August 25, 2020 | Written by James Fetzer | Principia-Scientific |
“In 2010, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the Rockefeller Foundation, one of Our major “philanthropic” organs, convened what is called a “scenario planning exercise” where future events that we may or may not be planning are “gamed”.
Ostensibly, future and scenario planning is simply prudent, especially as regards public health, so it was not seen as any threat by the masses at large. Nevertheless, Our corollary organs did everything possible to keep this information from them, including high levels of increasing and creeping censorship, especially where health information is concerned.
The exercise was conducted in association with a group called the Global Business Network (GBN), a now-defunct group of very sophisticated and connected Silicon Valley influence peddlers described by Wikipedia as a “global strategy firm that specialized in helping organizations [including businesses, NGOs and governments] to adapt and grow in an increasingly uncertain and volatile world.”
These included “futurist” Peter Schwartz, Stewart Brand, both former members of Students for a Democratic Society, and Jay Ogilvy, an Esalen Institute–associated Statfor board member who has no Wikipedia page but whose family name is the same as one of the biggest names in advertising. (It is unclear if there is a connection.)
All are connected to SRI International, formerly Stanford Research International, and Royal Dutch/Shell. Stanford University’s science departments are well known to be connected with DARPA and US intelligence, and are creators of so-called “artificial intelligence”.
The Narrative: “Lock Step”
The “Lock Step” scenario is the first of four narratives presented in the Rockefeller Foundation’s summary document, “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development”. It deals with a zoonotic viral pandemic that wipes out millions across the globe. It’s not that long of a read, so let’s just take a quick walk through it, because it is indeed very eye-opening. The details are worth knowing.
“A new influenza strain — originating from wild geese — was extremely virulent and deadly. Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when the virus streaked around the world, infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population and killing 8 million in just seven months, the majority of them healthy young adults. The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains. Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers.
The pandemic blanketed the planet — though disproportionate numbers died in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central America, where the virus spread like wildfire in the absence of official containment protocols. But even in developed countries, containment was a challenge. The United States’s initial policy of “strongly discouraging” citizens from flying proved deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not just within the U.S. but across borders. However, a few countries did fare better — China in particular. The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post-pandemic recovery.
China’s government was not the only one that took extreme measures to protect its citizens from risk and exposure. During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets. Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified. In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems — from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty — leaders around the world took a firmer grip on power.
At first, the notion of a more controlled world gained wide acceptance and approval. Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty — and their privacy — to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability. Citizens were more tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight, and national leaders had more latitude to impose order in the ways they saw fit. In developed countries, this heightened oversight took many forms: biometric IDs for all citizens, for example, and tighter regulation of key industries whose stability was deemed vital to national interests. In many developed countries, enforced cooperation with a suite of new regulations and agreements slowly but steadily restored both order and, importantly, economic growth.
Across the developing world, however, the story was different — and much more variable. Top-down authority took different forms in different countries, hinging largely on the capacity, caliber, and intentions of their leaders. In countries with strong and thoughtful leaders, citizens’ overall economic status and quality of life increased. In India, for example, air quality drastically improved after 2016, when the government outlawed high-emitting vehicles. In Ghana, the introduction of ambitious government programs to improve basic infrastructure and ensure the availability of clean water for all her people led to a sharp decline in water-borne diseases. But more authoritarian leadership worked less well — and in some cases tragically — in countries run by irresponsible elites who used their increased power to pursue their own interests at the expense of their citizens.
There were other downsides, as the rise of virulent nationalism created new hazards: spectators at the 2018 World Cup, for example, wore bulletproof vests that sported a patch of their national flag. Strong technology regulations stifled innovation, kept costs high, and curbed adoption. In the developing world, access to “approved” technologies increased but beyond that remained limited: the locus of technology innovation was largely in the developed world, leaving many developing countries on the receiving end of technologies that others consider “best” for them. Some governments found this patronizing and refused to distribute computers and other technologies that they scoffed at as “second hand.” Meanwhile, developing countries with more resources and better capacity began to innovate internally to fill these gaps on their own.
Meanwhile, in the developed world, the presence of so many top-down rules and norms greatly inhibited entrepreneurial activity. Scientists and innovators were often told by governments what research lines to pursue and were guided mostly toward projects that would make money (e.g., market-driven product development) or were “sure bets” (e.g., fundamental research), leaving more risky or innovative research areas largely untapped. Well-off countries and monopolistic companies with big research and development budgets still made significant advances, but the IP behind their breakthroughs remained locked behind strict national or corporate protection. Russia and India imposed stringent domestic standards for supervising and certifying encryption-related products and their suppliers — a category that in reality meant all IT innovations. The U.S. and EU struck back with retaliatory national standards, throwing a wrench in the development and diffusion of technology globally.
Especially in the developing world, acting in one’s national self-interest often meant seeking practical alliances that fit with those interests — whether it was gaining access to needed resources or banding together in order to achieve economic growth. In South America and Africa, regional and sub-regional alliances became more structured. Kenya doubled its trade with southern and eastern Africa, as new partnerships grew within the continent. China’s investment in Africa expanded as the bargain of new jobs and infrastructure in exchange for access to key minerals or food exports proved agreeable to many governments. Cross-border ties proliferated in the form of official security aid. While the deployment of foreign security teams was welcomed in some of the most dire failed states, one-size-fits-all solutions yielded few positive results.
By 2025, people seemed to be growing weary of so much top-down control and letting leaders and authorities make choices for them.
Wherever national interests clashed with individual interests, there was conflict. Sporadic pushback became increasingly organized and coordinated, as disaffected youth and people who had seen their status and opportunities slip away — largely in developing countries — incited civil unrest. In 2026, protestors in Nigeria brought down the government, fed up with the entrenched cronyism and corruption. Even those who liked the greater stability and predictability of this world began to grow uncomfortable and constrained by so many tight rules and by the strictness of national boundaries. The feeling lingered that sooner or later, something would inevitably upset the neat order that the world’s governments had worked so hard to establish.”
Here are our key take-aways from the “Lock Step” scenario, including a comparison to the coronavirus (COVID-19) event:
Did the Rockefeller Foundation and Silicon Valley agents really predict the current pandemic? Are antisocial behavior–sensing functional MRI scanners – which would likely be carcinogenic, mandatory health screenings (DNA collection?) and home imprisonment in our future? And is the dream of a World Wide Web of communication and consciousness doomed?
These questions are why determining whether the virus is real or not is important. It is not immaterial that the virus itself may be immaterial. There are a myriad of questions to be addressed with regard to how viruses have been scientifically assumed to exist and by whom. There is no doubt that the killer virus, the killer microbe, has ruling class strategic efficacy. Hollywood has been telegraphing this scenario for years in movies like 2011’s Contagion. (Check out the trailer if you have a moment. It’s unbelievably star-studded.) The movie’s star, Gwenyth Paltrow, has been seen wearing a mask to a farmer’s market.
It is further worth noting that Trump-in-law and close Bibi Netanyahu associate Jared Kushner stand to profit from COVID testing mania. As reported by Mint Press News, Kushner’s brother is “co-founder of Oscar Health, a huge medical company that this week launched a test center locator for COVID-19, where users input their data and are directed to one of many locations where they can receive a test.” Oscar Health has been criticized for selling nearly $16,000 Obamacare deductibles. And Bill Gates’s Microsoft will be putting machines in all schools to help with tele-schooling, according to his recent must-read Reddit AMA.
Mainstream Media Follows The Script
Appearing to follow the Rockefeller “narrative” or script, US corporate media, specifically MSNBC, has called for China-like “mitigation” measures for this alleged COVID-19 illness, which is mild and yet responsible for so many unverified deaths, because they were declared cases before testing was available. MSNBC host Rachel Maddow acknowledges the “testing fiasco,” which she then apologizes for, instead making a point of focus on “mitigation.” She suggests avoiding crowds, not flying (you can’t anyway) and “self-quarantining,” questioning whether there ‘needs to be’ “clear federal standards” on self-quarantining.
New York Times science and health writer Don McNiel ups the authoritarian ante, arguing for separation from families, which he claims was necessary in China due to 75% to 80% of infections being “in families”. McNiel also calls for “testing testing testing testing.” But he’s not just talking about going to a designated health clinic. He’s talking about Chinese measures such as body temperature checks:
“If you go into any building, your temperature is taken. I came into this building. Nobody took my temperature. They asked me some silly questions I could have lied about. [McNiel appears to have a senior moment as he tries to remember his script.] Your, your fever taken. You get into a bus, your temperature is taken. You walk into the train station, your temperature is taken. You walk into a building, you walk back to your apartment building, your temperature is taken.” [Note the repetition.]
Of course the real-life Chinese measures, particularly isolation, have resulted in a rise in post-traumatic stress disorder caused by enforced isolation, loss of livelihood and what We might call “viru-noia”. And since, as veteran investigative journalist Jon Rappoport has reported at nomorefakenews.com, China is well known to have a pneumonia epidemic and a sickening level of air pollution, about which its Wuhan residents have protested despite bans on protest in China, one must be suspicious about the number of deaths and causes of deaths in China. Is it not inconceivable those alleged corona isolations and deaths may have included undesirable types.
What we have is Our most prodigious and unheard-of conditioning of the herd yet, to a closed, controlled society, which in the name of public health protection exercises “medical martial law” and performs “syndromic surveillance,” a term you will hear much more of because it is a nearly-20-year official CDC program.
Preparing For Pandemic
- World Economic Forum issues a white paper in conjunction with Harvard Global Heath, January 18, 2019, “Outbreak Readiness and Business Impact: Protecting Lives and Livelihoods across the Global Economy“, declaring epidemic outbreaks as great a business risk as “climate change”;
- China’s new vaccine law, passed June 29, 2019, which mandates vaccinations for all starting on December 1, 2019 and modernizes vaccine production;
- President Trump’s September 19, 2019 Executive Order on “Modernizing Influenza Vaccines in the United States to Promote National Security and Public Health”, which very similarly asserts the essential need for a rapid rollout of vaccines in the event of a zoonotic viral pandemic; and
- Event 201, the much-noticed planning event coordinated by the Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum and the Michael Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Health Security, also gamed a global “novel zoonotic coronavirus” pandemic “modeled on SARS” killing 65 million people, issuing recommendations on how corporations could “help” in such a crisis. Although the gamed Event 201 pandemic was to occur in South America, one of the players in this event was from the Chinese Centers for Disease Control with no South American representatives in attendance.
- Microsoft founder Bill Gates’ statements and Gates Foundation activities throughout an extended period of time, including a 2013 Netflix documentary called “The Next Pandemic”. Is it not uncoincidental that Gates just “stepped down” from leadership of Microsoft to focus on his vaccine-focused “philanthropic initiatives”. Gates, together with help from Amazon, launched the Seattle Corona Assessment Network (SCAN), which is sending at-home corona tests to Seattle residents. SCAN is “an outgrowth of the Seattle Flu Study, which has been using genetic analysis to track the spread of infectious diseases for more than a year”, according to GeekWire. They are now “offering” nasal swabs to area residents, just as the Gates organization has taken human samples elsewhere in the world.
The origins of these developments in “syndromic surveillance” goes much further back, to the early post-911 days, which arguably ushered in Our ill-considered coup on Western democracy.
Notably, the Rockefeller Lock Step scenario does not mention the word “vaccination”. It appears a strange omission, as anti-vaccine censorship and mandatory vaccine legislation also preceded this unprecedented alleged pandemic event. In fact, Rep. Adam Schiff of Russiagate fame has been recently sued by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons for “bullying tech companies into censoring information about vaccines.” Specifically, their complaint “points to letters Schiff sent to Google, Facebook, and Amazon in February and March of 2019 urging those companies to discredit or deplatform any content that suggests vaccines may be harmful.” Of course Amazon, Google and other Big Tech company have begun “disrupting healthcare” already.
Now the people are being told vaccines will shortly provide them with the immunity they apparently lack. This is an even greater threat, as the Moderna vaccines that may be used, as reported by the great Mint Press News, now Unlimited Hangout reporter Whitney Webb, are DNA tamperers. We like to call them GMO vaccines. The ruling class attack is thus genetic and species-genocidal.
Despite this omission, the Rockefeller “Lock Step” scenario is nonetheless a ruling class dream come true (but epically dire for the masses): the end of the sovereign individual in a cradle-to-grave system of behavioral, medical, digital surveillance and control. One wonders if the world’s leaders, celebrities and politicians who disproportionately seem to be afflicted with “novel corona” will be lining up for their biometric IDs. Also notable is the threat level attributed to encryption, which is blamed for the end of the global Internet and the free flow of information – and thus technological and economic innovation – among the world’s peoples. Consider this in the context of the EARN IT Act that has been heavily pushed by Attorney General Bill Barr, which calls for government backdoors ostensibly to fight online child abuse.
These “steps” constitute an evisceration of constitutional democracy, the sovereignty of the individual and the advent of neofeudal conditions, where the corporate state is lord and master over one’s person. We call this “Chinafication.” Investigative journalist Harry Vox, who broke this document back in 2014, calls it “authoritarian capitalism”.
Vox first warned the world about the Rockefeller pandemic “Lock Down” scenario on October 21, 2014 from New York City. His prescient and timely warning is highly suggested viewing.
The invasiveness that Harry Vox so incisively speaks about is a violation of our human persons, consciousnesses and beings. This is what makes it so unpleasant: it is rapist in character. As they say here, the “dragnet”, the “ultimate stop n frisk”. The ultimate power-over.”