Hitler hated Capitalism and attributed its horrors to the Jews, which by the way is nothing similar to Trump as Trump is a Capitalist and is a friend of the Jews. 1. Hitler was a Leftist Socialist who claimed his race based Socialism was real Socialism contrary to Marxian Socialism which is a class based Socialism! References: Hitler, 1930 from Carsten, Rise of Fascism P137. Hitler, "Mein Kampf," P147; Hitler, "Mein Kampf," P406. Trump does not believe in a race socialism. In fact, Trump does not believe in socialism at all. That being said, a comparison between Hitler and Trump makes no sense.. 2. Hitler believes both Capitalism and Marxism are Jewish concepts. Sources: Hitler, "Mein Kampf," P198; Hitler, "Mein Kampf," P324; Hitler, "Mein Kampf," P348; Hitler, "Mein Kampf," P555. 3. The National Socialists suspended articles 115 and 153 of the German Reich's Constitution. This gave Hitler and the National Socialist party the power to Nationalize private property. This was not a free market nor was it private, as people had their properties stolen away from them by the Socialists. Sources: Text of the Reichstag Fire Decree, 28 Feb 1933; Reimann, "The Vampire Economy," Chapter 2; "The Vampire Economy," P107 Herr A. Z Quoted from Reimann. How is this load of crap even remotely similar to Donald Trump? You have to be delusional to believe that!

Greywarden > Through educational videos from Tik-history. I found some very revealing points on the differences between Socialism, National Socialism, Marxism and Fascism. But what struck me the hardest was the real definition of Fascism. I kept using that word to refer to National Socialist and i was so mistaken. So, here is what i learned on Tik-history on the video named fascism defined. Below are the major points i got out of it. These are things i didn't know and i am sure will help many of us understand the real definition of Fascim as understood by its creators and coined by Benito Mussolini. 1. Mussolini initally was not racist towards Jewish people as Hitler was. Mussolini's Mistress Margehrita Sarfatti was Jewish. She was his mistress from 1911 to 1938. Source: Farrell, "Mussolini: A new life" chapter 11. 2. Margherita Sarfatti was Jewish, a Feminist and a member of the Fascist party of Italy. More than 10k Jews were in fact members of the Fascist party of Italy. 3. The Question is. If Fascism is a synonym of National Socialism. Why was Mussolini not racist towards Jewish people nor did he murder his own people? Why did the Fascist party not condemn feminist ideas if fascism is a synonym of National Socialism? 4. Mussolini's Government did not have Anti Jewish laws. Mussolini had to create Anti Jewish Laws after Hitler's influence to please him in 1938. Prior to that there were no such laws. Mussolini wouldn't have to create anti-jewish laws if fascism was a race based Socialism like Nazi Germany. 5. Definition of Fascism: You can properly call a Trade Union a Syndicate. Syndicalism means Trade Unionism. A Trade Union is a group of workers or a bundle of workers. In the Italian language a bundle of sticks is a fascio and Italian Trade Unions = Fasci. Hence, the term Fascism. Which means Trade Unionism. 6. Mussolini's Fascism specifically defined: National Syndicalism with a Philosophy of Actualism. Source: Anthony James Gregor, "Mussolini's intellectuals." P60, P80-83, P99. 7. Gregor Defines Fascism: "(Fascism was) the Totalitarian Cooperative, and ethical state - the final collectivist synthesis of nationalism, syndicalism, and Actualism." Source: Anthony James Gregor, "Mussolini's intellectuals." P99. Greywarden > Hence, Fascism was Trade Unionism for the Nation of Italy!

Greywarden > Here are some very important things i was able to get from this fantastic video by Denesh D'Souza on the Fascist Roots of the American Left. Subject: FDR and Mussolini. 1. FDR Admired Benito Mussolini 2. FDR Saw Italian Fascism as leftist and even more progressive than the new deal. 3. FDR sent members of his brain trust to Fascist Rome to study Italian Fascism, in order to bring some of those ideas to the United States. 4. Benito Mussolini reviewed FDR's book (looking forward) in an Italian magazine. A summery of his review would look something like this > This guy is one of us. He is a Fascist! 5. The Italian Fascist and New Deal Democrats admired one another. Subject: Hitler 6. Two prominent Scholars at Yale D'Souza makes reference to. One is James Whitmen who Published a book called Hitler's American model. And the next scholar is Timothy Snyder. 7. Whitmen's book in its opening describes a meeting in 1935 of the leading Nazis who are in the process of drafting the nuremberg laws. 8. The nuremberg laws were the laws that made Jews into second class citizens. 9. The nuremberg laws prohibited intermarriage between Jews and other Germans. Allowed for the confiscation of Jewish property, and protected all kinds of segregation and state sponsored crimes such as discrimnation against the Jewish people. 10. D'Souza makes it explicitly clear that he disagrees with the Title of the book which makes it seem as if America was coulpable, rather than the racist Dixiecrats for racism in the past. 11. D'Souza refers to a Nazi meeting in the book Titled Hitler's America. The Nazis had a Stenographer present because they thought they were going to start the worlds first racist state. 12. One of the Nazis who studied in America said sorry, we can't start the first racist state because the Democratic Party in the United States has already done it. 13. D'souza makes it clear that every segragation law in the Jim Crow South going back to the 1880's and continuing through the 1950's and 1960's, without exception, was passed by a Democratic Legislator, signed by a Democratic Governor and inforced by Democratic officials. 14. D'Souza says Hitler and the Nazis imitated the model of the Jacksonian Democrats, as all the Nazis had to do is take the Democratic Laws in place, cross out the word black, write in the word Jew and they were home free. D'Souza never mentions that they took everything word for word. Quite the opposite. He says The Nazis took as a blueprint the laws of the Jim Crow South. 15. D'Souza also says Hitler wanted to compete with the English and the French. But he was out of real estate as the English and the french had colonized most of the world. Hitler knew about the Jacksonian Democrats who in the 19th century attacked the American Indians, kicked them out of their land, killed those that resisted and enslaved the once that remained. Hitler adopted the strategy of the Jacksonian Democrats and used it against other Europeans. I don't think SoMee will permit me anymore space. So i'll continue later in another post. https://www.youtube.com/live/f5slRBGv_88?feature=share