This article was written originally in February/March 2021, claiming that forms of vaccine/health pass compromise our freedom and human rights. it also warned how the technology use to collect data on us can be used by private corporations and be a form of control. Fast forward 8 months and we are at the edge of the precipice. Mandatory vaccines are getting closer, which means ongoing, constant surveillance. The nightmare is in full daylight.
The Technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values.” US National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1982.
“Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.”
Brzezinski’s worked for the Jimmy Carter administration in the USA between 1977 and 1981. He co-founded the Tri-Lateral Commission with David Rockefeller and was seen as a democratic version of Henry Kissinger. He wrote Between Two Ages: America’s role in the Techtronic Era in 1982.
The definition of technocracy is “the government or control of society or industry by an elite of technical experts.”
Careful what you wish for….
In analysing the justifications for the lockdown strategies and emphasis on a vaccine as the only real solution to the pandemic, the broader implications of the global vaccine solution leads to the question of how this can be rolled out and monitored effectively. Given increasing concern and evidence that the global covid figures have been exaggerated by the use of the inaccurate PCR tests and that most deaths ascribed to COVID19 also had serious co-morbidities, then the necessity for the vaccine itself becomes questionable. It is of serious concern that the plans to monitor vaccine uptake may further encroach on our remaining basic human liberties. While governments have stated that the vaccine will not be mandatory in most countries, there has been the suggestion by an increasing number of governments, companies and others, that some form of digital covid/health pass would be created, and that travel and other basic liberties will be conditional on having this pass. In other words, the vaccine will not be mandatory, but without it, a person may find it difficult to be part of society. Surveillance technology is already being utilized around the world, most obviously in China, and the possibility of some form of “health passport” therefore becomes very real.
An All-Seeing Surveillance Culture
Biometric digital identification has been in development for some years now. Supported by the United Nations and private organizations like ID2020 the goal of giving everybody on the planet their own personal digital ID is now a real possibility. While it may be couched in a positive light, and justified in the name of increasing freedom and access to the global market place, serious questions must be asked about the amount of control it gives to both governments and private organizations. A surveillance culture like that of George Orwell’s 1984, begins to look not just possible but probable. If biometrics and other Artificial Intelligence is going to be used to monitor a wide range of information on each of us, then the question of who owns the information and how it will be used becomes critical. It is not enough to assume that governments have our best interests at heart and especially now, when we are witnessing increasing censorship in many countries, and the rising influence of big corporations and Non- Governmental Organizations (NGOs) on governments. We therefore need to ask ourselves whether covid19 is going to be used to justify some form of “health passport,” as part of a broad surveillance culture, which will give extraordinary power to both governments and private organizations.
There has been a significant increase in surveillance technology in the last twenty years. Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in the USA, following 9/11, a massive monitoring and surveillance system has been established. This was revealed most profoundly through Edward Snowden’s disclosures in 2013. Since then, it has only increased and Covid19 is now bringing this reality into the open, not only in the USA but throughout the world and especially in China, which may become the model that democratic governments choose to follow.
Western countries have been paying attention to China’s use of technology to monitor its citizens. In the now infamous Rockefeller Foundation report of 2010 (no longer available on the Rockefeller Foundation’s site itself) Scenarios for the Future of Technology and Human Development, it gave a “lockstep” scenario as one of its possible future situations for human societies – with martial law imposed, a breakdown in the social order, quarantines, borders closing etc, all happening as a result of a global pandemic. The Chinese model was seen as being more successful in that scenario, given its existing ability to control its citizens. Concern regarding China’s success in developing forms of Artificial Intelligence was already raised in 2019 by the US government, with plans of how to deal with this and to develop their own forms of surveillance control and monitoring, now being seen since the pandemic. The depth and complexity of these plans need to be understood to appreciate the significance of where we are now.
The implementation of forms of digital I.D. is of course already there, including many of our passports. However, that is only the first step of a much larger plan to create biometric digital I.D. for the whole world. The organization ID2020.org lays this out very clearly, and it does so in the name of human rights, personal ownership and freedom. The partners in this organization include Microsoft, the Rockefeller Foundation and GAVI Vaccine Alliance, as well as the technology companies, Accenture and Ideo.org. As their site states, “Private sector engagement is critical for solving at scale.” In other words, this is beyond the capacity of national governments. ID2020 states it has to be a transnational operation given the limits of national governments. The fact that one in seven people still lack any form of I.D, a digital I.D. would allow them access to services and benefits by becoming a more integrated part of a global society, according to ID2020. They envisage how this new technology will allow all current forms of I.D. and services to be integrated together. Their core requirements of a digital I.D., is that it is private, portable, persistent and personal.
ID2020 has been working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the government of Bangladesh to provide a digital I.D. for personal information, including vaccine records, for over 100 million people. The fact that both the Rockefeller Foundation, Microsoft and GAVI Vaccine Alliance, are all part of this organization, reflects how the agenda is not merely to create a digital I.D. to support the human rights concerns of poor people in the world, allowing them to access better government care etc. It is to be used to monitor vaccine and other health and personal information. There is real concern that this will become a form of coercion and control. Organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, already apparently influencing health policy for billions of people, are not neutral in their push for increased global vaccinations, whether people want them or not. The plans for a global biometric I.D. have been planned for some years. The programme to provide digital ID along with vaccines, was launched in New York back in in 2019.
The role of GAVI vaccine alliance in ID2020 is a crucial one. In the article referenced in biometricupdate.com they thought to add this statement: “This post was updated at 4:58pm on March 26, 2020 to clarify that the program is intended to allow people to receive vaccination and prove they have received it, not to track individuals, as claimed by some conspiracy theorists.”
2020 was an interesting year for conspiracy theorists as one theory after another came to fruition.
Has COVID19 provided a cover for the real agenda of ID2020 – a global digital I.D. programme, run by private corporations that will use the technology to push vaccines onto the global population and monetise the information gathered. The European Union, along with the World Health Organization, published a document in September 2019, titled “Ten Actions Toward Vaccination For All.”.
In the following month, in October 2019, EVENT 201, a pandemic preparedness exercise, including radical restrictions and curtailment of basic liberties, was run in New York by Johns Hopkins University, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum. Three months later COVID19 emerged onto the global scene. Event 201 was so strangely prescient that Johns Hopkins issued a disclaimer to say that it was merely a coincidence. Some coincidence!
Given the ongoing conflicts of interests between government and private corporations, it must be justifiable to question whether organizations like ID2020 and events like Event 201, funded and supported by private organizations, have only a benevolent agenda? It is no secret that Bill Gates wants the whole planet vaccinated. His foundation created ID2020 and is the largest contributor to the World Health Organization. Is this too much power in one man and one foundation?
When is mandatory not mandatory? When is a conspiracy theory not a theory but reality?
One of the main health focuses of the Digital ID is the person’s vaccine history. Is this form of tracking an excuse to monitor people? If the vaccine is not mandatory, why should proof be needed? Data is the new Gold Rush and the buying and selling of data by tech companies is worth many billions of dollars. Can we trust private organizations with our personal data? Will our personal data be shared and sold? If we don’t want this digital I.D. or to participate in whatever health campaign being planned, are there other choices?
Questioning this agenda is not about ‘conspiracy theories’, but the responsibility of every thinking person. It may be that those in less developed countries are even more vulnerable to the imposition of Digital I.D. The UNHCR experiment, using a Digital I.D. to monitor and assess refugees could easily be abused by those influencing UNHCR in terms of vaccines, drugs and other strategies that may benefit private companies. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) have great influence in various United Nations organizations. They are closely tied to the interests of Big Pharma and have invested in many vaccine companies. They have been engaged in vaccine programmes across the world for many years and as mentioned are one of the largest supporters of GAVI Vaccine Alliance, as well as the Coalition for Emergency Preparedness Initiative (CEPI). These organizations are also the beneficiaries of many millions of dollars of tax payers’ money from the UK and USA, and other other countries. Bill Gates has already stated that he sees a form of digital I.D as necessary to monitor vaccine uptake and in turn be a form of control that would dictate a persons’ freedom to attend events, to work and to travel, among other things. These things are not separate issues. Biometric I.D. lends itself to be used as coercion and economic exploitation. Private organizations, with the complicity of governments are already imposing their agenda onto the world’s population. If those private organisations decide to press governments to agree, then governments will not be in control of the data and how it is used.
This is not just conspiracy theory, in spite of what some factchecker organizations like Snopes may say, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bill-gates-id2020 .
There is a sudden and rapidly growing number of “fact checking” groups, from the original Snopes, to the Poynter Institute’s role in ‘fact checkers” including PolitiFact. They all purport to be without bias and to be independent sources of knowledge, there to counter the “conspiracy theories” being spread on social media and other forums. However, most of these, including PolitiFact, are funded by the people they defend in their “fact checking.” In 2020, the Columbia Journalism Review looked into just one funding source, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and discovered almost 20,000 grants, totalling $250 million going to journalism, including the BBC, NBC, Al Jazeera, ProPublica, National Journal, The Guardian, Univision, Medium, the Financial Times, The Atlantic, the Texas Tribune, Gannett, Washington Monthly, Le Monde, and the Center for Investigative Reporting.
” These are extraordinary times where the influence of Big Tech, Social Media companies and other government and corporations are profoundly challenging independent journalism”.
The role of the big “philanthropic” organizations like the Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation go back a long way. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is simply carrying on the tradition that John D Rockefeller began in the early years of the 20th century, funnelling his money and influence through the foundation he created, and avoiding taxes at the same time.
If the current pandemic is as bad as the World Health Organisation and governments across the world have declared, then the lockdown strategies, including the evisceration of basic liberties might have been justified in March and April 2020. However if, as seems to be the case, the extent of the COVID19 threat has been exaggerated, and the lockdown strategies will be found to have been a tragic mistake, leading to many more deaths than Covid19, then the assertion that an untested, experimental vaccine as the only solution must be challenged.
The monitoring of the global population with biometric identification and the creation of a ‘health passport’ in order to be part of society, has profound implications. This technology may have some positive possibilities, but as we have seen over the years with ever greater surveillance of the global population, and the control of people’s information in the hands of vested interest governments and private corporations, it is critical that questions are asked and answered, before we consent to such plans.