by Iain Davis
Widely acknowledged as someone who is not a "details man," it seem Boris Johnson isn't an evidence man either. This is born out by his led by science approach to the pseudopandemic, advised by the computer salesman Bill Gates and the consistently wrong Prof. Neil Ferguson.
Averse to responsible political leadership and declining to seek evidence from a broad range of scientific opinion, he appeared to prefer any which supported his policy agenda and ignored the rest. To what extent that choice was influenced by his wish to reduce the population is hard to say. He said population growth was an "impending calamity," and called for a "grown-up discussion about the optimum quantity of human beings in this country and on this planet."
While there is no reason to believe any eugenicist's claims, if for a moment we accept their call for an adult debate, which, like all ideologues, they aren't really interested in, then we should ask them to clarify which of us should die first. Although, in light of the pseudopandemic, perhaps we can make an educated guess.
The debate over such concerns, death panels, healthcare rationing, enforced euthanasia, compelled abortion, mass sterilisation programs and so forth, has allowed eugenicists to hide behind faux scientific credibility to this day. Now they have found refuge in Bioethics.
While new bio-technologies raise some novel ethical conundrums, much of Bioethics appears to be preoccupied with, and based upon, the tired old eugenicist myths. Primarily that human beings are a problem that need to be controlled by the right people.
US President Joe Biden appointed oncologist and bioethicist Dr Ezekiel Emanuel to his coronavirus task force. Emanuel, whose brother urged him never to let a crisis go to waste, has previously suggested that the Hippocratic Oath should be abandoned [38] because it gets in the way of putting a fair price on human life. He has publicly advocate voluntary euthanasia (how voluntary is a valid question) and believes people should decline health treatment once they reach 75 years.
So it is no surprise he was the lead author on the academic article Fair Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in the Time of Covid-19 [39]. In it, he and the other researchers wrote:
"The choice to set limits on access to treatment is not a discretionary decision, but a necessary response to the overwhelming effects of a pandemic....Treating people equally could be attempted by random selection, such as a lottery....giving priority to those who can save others, or rewarded by giving priority to those who have saved others in the past."
In Emanuel's clearly eugenicist view, he was promoting the "death panel." This is the idea that some group of suitably qualified and experienced stakeholder experts should evaluate the worth of human being, providing access to healthcare for some while denying it to the unworthy. This is pure eugenics. Eugenicists have always claimed their moral and intellectual superiority gave them the right to judge the value of human life.
These people never acknowledge that scarcity of medical resources is a political and economic policy decision, not some natural function of society. Nor do they ever mention that the hoarding of capital by the parasite class artificially limits resource availability. Instead they falsely claim scarcity is inevitable, due to population growth, and therefore they must decide who lives and who dies.
Emmanuel is a fellow of the Rockefeller funded Hastings Center health policy think tank, where he is joined by other bioethicists like Peter Singer. In his book Practical Ethics [39] Singer made the moral argument for infanticide. Debating at what point children see themselves as "distinct entities" he suggested that 2 or 3 years old children have no concept of death, therefore killing them was fine:
"A newborn baby is not an autonomous being, capable of making choices, and so to kill a newborn baby cannot violate the principle of respect for autonomy.”
With people like Emanuel in key positions within the Biden administration, and with addition of its COVID-19 Ethics Resource Center, built upon the contribution of Peter Singer and other eugenicists, it is with reasonable justification that the Hasting Center state:
"The Hastings Center shapes ideas that influence key opinion leaders, including health policy-makers, regulators, health care professionals, lawyers, legislators, and judges."
In the UK, the Galton Institute, formerly the British Eugenics Society, describes itself as a learned society. Unable to resolve the eugenicist identity crisis, the Galton Institute's website recently infomred visitors [40]:
"The Council of the Galton Institute is actively deliberating a name change and a working group has been set up to address the issue."
And further [41]:
"The current Galton Institute has disassociated itself completely from any interest in the theory and practice of eugenics, but recognises the importance of the acknowledgement and preservation of its historical records in the interest of improving awareness of the 20th century eugenics movements."
Perhaps the continual attempts to distance themselves from the atrocities committed in the name of their pseudoscience would be plausible if they didn't still venerate and practice it. The Galton Institute's other statements demonstrate just how far they have disassociated themselves from eugenics. In 2016 they created their philanthropic foundation the Artemis Trust [41]:
"The Artemis Trust is wholly owned by the Galton Institute. It was established in 2016 and evolved from the Birth Control Trust..The wider ranging objectives of the Artemis Trust are:
To preserve and protect the physical and mental health of people, particularly but not only those from poorer communities, in particular by:
assisting in the provision of fertility control and other measures to improve reproductive and sexual health; and
advancing education in all aspects of reproductive and sexual health.
We are currently committed to a project.. to improve access to family planning services in marginalised rural communities in Kenya."
Acting entirely contrary to real economic and scientific evidence, which clearly indicates that population growth benefits Kenya's economic development, the Galton Institute, who have completely dissociated themselves from coercive eugenics, but recognise its importance and are committed to preserving its history, are currently practising population control in Kenya. This does not benefit any Kenyans but it does suit the eugenic ambitions of the parasite class.
Regardless of Galton's questionable scientific contribution, accepting the apologist's view that his political beliefs were "of his time," today's eugenicists are no different to the early adopters who snatched at his ideas. The extent to which they understood or even cared about his concept of heredity seems dubious in many cases.
Eugenics served their world view and it was the faux scientific legitimacy which appealed to subsequent generations of eugenicists. The scientific reinforcement of their bigotry and delusions of grandeur was the alluring feature.
Eugenics is the self-justification the parasite class have imbibed. It spurs their conviction that they are the rightful rulers of the Earth and should hold dominion over all. Our lives belong to them. They decide if we deserve to receive healthcare and they determine if we should be allowed a family. They order our society and decree if we should live or die.
Seizure of the global commons by the stakeholder capitalists is a eugenic ideal. The new normal biosecurity state, where we are required to prove our biological worthiness before being allowed our allotted quota of their resources, is a eugenicist and population control concept.
The pseudopandemic has introduced us to the administration system for this new eugenic normal. Technocracy can be defined as:
"A government or social system that is controlled or influenced by experts in science or technology."
For the parasite class to achieve their dream all they need to do is maintain their control over the right experts to formulate the global policy they desire. The wrong scientific or academic opinion can simply be censored and ignored. It comes as no surprise therefore that once again the eugenicists are at the heart of creating the glo
bal technocracy.
Vice president of the Galton Institute Professor Dian Donnai co-authored the paper The Rise of Point of Care Genetics [42]. In it, she and her co authors wrote:
"The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak has necessitated innovation in many areas, including the development of molecular point-of-care tests (POCTs)..This could result in a new testing paradigm, where genotype is used to routinely tailor management.. By collaborating with industry to develop robust diagnostics and working alongside clinicians to integrate these tools into clinical pathways."
"Clinical pathways" determine the healthcare we receive. POCT's of our genotype will define us biologically but ignore who we are. "Collaborating with industry" ensures the stakeholder capitalists will oversee the process of allocating our healthcare in the best interests of the resource management and the public good.
The POCT grid will see a nationwide system of check points. Reporting who you are, where you live, what you are doing, your medical records, your biometric data and your immunity status (vaccine dependent) to the State franchise.
It is the promise of this intended system of enslavement which motivated the core conspirator's pseudopandemic. It is the new normal. It is the biosecurity State. It is a Technocracy.
Sources:
[1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210306103236/https://www.climatebonds.net/
[2] - https://www.global-rates.com/en/
[3] - https://archive.org/details/fourthworldwilde00greg
[4] - https://www.thegef.org/
[5] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210609100717/https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2020/10/26/rockefeller-foundation-pledges-1-billion-for-green-and-inclusive-covid-19-recovery/?sh=77720b90456f
[6] - https://www.oecd.org/environment/environmentaltaxation.htm
[7] - https://archive.is/B5YZG
[8] - https://www.jstor.org/stable/3401440?seq=1
[9] - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/11/001128070536.htm
[10] - https://web.archive.org/web/20190906194652/https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/scientist-suggests-eating-human-meat-to-tackle-climate-change-a4230561.html
[11] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Population_Fund
[12] - https://www.pop.org/full-report-on-unfpas-involvement-in-china/
[13] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3168620/
[14] - https://www.hli.org/resources/exposing-the-global-population-control/
[15] - https://archive.is/Q2o8r
[16] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210321190605/https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2019.html
[17] - https://archive.is/rqRLt
[18] - https://web.archive.org/web/20070918043004/http://archive.salon.com/21st/feature/1998/01/cov_29feature2.html
[19] - https://www.docdroid.net/UFdFc2h/georgemagazine-february1997-survivalguidetothefuture-bill-gates-interview-pdf#page=7
[20] - https://archive.is/BjgGv
[21] - https://web.archive.org/web/20170815102739/https://carnegieendowment.org/files/0410_transcript_rothkopf_superclass.pdf
[22] - https://archive.is/go4pz
[23] - https://archive.is/d3dOt
[24] - https://archive.is/FukY7
[25] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210210074626/https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2017/12/darpa-invests-100-million-in-gene-drive-technology/
[26] - https://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6233/442
[27] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201108123435/https://www.technologyreview.com/2016/06/07/8151/meet-the-moralist-policing-gene-drives-a-technology-that-messes-with-evolution/
[28] - https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/03/researchers-turn-mosquitoes-flying-vaccinators
[29] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210308200656/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gene-drive-moratorium-shot-down-at-un-meeting/
[30] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210210110819/https://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/gates-foundation-hired-pr-firm-to-manipulate-un-over-gene-drives/
[31] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200625213155/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/disease/gates-funding-genetically-altered-mosquitoes/
[32] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210202110328/https://www.oxitec.com/en/our-technology
[33] - https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.3439
[34] - https://archive.is/Uomxf
[35] - https://archive.is/KHWCg
[36] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Johnson_(writer)
[37] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200329093849/https://iea.org.uk/blog/abolish-the-cap-let-food-prices-tumble
[38] - https://archive.is/F6dbb
[39] - https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMsb2005114
[40] - https://archive.org/details/practicalethics00sing/page/170/mode/2up
[41] - https://archive.is/f8uo1
[42] - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41431-021-00816-x
Chapter 16 - Technocracy Rising
The core conspirators and informed influencers' motivation for the pseudopandemic was to rapidly transition the world's population into a new system of centralised, authoritarian global governance. This system is designed to be a technocracy and it is totalitarian. Many components of this global governance framework already exist.
The World Heath Organisation (WHO) delivers global governance of public health; global access to technological development is meted out through the World Intellectual Property Organization [1]; the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) works with partner State franchises to coordinate policy; global trade is monitored and controlled through the trade agreements overseen by the World Trade Organisation; the direction of education, academia, the sciences and cultural development is steered through the U.N Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); the parasite class' seizure of the global commons is nearing completion, using Sustainable Development Goals (SDG's), primarily under the U.N Development and Environmental programs (UNDP & UNEP) and the necessary global scientific consensus on climate change is overseen by the U.N body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
From a historical perspective, the parasite class are a collective of mass polluters, robber barons, land grabbers and the world's leading exponents of worker exploitation, market manipulation, monetary extortion (usury) and oppression. However, by establishing global governance in the form of intergovernmental institutions which are "led by science" and the "worlds' leading experts," the GPPP have managed to convince billions that they are now committed to sustainable, net zero, environmentalism.
In order to requisition, commodify, audit and ultimately divide up the global commons among themselves and their stakeholder partners, the worldwide operating system the GPPP intend to use is technocracy. Once the wider population figure out what has happened, this will enable them to shutdown resistance through literal population control via the global surveillance grid, nearing completion thanks to the pseudopandemic.
Every human being will be individually monitored by Artificial Intelligence (AI) networks which will punish or reward them, depending upon their behaviour. Biosecurity and environmental concerns are set to provide the justification for this enslavement.
Much like eugenics, Technocracy was the social science certainty of its day and has subsequently faded from the public consciousness. Yet, as with eugenics, it has remained central to the parasite class' creed. They have continued to develop and adapt it as technology has emerged. Having successfully introduced it to China, they are close to implementing it globally. Thanks, in no small part, to the pseudopandemic that began in China.
In 1911 arguably the worlds first management consultant Frederick Winslow Taylor published The Principles of Scientific Management [2]. His publication came at the culmination of the Progressive Era in the United States.
This was a period marked by the political activism of the US middle class who mainly sought to address the underlying social problems, as the
y saw them, of excessive industrialisation, immigration and political corruption. So called Taylorism, fixated with the imminent exhaustion of natural resources and advocating efficient scientific management systems, was in the spirit of the age.
Taylor wrote:
"In the past the man has been first; in the future the system must be first.....the best management is a true science, resting upon clearly defined laws, rules, and principles, as a foundation......the fundamental principles of scientific management are applicable to all kinds of human activities, from our simplest individual acts to the work of our great corporations."
Taylorism advocated science driven efficiency reforms across society. An efficient system should not be run by politicians or religious leaders but by "experts" such as engineers, scientists, logistical experts, economists and other academics. The focus should always be on systemic efficiency and the proper use of precious resources, including labour.
Though Taylor's ideas were influenced by Social Darwinism he wasn't a eugenicist. However, his ideas were adopted by eugenicists. Once again it "fitted" with their belief in their unassailable right to rule.
Just as they could optimise and control the human population, so they could employ the right experts to make socioeconomic and industrial systems more efficient. They could promote this as being for the public good while at the same time consolidating their own power and reaping a greater financial harvest from a more efficient industrialised society.
Taylor's Principles of Scientific Management chimed with the theories of economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblan [3]. He proposed that economic activity wasn't just a function of supply and demand, utility, value and so forth but rather it evolved with society and was thus shaped by psychological, sociological and anthropological influences.
