Dr Ah Kahn Syed
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.
I learnt recently that some people don’t know about the famous dystopian novel “Brave New World” written by Aldous Huxley.
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.
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
- COVID was “highly contagious and lethal”
- 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 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 principle of legality is not of universal application and the assistance to be gained from it varies widely: . 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: –. 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: .
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 in. 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.
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.
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:
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.