Preparation for the Global COVID Scam in 2010 - Scenario Narratives: Lockstep - Rockefeller Foundation Paper Pandemic Scenario - Authorities (tarians) Flexed Their Muscles - Full Body Cavity Check for Attending the Farmers Market - $100 Million for Bunker ("Shock-Proof") Cities

Ed.'s note: These unelected global elites never stop scheming in their plans to direct the life of people and countries through their induced catastrophes, cyber attacks, terrorist attacks and viruses. If these elitists disappeared and left the common man and women up to their own creative resourcefulness, does anyone think there would be these constant disasters one right after another? The intelligence agencies go to these think tanks like the Rockefeller Foundation because they don't have the capacity to plan out these scenarios and all they do is "think" of new and creative ways to kill people. Judith Rodin is a "philanthropist" with a long history in US higher education.

The science of spying: how the CIA secretly recruits academics

She was the president of the Rockefeller Foundation from 2005 until 2017 and just so happens to be Jewish. Peter Schwartz is an American futurist, innovator, author, and co-founder of the Global Business Network (GBN), a corporate strategy firm, specializing in future-think and scenario planning. Schwartz also happens to be Jewish. Schwartz is the guy who put out the now recognized bulls*t paper 2004 Pentagon Climate Change. Some completely absurd idea Britain and European cities would be a "Siberian wasteland" submerged in water by 2020 because of "global warming."  Schwartz has written other scenarios for the Rockefeller Foundation then the geeks inside the intelligence agencies implement this crap called "policy" or "directives" on the rest of us. The ruling class in America are paying these elitist wonks at these think tanks to basically f*ck us over. There is no other polite way to put it anymore.

While at the Rockefeller Foundation Judith Rodin was behind a $100 million initiative called "Resilient Cities" in which selected cities based on certain criteria, would be fortified against disasters. The initial 30 cities were selected including the city of Ashkelon in Israel. These 100 cities are being prepared to "withstand the shock and stresses in a disruptive world." These cities are being prepared to be "shock-proof" against whatever is coming and that included probably the COVID global scam. Judith Rodin being Jewish and at the Rockefeller Foundation as well as the head at one time of the University of Pennsylvania, is opposed to any university movements targeting Israel with disinvestment and boycotts like the BDS (Boycott, Disinvestment, Sanctions) movement. This would make sense considering Judith Rodin sat on the board of BlackRock that recently took over the Federal Reserve's bond bailout program. BlackRock is heavily invested in the "startup machine" Israel. Rodin is also a trustee at the Brookings Institute that has historically favored Israel in most of its policy papers and think tank studies. She would have also been well informed as to the direction the airline industry is headed in the event of a pandemic sitting on the board of AMR Corporation.

BlackRock opens Tel Aviv office to tap Israel's technology edge

Readers and those who are genuinely concerned about where our world is being taken by these think tanks connected to intelligence agencies that are implementing these scenarios in real life like this COVID-19 scam, are invited to read the paper republished below put out by the Rockefeller Foundation endorsed by Judith Rodin and Peter Scwartz then look around today and tell us what you are witnessing. We have used bold red font to indicate corresponding present events although this paper was put out in 2010. Note too how China is given big accolades for its handling of the pandemic in their scenario.

It means then the world has to look to China as a totalitarian example of how these people want their scenarios brought about.  This confirms perfectly with the Rockefeller Foundation's goals. The ruling class in America agree with authoritarian capitalism (communism) because for them it is the most efficient and the most profitable. In their future scenario, wild geese are used as the transmission pathway for the virus (see Infectious Myth - Germ Theory). One thing to keep in mind here is that Judith Rodin is not an engineer but specializes in philanthropy, education and research psychology.

Source: Rockefeller Foundation

LOCK STEP

A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback

May, 2010  | Letters by Judith Rodin and Peter Schwartz

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'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.

Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development

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.

"IT IS POSSIBLE TO DISCIPLINE AND CONTROL SOME SOCIETIES FOR SOME TIME, BUT NOT THE WHOLE WORLD ALL THE TIME." ~ GK Bhat, TARU Leading Edge, India

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.

Please go to the Rockefeller Foundation to read the entire essay.
________


Related:

Trillion Du Jour For Parasites