I have detailed how the seemingly benign but ultimately lethal Biosecurity Act of 2015 established the architecture of COVID fascism in Australia.

But the legislative foundation isn’t the whole story. This is only one leg of the strategy of the technocrats in the world’s capital cities. They had other aces up their sleeves.

RESPONSE

Here is Will Jones again: “The lockdown and NPI agenda began in the Bush White House in 2005 – though China had previously used lockdowns/NPIs in response to SARS in 2003 and claimed success (despite SARS disappearing everywhere and not just where NPIs were used). US President George W Bush was worried about biological attacks after 9/11 and the Iraq invasion and asked his team to come up with a whole of society response.

“The 2005 bird flu scare added impetus to the emerging agenda of ‘pandemic preparedness’ (despite the fact that the scare came to nothing). The plan the team came up with was based on the use of NPIs for social distancing – very similar to what China had used, though the team members themselves did not credit China for their idea but, bizarrely, the high school science project of one member’s 14-year-old daughter.

“This draconian biosecurity strategy grew from there. It came to include a stress on the fast development of vaccines and deployment of digital vaccine passes as the exit strategy from restrictions, particularly mRNA vaccines which were seen as a printable vaccine amenable to quick tailoring to emergent pathogens.

“…The new biosecurity-oriented, NPI-based pandemic preparedness ideas gradually became embedded in international policy and practice, including through national pandemic plans, WHO guidance, and pandemic simulation exercises such as Event 201, organised by Johns Hopkins University.”

The biosecurity movement, as Jones terms it, has been a powerful instrument for nudging democratically elected politicians towards COVID policy madness. It is managerialism on steroids.

Three truths are in play here.

The first truth is that clueless, fearful, reputation-obsessed politicians have come to rely totally on the advice of bureaucrats and so-called “experts”.

INCREMENTALISM

The second truth is the political scientist Charles Lindblom’s thesis about the development of public policy which he called “incrementalism”.

As per Britannica: “Incrementalism was first developed in the 1950s by the American political scientist Charles E Lindblom in response to the then-prevalent conception of policy making as a process of rational analysis culminating in a value-maximising decision.”

Lindblom summarily dismissed the “rational actor model” of policymaking, and suggested instead that policy develops incrementally over time, building on what already exists and susceptible to the influence of interest groups. He argued that it is interest groups that determine election outcomes and policies. Ideas, ideologies and methodologies (like the reliance on modelling) get baked into public service thinking and behaviour over time.

The third, linked, truth is the old Christian adage – “the devil makes work for idle hands to do”.

Public servants with too much time on their hands think up things like “pandemic preparedness” and make it look virtuous.

Politicians always have an urge to be seen to be doing something, to be problem-solving. Bureaucrats oblige by giving them ideas about “doing things”, about solving “problems” whether or not the problem actually exists (see under climate emergency).

Politicians also hate being thought of as reactive and flat-footed. They like to be “strategic”. Vested interests like Big Pharma and the Microsoft founder with the Messiah complex found ways to get inside the heads of policymakers (and academics and the legacy media), to embed a fear of pandemics and suggest the policy tools for combatting anything that came along that someone in a white coat defined as a “pandemic”.

Pandemic preparedness is now well and truly embedded in the political class’s mindset. It is especially an obsession of those charged with overseeing public health.

A benign interpretation of this process might see it all as merely an example of the self-fulfilling prophecy. Plan for something and it is bound to happen.

A less benign interpretation might see hidden, malign forces at work.

The susceptibility of politicians to apparently “rational” advice from bureaucrats is something to behold.

Curtin University’s Rocco Loiacono notes: “Late last year I berated a former senior Liberal politician in this State [Western Australia], reminding him that, shamefully, it was a Liberal government that passed the Public Health Act and all its draconian provisions. I asked him: ‘What were you doing when the Bill was before the Parliament?’ His response was words to the effect of: ‘Well, they told us not to worry because these provisions will never be used!’

“They told us”. Indeed, they did. Here is a politician, a useful idiot, admitting that “they told us”.

What are the characteristics of those providing the advice, those who “told us”?

The COVID bureaucrat class is elitist, woke, Leftist, echo-chambered, and utilitarian. It is the ruling class.

TOOLS

It takes its orders from the globalist set which has vested interests in policy outcomes and the tools with which to bribe bureaucrats, journalists and academics – funding, flattery, secondments and opportunities for “public-private partnerships”, the preferred model of team Davos and of the modern politician. 

Here is where the other great contribution to democratic theory of the last century kicks in. This is public choice theory, most notably proffered by James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock. Public choice theory outlines how bureaucrats are inevitably captured by private interests.

Public health bureaucrats are now a wholly owned subsidiary of those who are commercially and ideologically wedded to those with an interest in pandemics, real or (especially) imagined. They are connected by funding and by career advancement.

The pandemic preparedness movement and the vaccination movement have developed in lockstep, sharing personnel and ideology.

Everyone knows about Bill Gates’ tricks, of course. (Well, readers here do, at any rate.)

And, as Will Jones notes, the pandemic preparedness movement reached its apotheosis in 2019 with Event 201.

The movement was helped along enormously by international organisations, many of which were (inevitably) commissioned, championed and financially underwritten by Gates.

Key organisations included the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and Gavi, the Global Fund and the Vaccine Alliance, whose interconnections forged the conjoining of the preparedness for a pandemic and vaccines as the single-bullet solution.

The pandemic champions all over the globe formed what the political scientists call a “policy community” with key government organisations.

Regular attendance by politicians at events like the World Economic Forum’s Davos strengthened the networks and the thinking. (Greg Hunt, of course, is a former employee of the WEF.)

It is the same with events for politicians like those of the United Nations, the G7 and G20, the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) and APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation).

Then there is the World Bank. Of course, the World Health Organisation is the daddy of them all. Naturally funded by Bill Gates, as well as by the Chinese Communist Party.