technocracy? by Antropoidus

The Biden Administration Embraces Technocracy with Promise of $2 Billion in Funding for the “BioEconomy”

by Derrick Broze | Sep 22, 2022

On September 12, the White House issued an executive order titled, Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomywhich quickly made the rounds of the independent media. Patrick Wood at interpreted the EO as an attempt to institutionalize Eugenics and Transhumanism“, while Jason Bermas (quoting The Gateway Pundit) said the EO would release “transumanist hell on America”.

While this EO is an important component of the shift towards the Technocratic era (or Technetronic, as Zbigniew Brzezinski called it) it is not the only recent action taken by the Biden Administration. The same week the White House announced the EO on biotechnology and biomanufacturing, they also held a summit on the topics, while committing billions of U.S. dollars to this particular area of research. Finally, the Biden White House appointed the first director of the newly created ARPA-H. This director has extensive ties to the biomanufacturing industry and DARPA.

To better understand this push towards an industry that most of the public is painfully unaware of, let’s start by digging into the Executive Order to find out what exactly it does. Once we fully grasp the technology and industry, we will examine some of the players involved.

Understanding the Bioeconomy and Biomanufacturing

The White House Executive Order states:

“It is the policy of my Administration to coordinate a whole-of-government approach to advance biotechnology and biomanufacturing towards innovative solutions in health, climate change, energy, food security, agriculture, supply chain resilience, and national and economic security. Central to this policy and its outcomes are principles of equity, ethics, safety, and security that enable access to technologies, processes, and products in a manner that benefits all Americans and the global community and that maintains United States technological leadership and economic competitiveness.”

So far the statement hasn’t told us much. We know that the Biden administration wants a “whole-of-government approach” to promote biotechnology and biomanufacturing in the interest of public health, fighting climate change, securing supply chains, etc. The statement also claims that whatever technology, processes, or products are used must benefit “all Americans and the global community”.

The Biden admin describes biotechnology as harnessing “the power of biology to create new services and products” which ostensibly improve quality of life for the people and the environment. “The economic activity derived from biotechnology and biomanufacturing is referred to as ‘the bioeconomy’”, the White House writes. The EO also claims the COVID-19 crisis “demonstrated the vital role of biotechnology and biomanufacturing in developing and producing life-saving diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines that protect Americans and the world”.

The EO states that the United States needs to invest in “foundational scientific capabilities” if biotechnology and biomanufacturing are to play a vital role in achieving “societal goals”. The White House specifically mentions the “need to develop genetic engineering technologies and techniques to be able to write circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers”. They claim this will help “unlock the power of biological data” — although there is no mention of who will benefit from the unlocking of this data.

One paragraph of the EO pays lip service to reducing “biological risks associated with advances in biotechnology“. It calls for investments in and promotion of biosafety and biosecurity to prevent the development of biotechnology which does not align with the U.S. “principles and values and international best practices”  and to reduce the “accidental or deliberate harm to people, animals, or the environment”.

Specific action items listed in the EO include the following:

  • bolster and coordinate Federal investment in key research and development (R&D) areas of biotechnology and biomanufacturing in order to further societal goals;
  • foster a biological data ecosystem that advances biotechnology and biomanufacturing innovation, while adhering to principles of security, privacy, and responsible conduct of research;
  • improve and expand domestic biomanufacturing production capacity and processes, while also increasing piloting and prototyping efforts in biotechnology and biomanufacturing to accelerate the translation of basic research results into practice;
  • boost sustainable biomass production and create climate-smart incentives for American agricultural producers and forest landowners

The Circular Bioeconomy and the SDG’s

By this point you may still be asking, “what exactly is biotechnology and biomanufacturing?”.

According to the definitions provided by the Biden administration, “biotechnology” means technology that applies to or is enabled by life sciences innovation or product development.

The term “biomanufacturing” means the use of biological systems to develop products, tools, and processes at commercial scale. More specifically, biomanufacturing is a type of manufacturing or biotechnology that “utilizes biological systems to produce commercially important biomaterials and biomolecules for use in medicines, food, and beverage processing, and industrial applications”.

Biomanufacturing products are recovered from natural sources, such as blood, or from cultures of microbes, animal cells, or plant cells grown in specialized equipment. The cells used during biomanufacturing can be derived from genetic engineering.

The Biden admin defines the “bioeconomy” as economic activity derived from the life sciences, particularly in the areas of biotechnology and biomanufacturing, and includes industries, products, services, and the workforce.

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the bioeconomy is “the production, use and conservation of biological resources, including related knowledge, science, technology, and innovation to provide information, products, processes and services to all economic sectors with the aim of moving towards a sustainable economy”.

The term bioeconomy was popularized by the European Union and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as a framework for promoting the use of biotechnology to develop new products and markets. Both the EU and the OECD have implemented bioeconomy policies.

The EU’s Bioeconomy Strategy is focused on all systems which depend on biological resources, including animals, plants, micro-organisms and their biomass. The stated purpose is to protect the environment and enhance biodiversity. In June, the EU published a progress report on the Bioeconomy strategy. The report notes that bioeconomy strategies are being developed in many of the EU Member States and their regions.

The EU’s 2018 report makes it perfectly clear that the role of the bioeconomy is to serve United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Agenda 2030. The report says it aims to “accelerate the deployment of a sustainable European bioeconomy, to contribute towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and to help fulfilling the goals of the Paris Agreement”.

References to the bioeconomy also typically involve mention of the “circular bioeconomy” or simply the “circular economy”. The idea is that biotechnology and biomanufacturing — involving technology that can program cells like circuity — will take inspiration from the principles of the so-called circular economy. This economy has often been described as a way of rethinking economic decisions so as to reduce worldwide waste. The circular economy “takes production processes into consideration and outlines how to reuse, repair, and recycle items, thus increasing sustainable manufacturing and consumption”.

As with much of the rhetoric from the UN and the World Economic Forum, the idea of reducing waste in production of goods is not a bad idea and one that many people can support. The problem is that the WEF, the UN, and other globalist NGOs are unelected technocrats who believe they can lecture the public while they attempt to design the future. The plans they are rolling out have been carefully crafted to lure the public in with flowery language referencing diversity, equity, sustainability, and decentralization, while providing cover for a darker agenda of central planning and population control.

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals; the Agenda 2030; The Great Reset; Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) scores; the bioeconomy; the circular economy — all of these programs are merely the next phase of the globalist takeover of the food supply, the currency, digital infrastructure, and soon, the human genome itself, as the very concept of homosapien is redefined.

ARPA-H and Renee Wegrzyn

One of the most crucial steps taken by the Biden administration was to announce the first director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, or ARPA-H. ARPA-H is a biomedical research department reminiscent of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, the branch of the military focused on creating robot dogs and human exoskeletons, among other less publicized shadowy endeavors. DARPA was crucial to the development of the internet, GPS, and even helped Moderna develop mRNA vaccine technology in 2013.

“ARPA-H will have the singular purpose to drive breakthroughs to prevent, detect and treat diseases, including cancer, Alzheimer’s, diabetes and other diseases and enable us to live healthier lives,” Biden said.

As Nature notes“Launched in March with a US$1 billion budget, ARPA-H aims to shake up the conventional model of funding biomedical research — deemed too slow and conservative in its scope and approach by some critics — by funding high-risk, high-reward research in the life sciences.”

The idea that research which has been deemed “high-risk” is moving “too slow and conservative” might cause fear in some readers, especially after the last 2 years of trying to get to the bottom of Gain-of-Function research.

Following the proposal of ARPA-H, Whitney Webb was warning about what its creation would truly mean:

“If ARPA-H/HARPA is approved by Congress and ultimately established, it will be used to resurrect dangerous and long-standing agendas of the national-security state and its Silicon Valley contractors, creating a “digital dictatorship” that threatens human freedom, human society, and potentially the very definition of what it means to be human.”

Despite the concerns around this area of research, the Biden Administration moved forward with its plans and named biologist Renee Wegrzyn as the first director of ARPA-H.

Renee Wegrzyn holds a Ph.D. in molecular biology and bioengineering from Georgia Tech. Wegrzyn spent four and half years as a program manager in DARPA’s Biological Technologies Office, managing genetic engineering and gene editing projects focused on biosecurity and public health. Her DARPA portfolio included the Living Foundries: 1000 Molecules, Safe Genes, Preemptive Expression of Protective Alleles and Response Elements (PREPARE), and Detect it with Gene Editing (DIGET) programs.

She also previously worked for another DARPA-inspired agency, Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity, and advised ARPA-E, or Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy. Clearly her knowledge and expertise is extremely valued by the branches of the U.S. government studying synthetic biology.

As recently as July 2022, she spoke at the Global Health Security Conference, sponsored by the Open Philanthropy Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation.

Renee Wegrzyn is also currently a Vice President of Business Development at Ginkgo Bioworks, a rising star in the biotechnology field, describing themselves as “The Organism Company”. As VP she is currently focused on “applying synthetic biology to outpace infectious disease including COVID-19 through biomanufacturing, vaccine, and diagnostic/biosurveillance innovation”.

Ginkgo has not yet announced when Wegrzyn will step down.

Gingko Bioworks and Transhumanism

In July 2021, I reported on Gingko Bioworks, asking how they fit into the “biosecurity, transhumanist agenda”. One year later, with the appointment of Renee Wegrzyn to the head of ARPA-H, it has now become clear how central this company and their alumni will be to advancing this agenda.

Following the White House’s announcements on the bioeconomy, Jason Kelly, CEO of Gingko Bioworks, clearly outlined the role and job of his company:

Today, Ginkgo is the largest designer of synthetic DNA in the world. What does that mean? It means you go on a computer, you type ‘ATCGGG,’ you hit print, and a piece of DNA gets printed out of our labs in Boston or partner companies like Twist in California. We then take that DNA, and we put it into the genome of a cell – like installing an app on your phone. And it makes the cell do something new! That’s our business. We do that as a service for customers.

Ginkgo Bioworks was founded in 2009 by a group of MIT scientists focused on “engineering biology” for a variety of purposes. Officially, Ginkgo Bioworks “designs, engineers, develops, tests and licenses organisms”. The company refers to their work as “biology by design”, stating that they “program cells to make everything from food to materials to therapeutics.” Ginkgo’s researchers use genetic engineering to design and “print” new DNA for a range of organisms, including plants and bacteria. These organisms can then be licensed out for artificial flavors and sweeteners, cosmetic ingredients, crop treatments and pharmaceuticals.

When Ginkgo Bioworks announced their public valuation and investments, the list of investors included Cascade Investment. Cascade is an investment company controlled by Bill Gates. The firm recently made headlines when it was reported that Bill Gates has used shell companies owned by Cascade to become the largest farmland owner in the United States.

Ginkgo Bioworks is also listed as a partner with the World Economic Forum, the organization behind The Great Reset agenda.

Jason Kelly is also listed as a partner with the WEF. Ryan Morhard is Director of Policy and Partnerships at Ginkgo Bioworks and listed as an author at the WEF. Before joining Ginkgo Bioworks, Ryan led the WEF’s work on global health security and biological risks. While it’s not fair to assume that every single company and person listed as a partner with the WEF is involved in The Great Reset efforts to transform humanity, it should encourage readers to remain skeptical of those associated with the WEF.

The relationship between the WEF and Ginkgo goes back to at least June 2016 when “The Organism Company” was designated as one of the WEF’s Technology Pioneers, an award granted to the “world’s most innovative companies”. The press release for the event states that Ginkgo was chosen by a professional jury and with their selection would “have access to an influential and sought-after business and political network worldwide.”

Ginkgo Bioworks says their goal is to build a “platform” which enables its customers to program cells as easily as we can program computers. The company’s platform is playing a key role in expanding so-called biotechnology applications in the areas of food, agriculture, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals. It is indisputable that these types of technology which allow companies (and perhaps individuals) to “print” cells and DNA are all but inevitable at this point. It is also indisputable that these technologies do have the potential to do some good.

What remains unclear is whether or not companies like Ginkgo Bioworks and their partners in the World Economic Forum imagine that society voluntarily and consensually transitions to the Brave New World they envision. Yes, the technologies can improve the state of the world and, perhaps, help the planet in the process, but who is making these decisions for the rest of humanity?

Is the global population organically calling for the world the World Economic Forum hopes for? Or, is this push for remaking and resetting society another scheme by the Predator Class at the top of the pyramid?

The Future of the Bioeconomy

As previously mentioned, Biden’s Executive Order and the appointment of ARPA-H’s first director are not the only steps taken by the Biden administration to advance the bioeconomy. The White House also held a Summit on Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing where further support for biotechnology and biomanufacturing were pledged. The Cancer Moonshot was announced with the Biden administration with the stated hope of reducing cancer death by 50% in the next 25 years, with the assistance of biotechnology.

The Summit was led by a host of national security and biosecurity officials, including National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan; Director of the National Economic Council Brian Deese; Director of the Office of Science and Technology Dr. Alondra Nelson and Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra; Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm; Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks, and many more.

The Biden administration promised $2 billion in funding for biomanufacturing. With this announcement of funding, the Biden admin is making it clear that they are fully investing in the bioeconomy. Additionally, New Hampshire has been designated as the location for new facilities and Massachusetts is already host to biotech company MassBio’s 1.7 million square foot soon-to-be completed facility.

“We know Massachusetts is the best place for R&D, but we also have a growing biomanufacturing sector,” said Joe Boncore, MassBio’s CEO“The administration making these billions of dollars available for domestic biomanufacturing infrastructure is only going to help the Commonwealth.”

Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, sees the Biden Admin’s moves as a “critical step forward in meeting the moment and securing a strong future for our bioeconomy”. Johnson also noted that last month Biden signed the CHIPS and Science Act, which includes the Bioeconomy Research and Development Act. Johnson says the Bioeconomy R&D Act “establishes a national initiative and builds a foundation for U.S. leadership in the bioeconomy for decades to come.”

After the White House’s Summit on Bioeconomy, Ginkgo Bioworks’ CEO Jason Kelly said he believed the announcements presented a great opportunity for Boston — the home of Gingko Bioworks and other biotech companies — and for the industry itself. “I think we should drive a truck through this. I think this is going to be a great opportunity for Boston,” Kelly stated.

Kelly’s excitement for the Biden Administration’s latest moves hint at a rapid increase in experiments involving biotechnology. While government officials and scientists in this emerging field occasionally mention the need to protect humans, animals, and the environment against the potential dangers of biotechnology and synthetic biology, little is said about the looming threats to privacy and individual liberty. These threats are posed by the very governments and companies studying this technology, including DNA testing companies who now possess millions of sets of DNA from people around the world.

Subscribe to The Last American Vagabond

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Contact Us

Subscribe to get our latest posts

Privacy Policy


© 2023 FM Media Enterprises, Ltd.

Subscribe to get our latest posts