2020 ‘Lockdown’ 2010: Rockefeller ’s ‘Operation Lockstep ...

1 1/9 August 25, 20202010: Rockefeller s Operation Lockstep Predicted2020 Lockdown on August 25, 2020 Written by James FetzerIn 2010, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the Rockefeller Foundation, one of Ourmajor 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 publichealth, so it was not seen as any threat by the masses at large. Nevertheless, Our corollaryorgans did everything possible to keep this information from them, including high levelsof increasing and creeping censorship, especially where health information is for the Future of Technology andInternational DevelopmentThe exercise was conducted in association with a group called the Global BusinessNetwork (GBN), a now-defunct group of very sophisticated and connected Silicon Valleyinfluence peddlers described by Wikipedia as a global strategy firm that specialized inhelping organizations [including businesses, NGOs and governments] to adapt and growin an increasingly uncertain and volatile world.

2 These included futurist Peter Schwartz, Stewart Brand, both former members ofStudents for a Democratic Society, and Jay Ogilvy, an Esalen Institute associated Statforboard member who has no Wikipedia page but whose family name is the same as one ofthe biggest names in advertising. (It is unclear if there is a connection.)All are connected to SRI International, formerly Stanford Research International, andRoyal Dutch/Shell. Stanford University s science departments are well known to beconnected with DARPA and US intelligence, and are creators of so-called artificialintelligence .The Narrative: Lock Step The Lock Step scenario is the first offour narratives presented in theRockefeller Foundation s summarydocument, Scenarios for the Future ofTechnology and InternationalDevelopment . It deals with a zoonoticviral pandemic that wipes out millionsacross the globe.

3 It s not that long of aread, so let s just take a quick walkthrough it, because it is indeed very eye-opening. The details are worth A new influenza strain originating from wild geese was extremely virulent anddeadly. Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when thevirus streaked around the world, infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population andkilling 8 million in just seven months, the majority of them healthy young adults. Thepandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people andgoods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supplychains. Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings sat empty for months,devoid of both employees and pandemic blanketed the planet though disproportionate numbers died in Africa,Southeast Asia, and Central America, where the virus spread like wildfire in the absence ofofficial containment protocols.

4 But even in developed countries, containment was achallenge. The United States s initial policy of strongly discouraging citizens from flyingproved deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not just within the butacross borders. However, a few countries did fare better China in particular. The Chinesegovernment s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, aswell 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 swifterpost-pandemic s government was not the only one that took extreme measures to protect its citizensfrom risk and exposure. During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed theirauthority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of facemasks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations andsupermarkets.

5 Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversightof citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified. In order to protect themselves fromthe spread of increasingly global problems from pandemics and transnational terrorism toenvironmental crises and rising poverty leaders around the world took a firmer grip first, the notion of a more controlled world gained wide acceptance and willingly gave up some of their sovereignty and their privacy to morepaternalistic 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 latitudeto impose order in the ways they saw fit. In developed countries, this heightened oversighttook many forms: biometric IDs for all citizens, for example, and tighter regulation of keyindustries whose stability was deemed vital to national interests.

6 In many developedcountries, enforced cooperation with a suite of new regulations and agreements slowly butsteadily restored both order and, importantly, economic the developing world, however, the story was different and much more authority took different forms in different countries, hinging largely on thecapacity, caliber, and intentions of their leaders. In countries with strong and thoughtfulleaders, citizens overall economic status and quality of life increased. In India, for example,air quality drastically improved after 2016, when the government outlawed high-emittingvehicles. In Ghana, the introduction of ambitious government programs to improve basicinfrastructure and ensure the availability of clean water for all her people led to a sharp4/9decline in water-borne diseases. But more authoritarian leadership worked less well andin some cases tragically in countries run by irresponsible elites who used their increasedpower to pursue their own interests at the expense of their 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 patchof their national flag.

7 Strong technology regulations stifled innovation, kept costs high, andcurbed adoption. In the developing world, access to approved technologies increased butbeyond that remained limited: the locus of technology innovation was largely in thedeveloped world, leaving many developing countries on the receiving end of technologiesthat others consider best for them. Some governments found this patronizing and refusedto distribute computers and other technologies that they scoffed at as second hand. Meanwhile, developing countries with more resources and better capacity began to innovateinternally to fill these gaps on their , in the developed world, the presence of so many top-down rules and normsgreatly inhibited entrepreneurial activity. Scientists and innovators were often told bygovernments what research lines to pursue and were guided mostly toward projects thatwould make money ( , market-driven product development) or were sure bets ( ,fundamental research), leaving more risky or innovative research areas largely countries and monopolistic companies with big research and development budgetsstill made significant advances, but the IP behind their breakthroughs remained lockedbehind strict national or corporate protection.

8 Russia and India imposed stringent domesticstandards for supervising and certifying encryption-related products and their suppliers acategory that in reality meant all IT innovations. The and EU struck back withretaliatory national standards, throwing a wrench in the development and diffusion oftechnology in the developing world, acting in one s national self-interest often meant seekingpractical alliances that fit with those interests whether it was gaining access to neededresources or banding together in order to achieve economic growth. In South America andAfrica, regional and sub-regional alliances became more structured. Kenya doubled its tradewith southern and eastern Africa, as new partnerships grew within the continent. China sinvestment in Africa expanded as the bargain of new jobs and infrastructure in exchange foraccess to key minerals or food exports proved agreeable to many governments.

9 Cross-borderties proliferated in the form of official security aid. While the deployment of foreignsecurity teams was welcomed in some of the most dire failed states, one-size-fits-allsolutions yielded few positive 2025, people seemed to be growing weary of so much top-down control and lettingleaders and authorities make choices for national interests clashed with individual interests, there was conflict. Sporadicpushback became increasingly organized and coordinated, as disaffected youth and peoplewho 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 upwith the entrenched cronyism and corruption. Even those who liked the greater stability and5/9predictability of this world began to grow uncomfortable and constrained by so many tightrules and by the strictness of national boundaries.

10 The feeling lingered that sooner or later,something would inevitably upset the neat order that the world s governments had workedso hard to establish. Here are our key take-aways from the Lock Step scenario, including a comparison to thecoronavirus (COVID-19) event:Did the Rockefeller Foundation and Silicon Valley agents really predict the currentpandemic? Are antisocial behavior sensing functional MRI scanners which would likelybe carcinogenic, mandatory health screenings (DNA collection?) and home imprisonmentin our future? And is the dream of a World Wide Web of communication andconsciousness doomed?6/9 These questions are why determining whether the virus is real or not is important. It isnot immaterial that the virus itself may be are a myriad of questions tobe addressed with regard to how viruses have been scientifically assumed to exist and bywhom.