The New Eugenics Movement - Part 1

Did the infamous novel Brave New World turn out to be an instruction manual for psychopathic scientists?

This is an unapologetically long article in two parts that is essential to understand why we (the people) were forced into accepting a gene therapy product labelled as a vaccine, how it was allowed to happen and where we are going next. 

Where we are going next is insidious and already underway. But first it's important to understand the background and why we will let it happen if we continue blindly down the current path. Summaries are posted along the way to help the reader keep track. 

1. Introduction

I learnt recently that some people don’t know about the famous dystopian novel “Brave New World” written by Aldous Huxley.

One of many covers of Brave New World. Note the headline comment from Margaret Atwood, of Gilead fame.

Rather than reinvent the wheel and attempt to precis the book for you I would refer you to Margaret Attwood’s review here if you’re so inclined. Essentially, however, Brave New World was written in 1932 some 17 years before George Orwell’s "1984” to which it’s often compared. They tend to be considered equivalent competitors in the “which is the worst socialist totalitarian dystopian novel that reflects the society we are close to becoming” stakes.

To quote Attwood:

Brave New World is either a perfect-world utopia or its nasty opposite, a dystopia, depending on your point of view: its inhabitants are beautiful, secure, and free from diseases and worries, though in a way we like to think we would find unacceptable. ‘Utopia’ is sometimes said to mean ‘no place’, from the Greek ‘O Topia’; but others derive it from ‘eu’, as in ‘eugenics’, in which case it would mean ‘healthy place’ or ‘good place’. Sir Thomas More, in his own sixteenth-century Utopia, may have been punning: utopia is the good place that doesn’t exist.

So Utopia is the perfect place where everybody is happy and fulfilled, a heaven-on-earth if you will. And Dystopia is where that has all gone wrong. Generally represented by a totalitarian world where inevitably the elites are in charge and the proletariat are enslaved (as in 1984).

Brave New World takes a slightly different tack because it depicts a society that is artificially controlled, almost matrix-like.

Babies are no longer born, they’re grown in hatcheries, their bottles moving along assembly lines, in various types and batches according to the needs of ‘the hive’, and fed on ‘external secretion’ rather than ‘milk’. The word ‘mother’ – so thoroughly worshipped by the Victorians – has become a shocking obscenity; and indiscriminate sex, which was a shocking obscenity for the Victorians, is now de rigueur.

“But” you say - “that’s just Huxley warning us what would happen if we allow a biotyrannical state”.

Well, not really. You see, because Huxley’s book was often bracketed with 1984 it may have been given the benefit of the doubt as to whether it was a warning or a manual. To establish the more likely situation we need to look at the context.

Here is the wikipedia page for Aldous Huxley’s brother. Apart from being the inaugural president of UNESCO he was also proudly the president of the British Eugenics society. No I’m not kidding.

Yes Julian was a bona fide eugenicist.

If you don’t believe me feel free to listen to his speech on receipt of the Lasker award from Margaret Sanger’s (also a well known eugenicist) Planned Parenthood on limiting the world population. It’s a repeated theme amongst the world’s elite.

Julian Huxley speech to planned parenthood 195

So it is a short leap to realise that Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World is - for the Huxleys - a purely utopian vision of the world under the control of those elite scientists of which they considered themselves a group with the following utopian characteristics:

• Manufacture of babies from a eugenicist blueprint with artificial wombs

• Genetic editing of the population to remove “undesirable” characteristics

• Removal of the concepts of love and God

• Administration of a daily tablet (“Soma”) to keep the population happy (aka controlled) in order to avoid conflict that would disrupt the elites

• Sterilisation by dictat

This view is not unique to the Huxleys and it would be worth taking the time (if you can spare it) to go through the links between the eugenics societies, UNESCO, the Rockefellers and multiple other world organisations in Genervter’s excellent twitter thread on the subject.

2. The Court of Huxley Opinion

We need now to go back to an event that happened in October 2021. The trial of Kassam vs Hazzard. The trial was conducted in the NSW Supreme Court and the crux of it was that representatives of the working classes of New South Wales took the government to court over vaccine mandates.

The vaccine mandates were enforced on the basis that

1. COVID was “highly contagious and lethal”

2. Vaccination reduced transmission and induced herd immunity

The below is the actual wording on one of the many Public Health Orders imposed by then health secretary Brad Hazzard (hence the case against him).

Although anybody that has read the UNESCO declaration on bioethics 2005 or the UN declaration on human rights or the Nuremberg Code¹ or the Australian Constitution section 51.23a would realise that this order egregiously contravenes human rights and bioethics, the judge - Robert Beech-Jones - found in favour of the government, in a scenario reminiscent of those failed attempts to take on the Nazi regime through the court system during the Third Reich judiciary in 1933-1945.

The federal bar in the Nazi regime. Imagine being a lawyer or barrister in Nazi Germany and ruling against the government. Nothing much has changed.

The primary reason given for declaring the novel-gene-therapy-vaccine mandates to be legal was, effectively, that coercion is legal in the realm of employment when it’s deemed by anyone with power to be so. Literally what employment law was designed to protect the worker from.

It’s the Harvey Weinstein defence:

“You can work for me provided that you allow me to violate your bodily autonomy. If you refuse, you will lose your job and your income. It is your choice to do this as you have chosen this occupation”

The Harvey Weinstein defence, and thus Justice Beech-Jones’ decision, was even endorsed by three appeal judges² :

The principle of legality is not of universal application and the assistance to be gained from it varies widely: [84]. Three rights raised – the right to earn a living, right to privacy and right not to be discriminated against – are not ‘fundamental’ and are not engaged by the principle of legality: [111]–[112]. The other three rights raised – the right to bodily integrity, the right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination – did engage the principle of legality but were not infringed by the PHA orders: [113].

I’ll just reiterate that. You have a right to bodily integrity, but if your employer or the government make a law that violates it, this obviously does not amount to an abrogation of that right. Right?

And what happened next?

Well as predicted by us back in October 2021 Robert Beech-Jones was subsequently given the top job in the land despite having only been appointed to the position of seniority that meant that he got to adjudicate the case against the government, the month before.

So indeed, as predicted two years prior in a discussion of why a reasonable person would have expected Justice Beech-Jones to have recused himself from such a high profile case against the very government he was presumably looking to find favour with… He is appointed to the High Court of Australia with the following rather unfortunate Freudian headline

And just to cement the validity of Robert Beech-Jones’ performance in putting the proletariat back into line in their mini-rebellion against the government (who of course are always correct), a glowing editorial³ is written in the UNSW Law journal espousing the correctness of Justice Beech-Jones’ reportedly independent and ethical viewpoint.

Although this article concludes that vaccine coercion is both legally and morally justified, it acknowledges the right to refuse medical treatment, freedom of thought, conscience, and opinion, and the right to bodily integrity as important precepts deserving serious consideration.

In many cases, alternatives to coercion are preferable.

So let’s get this straight. The right to bodily autonomy “deserves serious consideration”?

Seriously? The right to bodily autonomy is no longer an overarching and immutable right in a Western Society? God forbid.

Well, here is Robert Beech-Jones in his own words, in a short clip in which he ends with “it was the very significant scientific achievement in developing effective COVID vaccines, especially the mRNA vaccines…”⁴

So, what Justice Beech-Jones is telling you is that he - with no medical knowledge other than that provided to him by the very government that has rewarded him for his behaviour - decided already that the “COVID vaccines” were effective.

Really? Effective at what? We looked at this already and showed that the COVID “vaccines” increased infection and transmission. They weren’t effective at all at doing the very things that were quoted in the public health order that he ratified and that condemned a generation of working people to accept a gene therapy that did not do what they were told it would do. It did the opposite:

It’s worth pointing out that Robert Beech-Jones is not uniquely responsible for this outcome. He is merely a perfect representation of what happens when government propaganda guides the judiciary and the threat of government reprisal overrides its autonomy - whether overt or covert.

3. Who Worships Huxley?

It now gets somewhat insidious and this is where the Huxley connection comes in⁵. The lead author of the Law paper - Dr Chris Rudge - is a declared member of the Aldous Huxley society and an expert in Huxley amongst his other legal fields. In fact he could be one of the world’s foremost experts on the Huxleys and their passion for eugenics.

As part of his research, Chris has recently produced a book chapter titled ‘Novel Readings: Mind- and Emotion-Reading Devices in the Mid-Twentieth Century’, and has participated in the Sixth International Symposium of the Aldous Huxley Society in Spain, presenting a paper on Huxley and neuropsychiatry that he will also produce as a book chapter at the end of the 2017.

Out of context this appears to be simply the findings of the in-depth research conducted by an esteemed legal researcher.

And “Aldous Huxley isn’t Julian Huxley” you might say.

Well, let’s see some more context from an essay by Cynthia Chung discussing their father Leonard Huxley.

Before we go on to speak about Aldous’ brother Julian Huxley, I will say just a few words on his father Leonard. Leonard Huxley published in 1926 his “Progress and the Unfit,” which was subsequently used to promote the Eugenics movement, to which H.G. Wells and Leonard’s son Julian were outspoken avid supporters of….

He goes on to state that modern society has too long tolerated the proliferation of the feeble minded and so creates an ever-lasting burden for itself. He claims that mental defectiveness (which ranged from criminal behaviour, insanity, physical deformities and forms of mental retardation to addictions such as alcoholism and gambling, homelessness, owing massive debt etc. etc.) were all to be considered heritable qualities.

Thus, those in possession of such unwanted qualities should be segregated from society or sterilised. He acknowledges that such measures may appear immoral, but that it is only immoral when coercion is used against persons of “normal intelligence,” for those who are deemed abnormal, unable to use reason, such standards of morality do not apply.

Julian and Aldous Huxley

It’s important to note that in essentially all the eugenics movements of the 20th Century (more recently disguised as “genetic enhancement” science) there is a firm link to evolutionary biologists with their legacy resulting in the “Skeptics” movements of the 21st century - which will need to be an article for another day.

Richard Dawkins - atheist and archetypical representative of the “skeptics society” which promotes pharmaceutical corporate dogma as scientific gospel and “genetic enhancement” as just another branch of evolutionary biology

So we have the legal academics of New South Wales both defending Robert Beech-Jones’ call for the abrogation of human rights “for the greater good” so that they can be mandated to take a novel genetic therapy and being wrapped up in the world of the most famous eugenicists of the 20th century.

Now back to the article from Wilson and Rudge and the conclusion from its abstract:

This article has ongoing relevance, both for COVID-19 (as new variants and treatments emerge) and beyond, including for the use of coercion in childhood vaccination and future pandemics.

So what’s going on there?

Well, what the authors (Wilson and Rudge) are telling you is that the precedent set by Robert Beech-Jones - which carries into every Commonwealth realm of law - means that they can use and reuse the same mandates idea for any situation that is deemed related to vaccination or the next manufactured pandemic.

And it also means that the very same legalisation of mandates that was applied to gene therapy vaccines can also apply to gene editing therapies.

I’ll come back to this concept again, but first one needs to understand “utilitarianism”. Utilitarianism is a concept that “encourages actions that ensure the greatest good for the greatest number” - otherwise known as “for the common good”.

It sounds fluffy and nice but history tells us that it is a sales pitch for tyranny.

Although you would think that the genocidal tyrannies of the 20th Century sold on the lie of “the common good” would have taught us all a lesson it appears that those that would like to be in charge of the world would have us continue to believe this lie, and instead dress it up in modern parlance.

Utilitarianism is the modern version and the common portrayal of utilitarianism is “the trolley problem”. As we’ve been going for a while it’s a good time for a pause to catch up, so here’s a summary so far.

The judge in the sentinel COVID vaccine mandate trial of October 2021, Robert Beech-Jones - who judged that "Coercion is Consent" - was revered and enabled by affiliates of the Aldous Huxley society whose main ethos seems to be that of a genetically controlled world, where the rights of the individual come second to the rights of the collective. 

Standard tyrannical dystopia. But there is worse to come. 

4. The Trolley Problem and the Greater Good

The trolley problem comprises a theoretical situation where there are two options for an adverse outcome and the subject is asked to choose whether to instigate an action that can save many at the expense of few. This is a common illustration:

The trolley problem. The train is heading straight for 5 people on the track. Should you pull the lever and divert the train to the 1 person on the side track?

When you first encounter the trolley problem the reflex might be to advocate for pulling the lever, thus taking an action that condemns a person to death who would not have been at risk of death before you pulled the lever. When you then think about it you murdered that person.

So the trolley problem is not straightforward. What it does is attack a sense of animalistic group survival instinct to justify the intervention. And on the face of it pulling the lever might be a “good” thing to do, certainly better for the “greater good” when counting bodies.

Except the problem is that it is a false dichotomy. There are not just two options and even if there were the situation has arisen because either some very evil person has tied people to the tracks, or the 5 people on on track are planning a mass suicide. Other than pulling the lever and killing the poor single guy, you might be able to derail or stop the train or save the people on the track in another way.

The trolley problem therefore appeals to an inhumane logic in order to suck you into accepting the idea that it is ethical to sacrifice a person’s human rights “for the greater good”.

This is what all totalitarian regimes use as bait for the population, failing to declare who would be the group in charge of deciding what the greater good is.

An example of how normalising this psychopathic ideology ends up is the forced donation of organs from political prisoners in China - “for the greater good” (because everybody has a spare kidney, right?).

Another example is seen in a famous socialist manifesto from 1930s Germany, the concluding points of the “25 points” of the Nazi (National socialist party) manifesto.

Reiterated in this excellent article from the Academy of Ideas outlining who the “greater good” philosophy is used as a tool for social control.

This collectivist mindset is foundational to communism, fascism and socialism: “The common good before the individual good.” proclaimed one of collectivism’s most infamous adherents (Adolf Hitler).  The doctrine of collectivism has been put into practice by many dictators such as Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao. Death, destruction and suffering on a mass scale was the end-result in each case.  

And for those who prefer video:

But what the utilitarians don’t want you to think about is that there are other options to pulling the lever. And if there aren’t, our ethics (that are derived from the Ten Commandments and are supposed to underpin the Common Law of Western Civilisation) tell us that we must not kill in order to “do a good deed”.

The utilitarians want you to pull the lever, exactly for the reason that they want you to believe that you should perform experiments on children and people from other groups than yours “for the greater good”.

Photograph of children used in medical experiments by the socialist-collectivist German regime of the 1940s “for the greater good” (jewishvirtuallibrary.org)

Well, what is going to stop you experimenting on people involuntarily in order to find the treatment that “will save grandma”?

Ethics is supposed to do that, which is based on the Ten Commandments - which tell us not to kill or harm others. Without those rules for a civilised society we become a Lord of the Flies society, remember?

And it is an essential reminder that the Nazis (and other totalitarian societies of course) did exactly that when they created the Warsaw Ghetto, where Jews were locked away from the rest of the population because they were considered “dirty disease spreaders”. This is of course exactly the inference that was taken by the poor residents of South West Sydney in 2021 when they were faced with region-specific Public Health Orders of the sort that Justice Beech-Jones and his Academic legal endorsers advocated for.

The experience of South West Sydney of course was no different in principle from Germany in 1940 - explained succinctly by my good friend Filipe Rafeli in his must-read article “The Day I Understood the Good German”:

The Warsaw Ghetto, where the German regime isolated up to 400,000 people in 1940 who they considered “disease spreaders”

When typhus cases increased in the ghetto, as was to be expected due to the crowding of people in a small space, physician Jost Walbaum, the highest health authority, reinforced the already established scientific consensus: "The Jews are overwhelmingly the carriers and disseminators of typhus infection."

Soon he resolved to spare no effort to control the pandemic. "We have one and only one responsibility, that the German people are not infected and endangered by these parasites. For that, any means must be right," Dr Jost added, being applauded by about 100 people, mostly doctors.

The first paragraph should by now be familiar from the multiple attempts by public health to justify the implementation of forced vaccination across the population that failed miserably - yet we are told “it would have been worse without them”.

The second reminds us (as in the Milgram experiment) that when faced with a consensus view, humans - including doctors - can easily be persuaded of the utilitarian view that interring (or worse) people you don’t like for quasi-medical reasons is fine. It’s not.

Yet utilitarians walk among us.

Here is the same Brad Hazzard using a school child as a propaganda tool to push the idea that “if you behave you will be allowed to see one friend”. Yes, they did this. They locked down areas of New South Wales that were not sufficiently kowtowing to the Minister’s whim. The abuse of a schoolchild in this clip is just one of many abuses that were encountered around the world ostensibly “for the greater good”. Note the language - repeated use of “do the right thing” “to help us all” (i.e. for the greater good). It’s classic programming.

So before we go any further and take a dive into the next phase, a quick recap.

The "greater good" is a utilitarian concept that tells us to throw away universal ethics to preference the collective over the individual. It is fundamental to a totalitarian society - yet a just society must reject its insidious ideas at their root wherever they see or hear them. 

If it does not, the same atrocities that afflicted every totalitarian regime in history will recur. 

5. The Holy Grail of Totalitarianism - Eugenics and Absolute Control

It should be remembered that every totalitarian regime requires absolute control of the individual in favour of the collective. Those few readers who still harbour a utopian vision of socialism with equality of outcome (as opposed to equality of opportunity) should remember that - because every human is actually different - achieving equality of outcome requires the following things:

1. Absolute control by an elite body, who make the decisions.

2. Homogeneity and eradication of those who are unable or unwilling to submit to the elite

Those paying attention would realise that (2) is a description of Huxley’s “defectives” as well as Hitler’s and Lenin’s Unnütze Esser (“useless eaters”) or UnterMensch.

In order for totalitarianism to be implemented you need control of the society (so they don’t “Russian-revolution” you when they realise what is happening) and the eradication of those that might be a drain on your society - which of course means that you want the remaining people to be crafted in your image.

So now we need to go further than just gene therapy.

6. Hang On, Gene Therapy?

Did you miss something? Probably, if you haven’t been following this blog.

The COVID vaccines were not vaccines at all in the sense that a reasonable person would assume them to be.

Vaccines used to be defined as “biological agents that elicit an immune response to a specific antigen derived from an infectious disease-causing pathogen.”

The current COVID vaccines available to most of the world are either DNA-based (AstraZeneca, J&J) or RNA-based (Pfizer, Moderna). These use gene technology (DNA or RNA) to get the recipient to manufacture a protein that conceivably could be described as a vaccine under the definition above. So, at best they would be a pro-vaccine but under the umbrella of gene therapy (or gene technology).

So, what is gene therapy? It’s basically any therapy that uses genetic material (DNA or RNA) to induce a change in someone’s cells. It does not require that it changes your genome to be defined as gene therapy. Although a deep dive into this is not the scope of this article there are extensive legislative definitions around the world that define it. Meanwhile here is a simple definition from the ASGCT, the American Society of Gene and Cell therapy.

Don’t take my word for it of course. Here is the TGA’s Raj Bhula getting tied up in knots trying to avoid calling the COVID “vaccines” gene therapy. Because they are.

Yet outside the dramatic revelation that Dr Bhula had finally admitted that the COVID vaccines were gene therapy…

and then tried to cover it up in a ridiculous statement posted to the health department’s website which was written by somebody who didn’t even know the definition of transfection and which we only got to find out about through a FOI request…

We now need to realise something very very important.

In 2021 the judiciary of the Commonwealth by precedent of Robert Beech-Jones, aided and endorsed by the legal academic establishment who apparently revered the eugenicist Aldous Huxley, normalised the forced administration of genetic therapy to the population as a condition of partaking in society.

Please read that again.

Imagine if Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot or Josef Stalin had the power to impose a gene therapy on the population in order to earn a living (i.e. eat). Do you think they would do anything differently? Not a chance.

But if you thought gene therapy (where genetic material is introduced to your cells in order to do something) was bad enough, it is just a stepping stone.

There is one more step before the holy grail of the eugenicists is reached.

It’s not enough to drop some genetic material into your cells, because that might not be permanent enough. Remember that permanence was not even an issue discussed in Wilson & Rudge - because it’s irrelevant. Those who endorse gene therapy mandates don’t care whether the gene therapy integrates into your genome or just appears temporarily because the decision was legislated that you don’t have a say in this when it’s for the greater good.

And remember when they designed this particular gene therapy “vaccine” it was pretty much guaranteed to integrate into your genome. I wrote about it here:

So you see, Beech-Jones and the appeal judges have already decided that permanent alteration of your genome that might arise as a result of the “safe and effective mRNA vaccines” is legal.

Because anything that they want to do for the greater good is legal, because they said so and the appeal judges agreed.

And the public did not revolt. They just ate the cake.

So what comes next? Well this does seem obvious but I’ll spell it out.

Because you are not adequate for the elite, we need to edit your genome in order to make you adequate. For the greater good, of course.

Welcome to CRISPR gene editing….

….and part 2 of this series.

1. In presumed embarrassment of the CDC’s reverence and emulation of the Nazi regime and the medical atrocities it conducted, the CDC has removed the Nuremberg Code from the link on its website. https://www.cdc.gov/os/integrity/hrpo/regAndGuidance.htm
A partial archive confirming the weblink existed is here
https://archive.is/lFnHz

The CDC page containing the link, showing that it was removed, is archived here

2. Kassam vs Hazzard appeal ruling case note.

Case Note Kassam V Hazzard Henry V Hazzard 2021 Nswsc 1320

337KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

3. Wilson & Rudge, UNSW Law Journal July 2023

Wilson & Rudge Unswlaw 15

443KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

4. Following this clip Robert Beech-Jones then goes on to talk about the application of neuroscience research, use of nanoparticles in food, and - with no hint of irony - bioethics.

The full speech is here.

5. For a deeper dive into the Huxley connections to big data and AI it might be worth a trip over to Fee’s telegram page at this post which also references her substack here. There is also a link to a notable discussion by Willi Real including this comparison of Brave New World vs HG Well’s Men Like Gods