May 2010 – The Rockefeller Foundation, along with the Global Business Network, releases a planning report titled “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development.” Included in the document are several “scenarios” that describe “four very different futures.” These scenarios are “designed to be both plausible and provocative, to engage your imagination while also raising new questions for you about what that future might look and feel like. Each scenario tells a story of how the world, and in particular the developing world, might progress over the next 15 to 20 years, with an emphasis on those elements relating to the use of different technologies and the interaction of these technologies with the lives of the poor and vulnerable.” One of these scenarios is titled “Lock Step” and it’s based on “A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback” following a pandemic. On page 18 of the report, the Lock Step section begins, “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… 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.” Sound familiar? The report goes on to promote an authoritarian response to the pandemic while simultaneously demonizing the preservation of personal freedom by stating, “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.” Unsurprisingly, the media in the west would end up praising – in unison – China’s authoritarian ways once COVID lockdowns began throughout the western world in March of 2020 (see this, this, this and this). States and western nations that did not go along with these drastic measures, like South Dakota (also see this), Florida (also see this) and Sweden (also see this), quickly became the target of smear campaigns and lies that have not let up. Digging into the actual numbers, however, shows the states and countries that did not lock their populations down or impose unnecessary mandates had comparable numbers, and in some cases, even better results. But I digress. Update (5/5/22): The London Telegraph reports “despite avoiding strict lockdowns,” Sweden’s COVID death rate is among the lowest in Europe. The chart provided in the article has the US at about 140 deaths per 100K, Italy at about 130 per 100K, Germany at about 120 per 100K and Britain at about 110 per 100K. Meanwhile, Sweden is sitting at about 60 per 100K. Don’t expect any apologies or corrections though, just more lies.
The Lock Step report continues, “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… 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… 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.” Reading these words makes Australia, Canada, France, Britain, New Zealand and elements of the American left come to mind as we know for certain these leaders are working towards the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) dark Great Reset agenda, and creating a world where “You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy” (backup here). The report also warns against “hazards” like the “rise of virulent nationalism” that may soon lead to people wearing “bulletproof vests that sported a patch of their national flag.” In the future envisioned by the Rockefeller Foundation, national sovereignty and pride in one’s country are a bad thing, and they predict this will lead to an increase in social unrest. “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… 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.” 2025, huh? It’s only 2022 and I’ve already had enough! The report then briefly discusses “Technology in Lockstep” including “Technology trends and applications we might see.” The most disturbing of these “applications” is the use of scanners “at airports and other public areas to detect abnormal behavior that may indicate ‘antisocial intent.’” Much of what is written about in the Lock Step section of this report has already come to pass during the COVID pandemic, and since these plans are being designed around a pandemic scenario, it’s likely that the gain-of-function development and eventual release of more coronaviruses is not only inevitable, but necessary for a supranational top-down authoritarian system that consigns national sovereignty to the trash bin to become a permanent fixture worldwide.
Laughably, the corporate “fact-checkers” deny not only the nefarious nature of globalist plans like Lock Step, but that certain features of them don’t even exist. Reuters, for example, had the audacity to refute that one of the WEF’s stated goals is people owning nothing and still being happy, yet they quote the WEF’s own claim in their ridiculous “fact check” piece. The Reuters staff writes, “The WEF does not have a ‘stated goal’ to remove everyone’s private property by 2030. As addressed in previous Reuters fact checks, these claims likely originated from a WEF social media video from 2016 [backup here] that stated eight predictions about the world in 2030, including: ‘You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy.’” Likely originated?? They provide their readers with the exact quote! What these corporate clowns are really doing with pieces like this is creating a straw man argument – in this case the idea of owning nothing and still being happy being an “officially stated goal” of the WEF. In addition to owning nothing and being happy, the WEF’s video also predicts that in the near-future 1) everything you want you will rent, and it will be delivered to you by drone, 2) America won’t be the world’s leading superpower and that a handful of countries “will dominate,” 3) new organs will be printed up and implanted in our bodies when needed, 4) we will eat “much less meat” (not a little less, “much” less), and that it will be an “occasional treat” for “the good of the environment,” 5) more than a billion people will be displaced by climate change and that we’ll need to “do a better job at welcoming and integrating refugees,” 6) there will be a “global price” on carbon use and that this will “help make fossil fuels history,” 7) we’re going to go to Mars and will perhaps find alien life, and 8) “Western values will have been tested to the breaking point.” I’m sure Reuters thinks none of this is real either, just more conspiracy theories.
Screenshot from the aforementioned 2016 WEF video… They lie to us because they think we’re stupid.
I found the same thing in the media with regard to Lock Step. USA Today, for example, published a “fact check” piece titled “Fact check: ‘Rockefeller Playbook’ and ‘Operation Lockstep’ are hoaxes” by Chelsey Cox. Hoaxes, huh? Let’s dig in. The article focuses on a bunch of Facebook posts about a COVID “conspiracy theory” called Operation Lock Step (it’s just Lock Step – two words) and how it was “allegedly scanned” from the “Rockefeller Playbook.” Chances are the person who scanned and uploaded segments of the document referred to the planning report put out by the Rockefeller Foundation as a “playbook” because in reality that’s what documents like this actually are. The article is focused mainly on debunking the “playbook” straw man argument – an argument made on a Facebook page dedicated to “Exposing Satanic World Government” – which, on its face, will be considered crazy talk by most people (especially MSM readers). While the article admits the existence of Lock Step as part of a “planning report released by the Rockefeller Foundation in 2010,” Cox is mainly focused on detracting from its importance by pointing out how “the novel coronavirus is not mentioned anywhere in the Rockefeller Foundation’s report.” Right, because SARS-CoV-2 didn’t hit the world stage until 2019… She continues, “While the ‘Lock Step’ scenario describes a continuation of authoritarian policies after the pandemic ‘fades,’ there is no reference to a plot to introduce a new virus into the population if a majority of people resist getting vaccinated against COVID-19, as the claims stated.” Well, Chelsey, that’s because whoever made the claim is making an inference. This lame brain is trying to convince you that since the report “does not present evidence of an elite conspiracy to incite worldwide anarchy through COVID-19” nothing of the sort can or will ever happen. But what if what we’ve been living through has been an actual attempt at establishing a top-down world government? I also don’t recall reading anything about elites conspiring to “incite worldwide anarchy” in the Lock Step section of the report, but I guess she has to make her point somehow, even if that means focusing the reader on stuff some random person made up. This is yet another example of a straw man argument meant to distract her readers from how similar this Rockefeller Foundation “planning report” is to events that have now occurred in real life. Moreover, is this woman not paying attention to how western nations have been enacting a whole slew of “authoritarian policies” since the pandemic began? How could you not notice this? In the end Cox concludes, “We rate these claims as FALSE, based on our research. ‘The Rockefeller Playbook’ and ‘Operation Lockstep’ do not exist. The claim borrows scenarios from ‘Lock Step,’ a section of ‘Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development,’ a report published by the Rockefeller Foundation. The report makes no reference to COVID-19, a vaccine against the disease or plans to introduce a police state during a pandemic.” My God. These people think we’re total idiots… Beware the zombie fact-checkers!