Elmer points out many key features of the rollout and increase of the biosecurity state, features that normally would receive more pushback from supposedly ‘free and democratic societies’.  The state of fear and confusion for the past three years has taken care of that pushback.  Elmer points out direct links to fascism via comparisons to 1930s Germany, which of course gets immediately dismissed as anti-Semitic and ridiculous since fascism is in the past.  These comparisons don’t require direct comparisons to Nazi atrocities- rather it’s the decade-long run up to those atrocities that provide the parallels.  These include the removal of freedoms and division of people under the premise of health.  Those who met the mandated criteria vs those who didn’t, regardless of severity of the health issue. “This is UNPRECEDENTED” – meaning don’t question it.  In the years 1933-1939 – there was a progressive removal of political opponents, then Jews, then anyone who questioned the State.  The ‘Editors Law’ was enacted – citizens could not write about, mock, or question official government decrees since it would ‘endanger the State’.  Today, laws are being drafted that would equate simply questioning government decrees with domestic terrorism.

These past three years have been a trial run to condition people to accept the worst-case aspects of the biosecurity/technocratic state – to remove the Western notion of liberty of the self that has driven many societies in the West for the past couple of centuries.  It normalizes, without any debate or discussion, the fundamental relation between State and the citizen.  The nation State replaced with international technocracies – i.e. bodies such as the UN give way to the WHO/WEF, who can enforce masks, vx mandates, lockdowns, etc.  Technocratic decree versus political or parliamentary debate.  The idea of lockdowns is only based on China (as of Oct. China has 60 million people in lockdown, home and bank access have been restricted).  The West may not need to go this far since we are not as populous, but the Western ideology of freedom (post 1945), will slowly be erased.

“But the mandates are over” people claim, as if to say we’re back to normal.  The main goals of digital ID, CBDC, ESG, etc. are all still being implemented, as with facial ID, internet-of-bodies, etc.

Some other points made by Elmer on the social aspects behind public acceptance of the biosecurity state:

• The criteria for ESG and sustainable development come from Blackrock – access to capital to control corporations.  In more densely-populated China, strict population mobility control via vx passport lockdowns are used routinely.  The West will use the ESG mandates for corporate control to ensure citizens behave via CBDC.
• Fascism in history – Hannah Arendt.  The behavior of German government fascism was not shocking – it was the citizens’ behavior that was.  A sufficient majority immediately followed, without being forced. They regulated themselves to be in-line with the government decrees (‘with us or against us’). She described it as ‘moral collapse’ – people normalized totalitarian behavior to go along with the authorities.  The West has had moral collapse for decades, via institutions being liberalized for almost 40 years.  Recent woke ideology has normalized cancel culture, embraced by the ‘left’ woke.  The ‘left’ normally would be criticizing and holding government to account, yet now they have joined in and cancelled any who question the narrative.  Now, we have some people saying ‘I didn’t support lockdowns etc. or mandates’, yet no one admits to have behaved in a bad way, and so we are prepped for next ‘emergency’.
• In addition to governments saying ‘don’t talk to your neighbours’ and smear campaigns against anyone who questions them, friends and family have self-censored.  They have avoided talking about anything going on.  Usually, people would discuss politics/policy as it affects their daily lives, but on mandates and rules by decree, there has been zero discussion. Friendships used to be based on discussing controversial topics, now nothing.
• The next big step, digital ID uptake, may not need mandates but could involve some other event to again whip up public demand for the ‘convenience’ and ‘safety’ of the biosecurity system.

Another great interview and book, by Aaron Kheriaty, is summarized in this Geopolitics podcast here.  Again, there are parallels to the rise of fascism in the 1930s Germany to tactics used in the past three years to accelerate the building of the biosecurity state.  Some main points:

• The USA is still in a rolling state of emergency, granting extra powers to the President and to State governors, allowing bypassing of constitutional laws.  This is the same mechanism used in the 1930’s Germany by a democratically-elected government.
• A major outcome after World War Two was the Nuremberg Code – establishing informed consent to reject treatments– bodily autonomy.
• The merger of the public health apparatus (getting more militarized) has been accelerated with smart phone technology uptake to track/control data surveillance.  Through essentially direct control of the main tech companies, the State has come to own all of this data.
• The ‘track and trace’ data collection was done publicly in most jurisdictions ‘for your health only’.  Canada did it secretly – no public consent.  And the CDC also secretly took track + trace data without consent to monitor gatherings under the guise of public health.  It was claimed to be ‘completely anonymous’ – but it is clearly easy to de-anonymize with existing technology.
• Through the constant states of emergency, the status of ‘data only used for public health’ can mean anything the government wants, simply by changing the range and definition of what a health matter/emergency is.  ‘Public Health’ can be anything. A small example was the protests against mandates – these were deemed unsafe and broken up mostly with State violence.  Yet within the same months, BLM protests are deemed okay because ‘racism is a public health emergency’  So racism is decreed to be more deadly than COVID?  Through anger and fear, people lost the ability to ignore the specific issue (‘those convoy truckers were all racists and noisy’) and look at what is being done with it as an excuse (invoking emergency measures act and seizing bank accounts).  It sets us up for things like ‘climate change also being a public health emergency’   We need rolling lockdowns to fight climate change.
• The biosecurity state doesn’t need prison camps or police.  The central feature is digital censoring – no questioning or else you can be deplatformed.  This merger of government and corporate technology together is something China perfected years ago.  The public just cannot admit or see that the West is no different, or is on its way to being no different.
• The next 2 phases of rollouts – digital IDs tied to biometrics (face scan, your background, maybe wearables – can glean emotional status).  The State again will get public uptake via the convenience factor.  Soon digital ID will tie to CBDC, and together they will have the ability to monitor behavior, mood, political views, and control money access.
• The biosecurity state also touches on the religious aspect of transhumanism.  Not all are who are building this system are transhumanists or eugenicists, but there is a lot of overlap within their ranks.  The messaging is that the human body is a messy, outdated thing that needs perfecting via technology.
• And again – we get the ‘We aren’t China – stop that comparison’ upon any questioning of this system.  Why, then, did all the West drop their pandemic plans and go straight to lockdowns?  Lockdowns came out of China ONLY (they were never part of any CDC/WHO pandemic plans).  Italy copied, then models all across the West showed their ‘everyone will die’ charts on media, then adopted China’s policies.  Real-world data now shows that masks, lockdowns, vx mandates, all have had zero correlation to better outcomes.

Finally, James Corbett has an interview here that highlights the steps moving from the Homeland Security post 9-11 to Biosecurity post C19.  This interview also delves back in to the original desire and drive to have a technocratic control of people – population control does not mean just the quantity of people, but also the quality of people – how can we make them more compliant if there are too many of us?  Some notes from his interview:

• The precedent has been set – access to public places, or leaving home etc. – a right of mobility returned to the citizen as a privilege so long as you opt in to the State’s demands.  C19 was all about making the precedent normal for what is coming next.  Conditioning mainly aimed at younger generations.
• The 2024 WHO treaty still upcoming, which can define a ‘PHEIC’ (Public Health Emergency of International Concern) with their own declaration and bypass nations’ processes for handling emergencies.
• The background of the eugenics movements and the application of technocratic control – the science of social engineering – tracking all citizens’ transactions and energy consumption.  Is it a coincidence that ESG scores seek to control/measure those exact metrics, now that we have almost full smart-phone uptake?
• In October, 2019, the Milken Institute hosted a panel on CSPAN about the urgency of needing a universal flu vaccine.  “We need a disrupter technology’ to tackle this faster than we are doing.  Why are we still growing vaccines with 100 year-old technology using growth in eggs?”  “We really need a sense of urgency to launch such a vaccine.”  A new technology is needed, however the road block was it needed mass testing and funding, which would take decades.  UNLESS the government mandates deployment in an emergency somehow to get the mass testing done and paid for.  Voila – C19!

For an already-softened public, ANYTHING can be a scary emergency for control.

Is it any coincidence that predictions such as those by Huxley in “Brave New World” or Bertrand Russell’s “Impact of Science on Society“ more than 70 years ago are coming true?  Both described pharmacological methods of creating a passive population, technologies not yet available in their times.  Russell: “…Diet, injections, and injunctions…”

Is it also just pure coincidence that, during the biodiversity 1992 Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro, the main and initial “Sustainable Development Goals” (i.e. ESG) were to place biomedical and pharma industries as the leading stakes?  As detailed by a review in the 1994 book ‘The Earth Brokers’, they highlighted the odd priority of the entire Development scheme – that biomedical and pharma were the main stake.

Page 43:

“To recap, the main stake raised by the biodiversity convention is the issue of ownership and control over biological diversity. In the case of the North, and the USA in particular, the major concern was protecting the pharmaceutical and emerging biotechnology industries, which get their raw material from forests. In the case of the South, the concern was mostly ensuring that governments and industries could continue to exploit their own natural resources. Obviously, the convention is a compromise with considerable advantages for the North.”

And a further coincidence around the early 1990’s – this was period when, starting with the USA, governments around the world allowed direct and full funding of their Regulatory bodies to come from the very industries and companies those bodies are to regulate.  The regulatory bodies till then were tax-payer funded. Ideally these bodies scrutinized the industry to keep people safe. According to author Maryanne Demasi in her BMJ article (also covered here by Dr. Campbell):

“Over the past decades, regulatory agencies have seen large proportions of their budgets funded by the industry they are sworn to regulate.  In 1992, the US Congress passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), allowing industry to fund the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) directly through “user fees” intended to support the cost of swiftly reviewing drug applications. With the act, the FDA moved from a fully taxpayer funded entity to one supplemented by industry money. Net PDUFA fees collected have increased 30 fold—from around $29m in 1993 to $884m in 2016.  In Europe, industry fees funded 20% of the new EU-wide regulator, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), in 1995. By 2010 that had risen to 75%; today it is 89%.”

Fast forward to the comments from Tal Zaks in 2017, then CMO at Moderna, during his TED Talk on mRNA technology.  This new technology of course will be used for the benefit of mankind – we can maybe cure cancer or deliver faster influenza vaccines.  Zaks: “We are actually hacking the software of life.  We think about it as an operating system, so if you can change that line of code, or insert a line of code, that has profound implications.”

So, are all of these changes and developments over the past decades all for our safety and to benefit humankind?  Or did Huxley’s and Russell’s predictions come true?