A 2010 report by the Rockefeller Foundation, a New York City-based think-tank founded in 1913 by John D. Rockefeller and his son, John D. Rockefeller Jr. with the mantra "Promoting the well-being of humanity throughout the world" looks positively prescient with one of the scenarios outlined in the publication. Let's look at the pertinent section of the report.
As background, it is important to keep in mind that John D. Rockefeller Jr. was an outspoken champion of eugenics, a movement that sought to improve humanity through selective breeding. The eugenics movement believed that less desirable traits in humanity like feeblemindedness and criminality could be bred out of existence by sterilization of humans that were deemed "unfit". According to a 1927 publication released by the Eugenics Record Office, the goal of eugenics was to "improve the natural, physical, mental and temperamental qualities of the human family" by preventing certain individuals from having children and encouraging the fittest members of society to have more children.
With this background in mind, let's look at the key part of the Rockefeller Foundation document which is entitled "Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development". Here is the cover page:
According to the opening letter by Judith Rodin, President of the Rockefeller Foundation, the purpose of the document is to provide decision makers with methods for dealing with certain scenarios as shown in this quote:
"One important—and novel—component of our strategy toolkit is scenario planning, a process of creating narratives about the future based on factors likely to affect a particular set of challenges and opportunities. We believe that scenario planning has great potential for use in philanthropy to identify unique interventions, simulate and rehearse important decisions that could have profound implications, and highlight previously undiscovered areas of connection and intersection. Most important, by providing a methodological structure that helps us focus on what we don’t know—instead of what we already know—scenario planning allows us to achieve impact more effectively."
The report looks at four very different future paths:
1.) LOCK STEP – A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian eadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback.
2.) CLEVER TOGETHER – A world in which highly coordinated and successful strategies emerge for addressing both urgent and entrenched worldwide issues
3.) HACK ATTACK – An economically unstable and shock-prone world in which governments weaken, criminals thrive, and dangerous innovations emerge
4.) SMART SCRAMBLE – An economically depressed world in which individuals and communities develop localized, makeshift solutions to a growing set of problems
For the purposes of this posting, I will focus on the first scenario, Lock Step. Here is the introduction to the Lock Step scenario:
"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.
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 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. (my bolds)
The scenario goes on to state that, at first, citizens seemed willing to accept the idea of a more controlled world:
"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."
But, according to the increase in government control was less well accepted in some nations where elites used their increased powers to pursue their own agenda and interests.
We are clearly seeing governments around the world flexing their powers to control the behaviours of their citizens. This started in China with the lockdown of people in urban areas, particularly Wuhan, the epicentre of the outbreak. At this point, states of emergency have been declared around the world with billions of people under lockdown and, in Canada, the Minister of Health is threatening to suspend civil liberties and use measures potentially including a telephone-based "rat line" for Canadians to tattle on their neighbours and a random "check to make sure that you are at home" program to ensure that everyone is behaving themselves. What I find particularly interesting is the number of people in the online world who are practically begging for the dispatching of their national army/police force to their community because they are so fearful of what lies ahead. This plays right into the ultimate plan for complete government control of our lives and once that takes hold, it will never be removed.