Does this Canadian Government report reveal the endgame?

I have already published this report last week: Exploring Biodigital Convergence. It showed me how serious this transhumanism agenda is, and no matter which way you look at it, humanity is up for "extinction." That's the government's own words, not mine!

James Corbett has written a very interesting article regarding this report. I suggest you read it:

James Corbett May 15, 2021

If you have not read "Exploring Biodigital Convergence" yet, I suggest you stop what you're doing and read it now. Seriously. I'll wait. . . .

. . . And now that you're back, I'm sure you'll agree with me that this is important stuff. Are you ready to talk about it?

OK, let's dig in.

The first thing to note about this revealing document is that it is an official Government of Canada publication. More specifically, it is from "Policy Horizons Canada," which describes itself as "a federal government organization that conducts foresight." Clear as mud? Well, apparently their mandate is "to help the Government of Canada develop future-oriented policy and programs that are more robust and resilient in the face of disruptive change on the horizon," and they are a government "foresight center," complete with a "Chief Futurist" and a team of "Foresight Analysts" who work in the Government of Canada's first "innovation lab" producing regular "MetaScans" on topics of interest to the government, including "behavioural insights and experimentation."

If that sounds like a lot of federal bureaucratic gobbledygook designed to obfuscate the fact that this is just a government think tank that talks about future trends and developments, then don't worry. That's exactly what it is.

The second thing you'll notice about the document is the smirking face of Kristel Van der Elst, who, we are told, is Director General of Policy Horizons Canada and the erstwhile author of this document's foreword. Three seconds of searching will reveal that Ms. Van der Elst is the former Head of Strategic Foresight at (you guessed it) the World Economic Forum, whose globalist bingo card is almost as impressive as Dr. Leana Wen's. In addition to being intimate with the Davos crowd, she's also a Fulbright Scholar who went to Yale, Special Advisor to European Commission Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič, and, in addition to heading up Policy Horizons Canada, is also a fellow at the Center for Strategic Foresight of the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Quelle surprise.

So what does Van der Elst say in her foreword?

In the coming years, biodigital technologies could be woven into our lives in the way that digital technologies are now. Biological and digital systems are converging, and could change the way we work, live, and even evolve as a species. More than a technological change, this biodigital convergence may transform the way we understand ourselves and cause us to redefine what we consider human or natural [all emphases in this article are mine].

Guess what, guys? I have just found my go-to synopsis for when I'm asked to explain the great reset and the fourth industrial revolution in a nutshell. Right there in a few short, crisp sentences, is exactly what I've been warning about regarding the transhumanist agenda for 13 years now. But in the true spirit of the open conspiracy, since this is a bland admission from a senior government think tank worker it will undoubtedly be viewed as a boring, self-evident truth by the normies who seek to find a way to downplay the coming extinction of the human race.

From there, things only get weirder.

The document goes on to outline "Three ways biodigital convergence is emerging," namely:

  1. Full physical integration of biological and digital entities;

  2. Coevolution of biological and digital technologies; and

  3. Conceptual convergence of biological and digital systems,

Please re-read that list in case you didn't grasp its significance the first time. But in case you didn't catch the importance of those trends, the report then provides some concrete examples of each.

Regarding the "Full physical integration of biological and digital entities," the document notes:

Robots with biological brains and biological bodies with digital brains already exist, as do human-computer and brain-machine interfaces. The medical use of digital devices in humans, as well as digitally manipulated insects such as drone dragonflies and surveillance locusts, are examples of digital technology being combined with biological entities. By tapping into the nervous system and manipulating neurons, tech can be added to an organism to alter its function and purpose. New human bodies and new senses of identity could arise as the convergence continues.

With regard to the "Coevolution of biological and digital technologies," we are told that there is "a blurring between what is considered natural or organic and what is digital, engineered, or synthetic."

For example, biosynthetic vanilla is created using ferulic acid, eugenol, and glucose as substrates, and bacteria, fungi, and yeasts as microbial production hosts. Although it does not come from a vanilla plant, under both U.S. and EU food legislation, its production from “microbial transformations of natural precursors” allows it to be labelled as a “natural flavoring”.

And in elaboration of the "Conceptual convergence of biological and digital systems," the authors of this report opine that:

As we continue to better understand and control the mechanisms that underlie biology, we could see a shift away from vitalism – the idea that living and nonliving organisms are fundamentally different because they are thought to be governed by different principles. Instead, the idea of biology as having predictable and digitally manageable characteristics may become increasingly common as a result of living in a biodigital age. Any student of biology today will have grown up in a digital world and may consciously or subconsciously apply that frame of reference to bioinformatics and biology generally.

Are you getting a sense of where this is going yet? Do not gloss over this material and do not take it in stride. A government think tank is openly talking about the blurring of the lines between biological and digital systems, between living and nonliving organisms, and how this could lead to "new human bodies" and new senses of human identity. The transhumanist plan to effect the extinction of homo sapiens is being calmly discussed and dissected as if it's just another technological breakthrough by the scientific boffins.

Do not allow your normalcy bias to take over here. This is insanity.

But wait! It gets even more insane!

Next we're treated to some cyberpunk fan fiction by the frustrated sci-fi writer wannabes at Policy Horizons Canada. In a bizarre narrative entitled "Good morning, biodigital" we are guided through a typical day in the life of an average post-human in this biodigital nightmare state. Here's a representative passage:

The summary of my bugbot surveillance footage shows that my apartment was safe from intruders (including other bugbots) last night, but it does notify me that my herd of little cyber-dragonflies are hungry. They’ve been working hard collecting data and monitoring the outside environment all night, but the number of mosquitoes and lyme-carrying ticks they normally hunt to replenish their energy was smaller than expected. With a thought, I order some nutrient support for them.

As an English major, my first thought is: Don't quit your day job, whichever "Foresight Analyst" wrote this turgid piece of expository inanity. But as a connoisseur of transhumanist propaganda, I feel I must note that this depiction of the future dystopia hits every item in the globalists' Agenda 2030 wish list:

People rounded up into dense urban environments and placated with digital facsimiles of the natural world? Check.

Smart technology monitoring everything we do and making all of our key decisions for us? Check.

Brief glimpses of the threat that such technology poses to us (intruder bugbots and the like) being immediately dispelled by careful elaboration of all the amazing things that this whiz-bang technology can do (like growing a liver for a local puppy as a school project)? Check.

A helpful italicized note at the end to inform us that "This story may sound far-fetched, however all the technologies mentioned exist in some form today"? Of course that's a check.

Next, in a display of textual whiplash typical of these report-by-committee documents, we are brought back to the question of "What new capabilities arise from biodigital convergence." This time, the information is presented to us in the form of a table that lists:

"What new capabilities are opening up?" (e.g., "New ways to monitor, manage, and influence bodily functions, as well as predict, diagnose, and treat disease"),

"What combinations of biological and digital technologies allow this?" (e.g., "Gene sequencing entire samples helps us understand complex environments such as the human microbiome; Digital devices can be worn or embedded in the body to treat and monitor functionality; and Machine learning systems can predict mortality and treatment outcomes"), and

"What is possible today?" (e.g., "Guardant’s liquid biopsy proves more accurate and faster than tissue biopsy in patients with lung cancer; University of Waterloo researchers develop a self-powering sensor for medical monitoring; Amazon patent will allow Alexa to detect a cough or a cold; AI gives reliable coma outcome prediction.")

The third column is especially enlightening for those who might have missed some of the latest developments in biodigital technology, like Microsoft's demonstration of the first fully automated DNA data storage system or the use of CRISPR to build dual-core computers inside human cells.

Next, we are treated to a section analyzing the "possible characteristics of the biodigital system" that assures us that these technologies will be democratizing; after all, "mail-order bioengineering or CRISPR kits allow biohackers to purchase and practice genetic alteration at home." (Surely these technologies will be evenly distributed to Joe Schmoe and definitely not hoarded and used by the intelligence agencies of the world against their nations' own populations, right?)

The crack "Foresight Analysts" behind this document even try to make the case that these technologies will be decentralizing by citing—of all things—lab-grown meat, since this will create "the ability to create food and engineer meat without the need for arable land." So wait, instead of anyone, anywhere being able to literally throw seeds in the ground and reap the rewards, they will now need access to complex and costly laboratory equipment to "grow" their food. And this is intended to decentralize food production? There's a meme for that.

Finally, the document goes on to explore the policy implications of these technologies. I'm sure you can pick out the gems from this section yourself, but my favourites include the "neurotech nightmare" scenario that they paint in their sidebar on “The future ain’t what it used to be" (which, observant readers will note, is eerily similar to the "Carrot Rewards" Canadian social credit precursor I talked about in these pages four years ago.

Now there are many, many things that need to be said about this document, but let's boil it down to a few takeaways.

Firstly, given the document's repeated insistence on the usefulness of these biodigital technologies for preventing, tracking, diagnosing and treating pandemic diseases, it is interesting to note that the report was released in February of 2020, meaning it was penned long before the COVID scamdemic had been foisted on the Canadian public.

Secondly, and more importantly, it provides yet more confirmation (if any were needed) that the would-be social engineers are not just working toward but actively planning for the extinction of homo sapiens. Read the document. This is not hyperbole. They are literally talking about the redefinition of what it means to be human. This is yet more of the Eloi and Morloch-style bifurcation of humanity that those crazy conspiracy theorists at the BBC were talking about 15 years ago and that tinfoil nutter Klaus Schwab has been writing about for 5 years.

Don't fall into the trap of debating whether you think this or that particular technology that they are trying to sell as part of this transhumanist vision of the future will or will not come to fruition. They would love to get you hung up in endless and pointless arguments about whether a toaster has a soul while they're busy rolling out the integrated brain-machine interface platforms and releasing the biodigital locust swarms and creating fully synthetic bioengineered life forms.

These things are already happening.

And while I've intimated before that I believe the "we'll all upload our consciousness to a computer and explore the universe through a robot avatar" hype about the transhuman future is indeed nonsense that is being sold to the mid-level stewards of the technocratic state in order to motivate them, we must not lose sight of the fact that the transhumanists are in fact actively working to alter humanity in such a way that it is not truly human anymore.

In fact, the "transhumanists" are revealed as post-humanists, with a very real anti-human lust. That lust is being openly revealed in documents like this one. We dismiss this open and admitted threat to the human species at our own peril.

They are working toward the elimination of homo sapiens. The mRNA injections are just the thinnest edge of the wedge that will eventually involve the wholesale transformation of humanity into something else entirely. And at precisely the point that we allow the precedent to be set that governments can mandate the forced injection of unknown biomedical technologies in the name of a declared health "crisis," Orwell's nightmare of a boot stamping on the human face forever is tranformed from a dark warning about a possible future to a virtual certainty.

You have been warned. I suggest you warn others. But let me make a bold prediction of my own: Many will choose to dismiss this information using the very type of self-deception that I described at the end of last week's article.