The UK plans to roll out “immunity passports” to allow people to return to work and socialise. This concept is being promoted as a means by which those who have been vaccinated against the coronavirus may be allowed to return to normal life.
In Germany, where the concept is also being advanced, Gerard Krause, the epidemiologist leading the Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research, states, “Those who are immune could be issued with a kind of vaccination pass that would, for example, allow them to be exempted from restrictions on their activity.”
Italian politicians are also discussing whether to issue COVID passes to the public.
Sounds reassuring.
After all, we’d all like to be able to return to normal life: to be allowed by our governments to make a living and to function socially. If an immunity passport could make it possible for that to happen sooner, surely that would be a good thing.
So, just how would this be handled? Well, the San Francisco publication WIRED offers this explanation:
“The standard for this certification should be set at a national level and updated continually.
Certification of individuals should be done by all capable and available agencies at county, state, and federal levels, and then recorded in a common online registry.
This project entails the creation of different classes of people with different privileges.”
So, essentially, all those seeking to regain the freedom that they enjoyed prior to the onset of the coronavirus would need to get the appropriate vaccination, and they would then receive a “passport” of sorts that states what level of freedom they would be allowed to have in the future.
Of course, we tend to think of a passport as a document that allows us to travel abroad. And, in fact, that’s another feature of immunity passports.
Bill Gates has chimed in, saying, “What we’ll have to have is certificates of who’s a recovered person – who’s a vaccinated person, because you don’t want people moving around the world where you’ll have some countries that won’t have it under control.”
And as with any new idea, there will be the naysayers. There will be those who, suspicious of the underlying motives of the new “allotted freedom,” will chafe at their loss of presumed liberty.
However, it’s unlikely that the majority of people would have sympathy for those who would put all humanity at risk by rocking the boat. After all, no one wanted the coronavirus, but now that it exists, we all have to recognise that it would be dangerously selfish for anyone to move freely without an immunity passport, thereby putting others at risk of infection.
And those people could easily be dealt with: Those who do not possess an immunity passport must remain in lockdown – either at home or in a central facility, if necessary.
Mister Gates has further stated that we failed to take heed of his warnings of a global virus some five years ago, and we are now paying the price. But he has said that what we are learning from the pandemic now will set the stage for the future – that, should there be future viruses, they’ll be quite a bit easier to address through protective measures that we put in place now.
He has not been specific as to what he thinks that will entail, but it would seem logical that all those who have been issued immunity passports would need a booster shot each year to assure that, as each new flu season arrives (and with it the latest mutation of the virus), a new vaccination would be required for these individuals to be allowed to keep their freedom.
As yet, the term “immunity passport” is unknown to most people, and yet, throughout the former Free World, those who are in powerful positions are well along in planning its introduction. Although we are still in the midst of the pandemic, these countries seem to have either all gotten the same idea at the same time, or the concept has been in the works for a while and has only been waiting for a suitable crisis to bring it forward.
And, to be sure, the immunity passport does fit perfectly into an observation that several of America’s founding fathers discussed—a choice between safety and liberty. As Benjamin Franklin stated,
“Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little safety, deserve neither and will lose both.”
Total surveillance will negate political threats and our natural rights as well.
For the state, there is one primary imperative—to remain in power at all cost. If this imperative is to be successful, the state must impose, by stealth or deception, a system capable of monitoring all individuals who may pose an immediate or future threat to its dominance.
The COVID-19 “crisis,” produced either deliberately or by an act of nature, provides the state with a nearly airtight pretext for the imposition of further surveillance of the public, in particular political adversaries.
The largely manufactured “war on terror” following the attacks of 9/11 produced the needed climate of suspicion and fear to make possible the implementation of the Patriot Act, “a domestic-surveillance wish list full of investigatory powers long sought by the FBI,” an agency that has for many decades served as a political police force, a fact made public during the Church Committee hearings in the mid-1970s.
Much of what we know about technological surveillance in the wake of 9/11 was gleaned from the revelations of Edward Snowden, a former NSA, and CIA employee. Snowden exposed a number of global surveillance programs, including PRISM and XKeyscore, the former in partnership with Microsoft, Apple, and Google.
“The story of the deliberate creation of the modern mass-surveillance state includes elements of Google’s surprising, and largely unknown, origin,” writes Jeff Nesbit for Quartz.
The NSA and CIA “research arms” funded “birds of a feather,” including Google, as part of an effort to track and trace individuals across the internet. Funding was provided in part by the National Science Foundation and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, also known as DARPA.
The advent of social media further increased efforts to profile, track, and trace individuals. “You don’t need to wear a tinfoil hat to believe that the CIA is using Facebook, Twitter, Google… and other social media to spy on people,” CBS Newsreported almost a decade ago.
The coronavirus provides an additional pretense to further the already deep reach of the surveillance state and its corporate partners. The national security state has graduated from the exaggerated threat of Muslim terrorists in caves to an invisible pathogen a corporate propaganda media has exploited to frighten an ill-informed public—and thus clear the way for the state to introduce new and more intrusive surveillance.
The expansion of the state’s surveillance network under the guise of protecting the American people from an invisible predator is being led by the son-in-law of President Trump, Jared Kushner.
“The proposed national network could help determine which areas of the country can safely relax social-distancing rules and which should remain vigilant. But it would also represent a significant expansion of government use of individual patient data, forcing a new reckoning over privacy limits amid a national crisis,” Politico reports.
The state, however, is far less concerned with the health of the American people than it is with enhancing its control over them, in particular those involved in political activism outside predefined parameters set by the state and its political class.
If a total surveillance system is to be realized, people will be required to submit, not under duress or force but willingly and with open arms. Henry Kissinger declared after the LA riots that presented with the right crisis, people will turn to the state and demand protection.
It is hardly surprising, then, that Kissinger used the exaggerated and media-hyped threat of a seasonal virus killing millions to argue in favor of world government. “Addressing the necessities of the moment must ultimately be coupled with a global collaborative vision and program,” Kissinger wrote for the Wall Street Journal.
This “global collaborative vision” of a one-world government cannot be effectively realized so long as there are political adversaries warning of lost liberty and the inevitability of totalitarianism inherent in the framework of so-called global governance. If allowed to be implemented, total surveillance will negate all political threats and our natural rights as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment