23’rd May | Sebastian Smith
Despite the fact that medical enforcement has long been named a conspiracy theory, and many have criticised coerced vaccination as immoral and against democratic ways, vaccine passports are now making their way into society. While some U.S states, including Florida and Arizona, have banned the use of vaccine passports, many countries are already ‘testing’ the use of Vaccine certificates and are ready to legislate them.
Although the UK government initially said there would be ”no plans” for a vaccine passport, that stance has since shifted, with the government’s investment agency InnovateUK funding nearly half a million pounds towards vaccine passport schemes.
One initiative, Verifiable Credentiualals, who received over £70k, explained that their passports could not be ‘easily forged, copied or passed between people, as this would undermine trust in the entire system. Our solution is to use cryptographically protected and privacy-preserving electronic certificates that people can store on their mobile phones, laptops or other devices.’
Organisations like the IATA – International Air Transport Association and the World Economic Forum have proposed similar methods such as digital IDs and phone apps. The W.E.F also noted that private sector initiatives should take ”final guidance from the only normative body with an official UN mandate (and) may in turn force those providers to revise their own frameworks”.
So far, two leading non-government initiatives include Common Pass, and in the United States CovidCheck, both apps created by the Commons Project Fdn, an organisation itself funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.
The Project claims to be ‘developed by a nonprofit public trust, beholden to no one government. It is operated by The Commons Project on an open, independent, sustainable, not-for-profit basis.’
However, that ‘independent’ theme slowly disappeared with:
‘On July 9th, The Commons Project, The World Economic Forum and The Rockefeller Foundation convened more than 350 public and private sector leaders from 52 countries to come together to design a common framework for safe border reopening.’
Arguably, the latter two organisations aren’t new to authoritarian measures; the World Economic Forum, for example, has been promoting life under an increasingly power-driven government, which they recently named ”The Great Reset” and claimed in the next 10 years you would ”own nothing and be happy”. Klaus Schwab, chairman of the World Economic Forum, wrote in his book last year:
‘The trade-off between public-health benefits and loss of privacy will have to be carefully weighed… most people, fearful of the danger posed by COVID-19, will ask: Isn’t it foolish not to leverage the power of technology to come to our rescue when we fall victims of an outbreak… they will then be willing to give up a lot of privacy and will agree that in such circumstances public power can rightfully override individual rights.’ Schwab later wrote: ‘the genie of tech surveillance will not go back in the bottle‘.
The Rockefeller Foundation has also had a history of using crises as a justification for greater authoritarian measures. In 2010, the foundation published ‘scenarios for the future of technology and international development‘, a document, which laid out a future pandemic scenario whereby ‘a few countries did far better — China in particular’. The document similarly used pandemics as a rightful justification for authoritarian measures such as ‘bio-metric ID’s’, where ‘citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty’ and…
‘Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensiﬁed. In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems — from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty — leaders around the world took a ﬁrmer grip on power.’
Statements like this bring forward whether crises like the pandemic are being leveredged or, worse yet, created as a vehicle for greater government and corporate authority. Events like 911 have proven as channels for changing the role of the state without the expected pushback authorities would usually see.
Winston Churchill is claimed to have once said: ”never let a good crisis go to waste”, which in the eyes of the government, big business and silicon valley seems appropriate enough.
Despite the idea that coronavirus was a reasonable justification to establish vaccine passports, claiming to be introduced to help ”stop the spread” of COVID-19, recently surfaced documents from the EU have shown otherwise.
A document titled Roadmap for the implementation of actions by the European Commission based on strengthening against vaccine-preventable diseases was published by the European Commission, the legislative arm of the EU, in 2019. The document was last updated in the last quarter of 2019, appropriately marking around 3 months before the first outbreak in China.
The document, which is split between numerous ‘actions’, starts with:
‘Examine the feasibility of developing a common vaccination card/passport for EU citizens (that takes into account potentially different national vaccination schedules), and that is compatible with electronic immunisation information systems and recognised for use across borders, without duplicating work at national level.’
The commission is shown to have set the years 2019 through to 2021 as the period for a feasibility study for the development of a common EU vaccination card, claiming that by 2022 a proposal for a common vaccination card would be succeeded.
With those plans in perspective, how circumstantial for the European Commission that the planned dates of action (given below) fit perfectly with the release of Covid-19 and the eventual acceptance of vaccine passports and IDs.
The first reports of the virus came from Chinese authorities in late December 2019. As we have seen, over the next 2 years, the virus reportedly spread to the west and gradually died down as vaccines were rolled out.
If and once the Indian variant has disappeared, the European Commission will be suspiciously in the right place, at the right time, to announce their new vaccination passport, without the lash back they would have received if not for the pandemic.
Later, the report goes on to say that throughout the same period, the EU would work on ‘countering online misinformation’ – what seems to have become a fancy word for mass censorship and the enrollment of tightly controlled dialogue.
Perhaps what has been most suspicious over the past two years has been the egregiously closed dialogue regarding information. Rather than objectively pursuing Coronavirus-related information, corporations like Google and Facebook, as well as organisations like the World Health Organisation have taken a massive grasp on the control of the information, displaying more of a big brother attitude while censoring any information that begs to differ, even when it comes from medical professionals.
While governments continue to usher in substantial measures, supported by the increasingly centralised media, big tech, and ‘philanthropic’ organisations, we should really consider how these crises are being leveraged, and whether or not they are even coincidental.
‘The lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.’ – Aldous Huxley in a letter to George Orwell