In 2010 the Rockefeller Foundation produced a report that was focused on future scenarios.

The title of the report is "Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development."

In this report, they constantly stress their role as a philanthropic organization.

That repetition works by way of convincing the masses that they really do really care, while at the same time they are actually telegraphing what they have in store for the future. In this case, a decade ago they were right into "scenario planning."

You can download the full report from this link (https://bit.ly/2TOVIhE).

(Surprisingly still available March 10 2021 – MK).

Perhaps the creepiest of its four projected future scenarios was one involving a pandemic.

It's about a fictional (they say) 2012 future in which a "pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit. Unlike 2009’s H1N1, this new influenza strain — originating from wild geese — was extremely virulent and deadly."

If you have downloaded the full report, you will see that it addresses "the future of globalization," expects population growth to "put pressure on energy food and water resources," claims that scenarios "an be not just envisioned but also actualized," speaks about the future and "perhaps most importantly ... "how we can help to create it."

It may not seem significant, but it probably is - the scenarios they came up with assumed an end date of 2030, although within that 40-year time frame they portrayed four "very different futures."

The first of these was titled LOCK STEP: "A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback."

The report does ask you to "Please keep in mind that the scenarios in this report are stories, not forecasts, and the plausibility of a scenario does not hinge on the occurrence of any particular detail."

Why do I have a gut feeling that that statement was deliberately inserted as a fallback option so they could claim it was "just a coincidence" when one of their scenarios actually occurred - such as the pandemic they used as the basis for their LOCK STEP scenario?

It reads like this:- "In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit. Unlike 2009’s H1N1, this 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."

It goes on to say that under that "scenario" authorities around the world imposed multiple restrictions and rules, right down to the wearing of face masks and body temperature checks. They foresaw the introduction of "biometric IDs" with citizens willingly giving up sovereignty in exchange for safety and stability.

To close the "Lock Step" scenario, the report suggests some likely future headlines, such as "Quarantine restricts in-person contact; cellular networks overloaded (2013)", and "Intercontinental trade hit by strict pathogen controls (2015)" and "Italy addresses 'immigrant caregiver gap with Robots (2017)."

It then goes into how philanthropy might be affected under that scenario. It says "Larger philanthropies will retain an outsized share of influence" which brings to mind the current wall-to-wall media coverage of the Bill Gates Foundation and his incessant and strident calls for every person on the planet to be vaccinated, with a vaccine developed by his associates of course. Imagine that! Bill Gates, by the way, has frequently said the planet is overpopulated.

On the technology side, under that Lock Step scenario, the report says we might see scanners becoming the norm at airports and other public areas to "detect abnormal behavior that may indicate 'antisocial intent,' new ways to detect communicable diseases which would become a "prerequisite for release from a hospital or prison, successfully slowing the spread of many diseases."

Oddly enough, they also foresaw (theoretically) governments policing Internet traffic (which China certainly does) "but these efforts nevertheless fracture the World Wide Web."

The other three scenarios promote global warming as a major disaster requiring "highly coordinated worldwide strategies for addressing such urgent issues," plus a "functioning global cap and trade system," centralized global oversight and governance structures, as a consequence of which "nation-states lost some of their power and importance as global architecture strengthened," and "international oversight entities like the UN took on new levels of authority."

The fly in the ointment as far as the UN taking on more authority goes, is that President Trump has stopped funding the World Health Organization, and we might suspect that it won't be long before the United States withdraws completely from the UN.

End of excerpt.

Feel free to share.

Michael Knight

March 10 2021

Oddly enough, this book is still available on Amazon.

President Trump And The New World Order

https://amzn.to/2Ruy3Co