A Ruling Class Dream Scenario
In 2010, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the Rockefeller Foundation, one of Our major “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 public health, so it was not seen as any threat by the masses at large.
Nevertheless, Our corollary organs did everything possible to keep this information from them, including high levels of increasing and creeping censorship, especially where health information is concerned.
The exercise was conducted in association with a group called the Global Business Network (GBN), a now-defunct group of very sophisticated and connected Silicon Valley influence peddlers described by Wikipedia as a “global strategy firm that specialized in helping organizations [including businesses, NGOs and governments] to adapt and grow in an increasingly uncertain and volatile world.”
These included “futurist” Peter Schwartz, Stewart Brand, both former members of Students for a Democratic Society, and Jay Ogilvy, an Esalen Institute–associated Statfor board member who has no Wikipedia page but whose family name is the same as one of the biggest names in advertising. (It is unclear if there is a connection.) All are connected to SRI International, formerly Stanford Research International, and Royal Dutch/Shell. Stanford University’s science departments are well known to be connected with DARPA and US intelligence, and are creators of so-called “artificial intelligence”.
The Narrative: “Lock Step”
Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development
The “Lock Step” scenario is the first of four narratives presented in the Rockefeller Foundation’s summary document, “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development”. It deals with a zoonotic viral pandemic that wipes out millions across the globe. It’s not that long of a read, so let’s just take a quick walk through it, because it is indeed very eye-opening. The details are worth knowing.
“A 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.
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.
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.
Especially in the developing world, acting in one’s national self-interest often meant seeking practical alliances that fit with those interests — whether it was gaining access to needed resources or banding together in order to achieve economic growth. In South America and Africa, regional and sub-regional alliances became more structured. Kenya doubled its trade with southern and eastern Africa, as new partnerships grew within the continent. China’s investment in Africa expanded as the bargain of new jobs and infrastructure in exchange for access to key minerals or food exports proved agreeable to many governments. Cross-border ties proliferated in the form of official security aid. While the deployment of foreign security teams was welcomed in some of the most dire failed states, one-size-fits-all solutions yielded few positive results.
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. In 2026, protestors in Nigeria brought down the government, fed up with the entrenched cronyism and corruption. 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.”
Here are our key take-aways from the “Lock Step” scenario, including a comparison to the coronavirus (COVID-19) event:
Did the Rockefeller Foundation and Silicon Valley agents really predict the current pandemic? Are antisocial behavior–sensing functional MRI scanners – which would likely be carcinogenic, mandatory health screenings (DNA collection?) and home imprisonment in our future? And is the dream of a World Wide Web of communication and consciousness doomed?
These questions are why determining whether the virus is real or not is important. It is not immaterial that the virus itself may be immaterial. There are a myriad of questions to be addressed with regard to how viruses have been scientifically assumed to exist and by whom. There is no doubt that the killer virus, the killer microbe, has ruling class strategic efficacy. Hollywood has been telegraphing this scenario for years in movies like 2011’s Contagion. (Check out the trailer if you have a moment. It’s unbelievably star-studded.) The movie’s star, Gwenyth Paltrow, has been seen wearing a mask to a farmer’s market.
It is further worth noting that Trump-in-law and close Bibi Netanyahu associate Jared Kushner stand to profit from COVID testing mania. As reported by Mint Press News, Kushner’s brother is “co-founder of Oscar Health, a huge medical company that this week launched a test center locator for COVID-19, where users input their data and are directed to one of many locations where they can receive a test.” Oscar Health has been criticized for selling nearly $16,000 Obamacare deductibles. And Bill Gates’s Microsoft will be putting machines in all schools to help with tele-schooling, according to his recent must-read Reddit AMA.
Mainstream Media Follows The Script
Appearing to follow the Rockefeller “narrative” or script, US corporate media, specifically MSNBC, has called for China-like “mitigation” measures for this alleged COVID-19 illness, which is mild and yet responsible for so many unverified deaths, because they were declared cases before testing was available. MSNBC host Rachel Maddow acknowledges the “testing fiasco,” which she then apologizes for, instead making a point of focus on “mitigation.” She suggests avoiding crowds, not flying (you can’t anyway) and “self-quarantining,” questioning whether there ‘needs to be’ “clear federal standards” on self-quarantining.
New York Times science and health writer Don McNiel ups the authoritarian ante, arguing for separation from families, which he claims was necessary in China due to 75% to 80% of infections being “in families”. McNiel also calls for “testing testing testing testing.” But he’s not just talking about going to a designated health clinic. He’s talking about Chinese measures such as body temperature checks:
“If you go into any building, your temperature is taken. I came into this building. Nobody took my temperature. They asked me some silly questions I could have lied about. [McNiel appears to have a senior moment as he tries to remember his script.] Your, your fever taken. You get into a bus, your temperature is taken. You walk into the train station, your temperature is taken. You walk into a building, you walk back to your apartment building, your temperature is taken.” [Note the repetition.]
Of course the real-life Chinese measures, particularly isolation, have resulted in a rise in post-traumatic stress disorder caused by enforced isolation, loss of livelihood and what We might call “viru-noia”. And since, as veteran investigative journalist Jon Rappoport has reported at nomorefakenews.com, China is well known to have a pneumonia epidemic and a sickening level of air pollution, about which its Wuhan residents have protested despite bans on protest in China, one must be suspicious about the number of deaths and causes of deaths in China. Is it not inconceivable those alleged corona isolations and deaths may have included undesirable types.
What we have is Our most prodigious and unheard-of conditioning of the herd yet, to a closed, controlled society, which in the name of public health protection exercises “medical martial law” and performs “syndromic surveillance,” a term you will hear much more of because it is a nearly-20-year official CDC program.
Preparing for Pandemic
- World Economic Forum issues a white paper in conjunction with Harvard Global Heath, January 18, 2019, “Outbreak Readiness and Business Impact: Protecting Lives and Livelihoods across the Global Economy“, declaring epidemic outbreaks as great a business risk as “climate change”;
- China’s new vaccine law, passed June 29, 2019, which mandates vaccinations for all starting on December 1, 2019 and modernizes vaccine production;
- President Trump’s September 19, 2019 Executive Order on “Modernizing Influenza Vaccines in the United States to Promote National Security and Public Health”, which very similarly asserts the essential need for a rapid rollout of vaccines in the event of a zoonotic viral pandemic; and
- Event 201, the much-noticed planning event coordinated by the Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum and the Michael Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Health Security, also gamed a global “novel zoonotic coronavirus” pandemic “modeled on SARS” killing 65 million people, issuing recommendations on how corporations could “help” in such a crisis. Although the gamed Event 201 pandemic was to occur in South America, one of the players in this event was from the Chinese Centers for Disease Control with no South American representatives in attendance.
- Microsoft founder Bill Gates’ statements and Gates Foundation activities throughout an extended period of time, including a 2013 Netflix documentary called “The Next Pandemic”. Is it not uncoincidental that Gates just “stepped down” from leadership of Microsoft to focus on his vaccine-focused “philanthropic initiatives”. Gates, together with help from Amazon, launched the Seattle Corona Assessment Network (SCAN), which is sending at-home corona tests to Seattle residents. SCAN is “an outgrowth of the Seattle Flu Study, which has been using genetic analysis to track the spread of infectious diseases for more than a year”, according to GeekWire. They are now “offering” nasal swabs to area residents, just as the Gates organization has taken human samples elsewhere in the world.
The origins of these developments in “syndromic surveillance” goes much further back, to the early post-911 days, which arguably ushered in Our ill-considered coup on Western democracy.
Notably, the Rockefeller Lock Step scenario does not mention the word “vaccination”. It appears a strange omission, as anti-vaccine censorship and mandatory vaccine legislation also preceded this unprecedented alleged pandemic event. In fact, Rep. Adam Schiff of Russiagate fame has been recently sued by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons for “bullying tech companies into censoring information about vaccines.” Specifically, their complaint “points to letters Schiff sent to Google, Facebook, and Amazon in February and March of 2019 urging those companies to discredit or deplatform any content that suggests vaccines may be harmful.” Of course Amazon, Google and other Big Tech company have begun “disrupting healthcare” already.
Now the people are being told vaccines will shortly provide them with the immunity they apparently lack. This is an even greater threat, as the Moderna vaccines that may be used, as reported by the great Mint Press News, now Unlimited Hangout reporter Whitney Webb, are DNA tamperers. We like to call them GMO vaccines. The ruling class attack is thus genetic and species-genocidal.
Despite this omission, the Rockefeller “Lock Step” scenario is nonetheless a ruling class dream come true (but epically dire for the masses): the end of the sovereign individual in a cradle-to-grave system of behavioral, medical, digital surveillance and control. One wonders if the world’s leaders, celebrities and politicians who disproportionately seem to be afflicted with “novel corona” will be lining up for their biometric IDs. Also notable is the threat level attributed to encryption, which is blamed for the end of the global Internet and the free flow of information – and thus technological and economic innovation – among the world’s peoples. Consider this in the context of the EARN IT Act that has been heavily pushed by Attorney General Bill Barr, which calls for government backdoors ostensibly to fight online child abuse.
These “steps” constitute an evisceration of constitutional democracy, the sovereignty of the individual and the advent of neofeudal conditions, where the corporate state is lord and master over one’s person. We call this “Chinafication.” Investigative journalist Harry Vox, who broke this document back in 2014, calls it “authoritarian capitalism”.
Vox first warned the world about the Rockefeller pandemic “Lock Down” scenario on October 21, 2014 from New York City. His prescient and timely warning is highly suggested viewing.
I case GooTube takes this down, here is a re-published version on BITCHUTE
This Has Been A Planned Attack by The Elite For A Long Time
The invasiveness that Harry Vox so incisively speaks about is a violation of our human persons, consciousnesses and beings. This is what makes it so unpleasant: it is rapist in character. As they say here, the “dragnet”, the “ultimate stop n frisk”. The ultimate power-over.
On March 21 Rolling Stone reported the US Justice Department wants to suspend the Constitution in times of emergency. They would like chief judges “to indefinitely hold people without trial and suspend other constitutionally-protected rights during CV and other emergencies.”
In the Western world, emergency laws do not give any government the right to invalidate constitutional law, which in the case of America at least insures “inalienable rights” of its citizens. If an “emergency law” is renewed over a span of 20 years, with no record of deaths due to that emergency, as in the case of post-911 ‘foreign terrorism’, the Supreme Court should declare an emergency law that persists for 20 years what it is: no longer an emergency but a power grab that is clearly unconstitutional and illegal. Administrative laws and restrictions must be maintained.
The first challenge regards the dangers of invasion of personal privacy with regard to body, brain scan, temperature checks and mind control. This is a threat that is of the utmost unpleasantness and even terror to most people. And it is a threat that violates the terms of modern “civilized” society.
The dangers of microbial enemies and medical totalitarianism are perhaps greater than military or political enemies or “terrorists”; a killer microbe is always a threat – or so it is sold. In the case of the real corona narrative, one can allegedly be “infected” and feel perfectly fine, asymptomic, for up to a month by some estimates. It is invisible, yet suddenly deadly – truly science fictional. In reality, without totalitarian emergency quarantine and “lock down” measures, alleged viruses like SARS and MERS, to which the alleged “novel coronavirus” is said to be related, simply died out.
It is very appropriate to note here that the Rockefellers, Rothschild banking operatives, created this medical system. Independent journalist James Corbett has covered this, and E. Richard Brown has written a book on this, “Rockefeller Medicine Men”. It’s probably a good time to review this information. Leaders in natural medicine have begun to show that microbes are indeed a part of the human corpus – they are us. There is much to suggest that the theory of exogenous, infectious viral transmission of disease has not been proven scientifically but is a government science mandate. Awareness is growing, even among medical doctors, of the failures of chemical and radiological “allopathic” medicine, which lacks a systemic understanding of disease other than “infectious disease”, ie, unproven germ theories, and caters not to patients but to for for-profit chemical and biotech companies who haven’t the slightest concern for public health and public health outcomes.
And yet we are to believe that the government-sanctioned medical-industrial complex is so concerned for the well-being of patients of which it kills three-quarters of a million per year, according to a study done by Drs. Gary Null, Carolyn Dean and others, in what are called “iatrogenic deaths”? The authors showed the medical system to be itself the greatest cause of disease in America. And that is likely under-reported.
The ruling class’s greatest piece de resistance to human resistance is to convince humans to fear nature, including each other, and to doubt themselves and their natural capabilities, particularly, their natural powers of immunity.
Nature has given us a magnificent immune system, that we have not yet fully understood: a biological, immunological resistance to disease that is clearly a ruling class strategic target. The zoonotic theory of viral transmission that says we cannot defend ourselves against animal viruses remains unproven. In fact, it appears to be an agenda.
Studies have shown that children with allergies who own pets slowly lose their allergies to pet microbes. To that end: Why isn’t anyone worried about the dogs and cats? If a zoonotic disease can transmit from animal to human, it is certainly possible that pets are at risk – according to the official corona story. But we’ve not heard a word of concern about them. And neither do our large cities today experience plague-type outbreaks of disease as they used to because we have mastered the practice of urban sanitation and disease generally is not widely communicable, or else “first world” cities would not exist as they do today. In the 21st-century developed world, communicable disease is simply not a problem because the citizens live in, or have lived in, clean cities and towns and are immunologically habituated to one another. Poverty much more likely contributes to disease, especially in America. In comparison, China’s air pollution is magnitudes greater than anything in the West.
Often living densely among each other, humans are also some of the world’s most social animals. The corona plandemic is an unprecedented strike at the heart of society itself, an exercise in behavioral control, limiting people’s ability to congregate, party, assemble, pursue and meaningfully and effectively protest, and basically, live.
In the US, the government has given the vaccine industry legal immunity from harm lawsuits, via the 1986 National Vaccine Child Injury Act, which allocates legal payouts from a fund generated by allocating roughly 75 cents of every vaccine given.
We encourage all people to consider this epic ruling class infringement on the sovereign individual and human life. We hope we can use this trial as a means for immediate transformation: transcendence. The “herd” must not be relentlessly “immunized”; individuals must maintain the community of sovereigns they already are. This is why the ruling class has “pre-emptively attacked” their constitutions, bodily and political, Western democracies’ guarantees of rights to a free life, specifically free from governmental interference. Despite dark clouds on the human horizon in this era, we remain optimistic.
As to the economic trigger for this emergency quarantine of sovereign, Rockefeller Foundation is the “philanthropic arm” of the Rockefeller-Rothschild banking dynasty. And certainly their collaboration with military intelligence types from Stanford and Stratfor suggests an alliance between banksters responsible for the global economic quandary and the surveillance operatives who wish to make a new economy based on gathering, controlling, trading and selling individuals’ personal and medical information and policing their thoughts and movements: Surveillance, Inc.
Vintage Early-Warning Pandemic Cartoon – Amazing!
BrandNewTube - Republished 2021 June 1. Source: Early-Warning Cartoon the Plan
Here is a motion cartoon from the earliest days of motion-pictures that likely was made at the time of the 1918 Spanish-Flu epidemic.
So far, we have been unable to verify its origin, but there is no reason to think it is a counterfeit.
Its value will be immediately recognized, not in its rarity or as a collector’s item, but its editorial commentary that is stunningly contemporary to our present day. Popular sentiment a hundred years ago clearly was far more aware of an agenda behind the propaganda and, as you will see in the final message of the cartoon, folks knew who was behind it and what the end game was.
An amazing time capsule of truth.
NOTHING NEW TODAY - HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF, IF PEOPLE FORGET.
Pandemic simulation games – Preparation for a new era?
•10 Mar 2021
Political decisions during the Corona crisis did not come out of the blue.
The "war on viruses" began back in the 1990s as the "war on bioterror." Research shows: For more than twenty years since then, pandemic scenarios have been repeatedly rehearsed in simulation exercises, first in the U.S., later coordinated internationally. The titles of these exercises are reminiscent of Hollywood productions: "Dark Winter" (2001), "Global Mercury" (2003), "Atlantic Storm" (2005) or "Clade X" (2018). High-ranking government representatives as well as well-known journalists were involved, most recently, at "Event 201" in October 2019, also board members of large global corporations. After the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a coronavirus pandemic in 2020, many of the measures that had been rehearsed and discussed for years were implemented globally.
Passages like the following appeared in scripts as early as 20 years ago: "The sight of an armed military presence in US cities has provoked protests about curtailment of civil liberties (...) The question is, however, how do we enforce it and to what degree? How much force do you use to keep people in their homes?" In the event of a pandemic, "basic civil liberties such as freedom of assembly or travel" could no longer „taken for granted". Restrictions on liberty, as well as mass vaccinations, were regular features of the planning games.
This lecture will chronologically trace how these exercises came about, who organized them, and what parallels the scripts have to the current situation. Is the virus just a pretext for a longer-planned global transformation? And was a severe stock market quake in September 2019 perhaps the real trigger for the global lockdown?
Table of contents:
0:00:00 Pandemic exercisces - Preparation for a new era?
0:02:23 Era of the Cold War 1945 - 1990
0:05:05 The USA without an enemy
0:17:05 Bioterror exercises 1990 - 2005
0:23:51 The Exercise “Dark Winter”
0:30:44 Emergency plans for bioterror and flu pandemics
0:35:40 Interim conclusion
0:38:40 “Lock Step-Scenario” 2010
0:44:38 “MARS” and the G20 Health Minister meeting in Berlin
0:50:35 Why the Corona Pandemic startet in 2020
0:58:19 “Event 201“ - Training with a Corona pandemic
W.I.R. - Wissen ist relevant!
Empirical evidence indicates that the spread of pathogens leads populations to become more conformist and accepting of authoritarian behavior from governments – what does this mean for the world of COVID19?
The theory proposes that when a species faces parasites and diseases their values are shaped by the experience. In this context, “parasite” is used to refer to any pathogenic organism, including bacteria and viruses. The theory states that depending on how a disease stresses people’s development it can lead to differences in mating preferences and changes in culture. Proponents of the parasite stress theory also note that disease can alter the psychological and social norms of societies.
“According to a “parasite stress” hypothesis, authoritarian governments are more likely to emerge in regions characterized by a high prevalence of disease-causing pathogens,” the researchers wrote. They define authoritarian governance as “highly concentrated power structures that repress dissent and emphasize submission to authority, social conformity, and hostility towards outgroups.”
Due to the invisible nature of “disease-causing parasites,” attempts to control the spread of a disease “historically depended substantially on adherence to ritualized behavioral practices that reduced infection risk.” The researchers also found that society tends to promote a collectivist worldview, favoring obedience and conformity from the population, in response to parasites.
Unfortunately, according to the parasite stress theory, humanity is prone to accepting violent behavior from governments during pandemics. As noted in Politics and Pathogens, the threat of exposure to a pathogen need not even be realistic for it to create a desire for conformity and obedience to authority.
The book The Parasite Stress Theory of Values and Sociality: Infectious Disease, History and Human Values Worldwide further outlines how populations respond to the uncertainty felt during pathogen spread. The authors discuss how reducing social prejudice and authoritarianism can be accomplished by emancipating people from infectious diseases. However, the authors also note that a government which desired more authoritarian powers – including “full-blown fascism or genocide” – could achieve this goal by “promoting widespread mortality and morbidity from infectious diseases.”
The authors reach similar conclusions as the researchers in the Politics and Pathogens study which showed that populations facing pandemics become more supportive of collectivist mindsets over individualistic ones. “These patterns arise, in part, from the reverence collectivists place on people in authority (authoritarianism), which gives those in authority greater freedom to violate the interests of the populace and impunity when such violations occur,” the authors note.
Clearly, the conclusions of this research have profound implications for our world and the current COVID-19 crisis. As previously noted, we are seeing a massive increase in authoritarian actions from governments around the world. Thermal imaging scanners, documents for travel, fines and arrests of those who fail to wear masks or stay home, and shutting down protests against these actions – have all become regular events in the so-called “New Normal.”
The Gates Foundation Connection
While researching the Politics and Pathogen study I discovered that the editor, Aric Gregson, has some tangential connections to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation through his work on a Malaria vaccine.
Dr. Aric Gregson, MD is an infectious disease specialist in Los Angeles, California. Dr. Gregson currently practices at Ag Infectious Diseases: A Medical Corporation in California. According to his LinkedIn page, from July 2003 to September 2005, Gregson participated in the “Vaccinology Fellowship” at the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development.
He also participated in the Malaria Vaccine Technology Roadmap Process which included two different doctors working with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Roadmap Process also involved Dr. Zarifah Hussain Reed of the World Health Organization (WHO), which is largely funded by the Gates Foundation.
From September 2005 to January 2007, Gregson served as a consultant and clinical vaccinologist for the PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative. PATH is described as “an international nonprofit organization that drives transformative innovation to save lives and improve health” which works with “private industry, government, and academia to develop malaria vaccines.”
According to their website, “MVI is a global program established at PATH through an initial grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.” Gregson’s LinkedIn specifies that he was a “Program Officer” for the RTS,S malaria vaccine trials in Africa at the time. The RTS,S is described as “the world’s first malaria vaccine shown to provide partial protection against malaria in young children.”
One press release about the development of a new malaria vaccine notes that the vaccine was developed by a partnership with pharmaceutical company GSK and the Path Malaria Vaccine Initiative. Once again it is noted that “major funding for clinical development comes from a grant by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to MVI.”
The press release also states that should the vaccine be approved by the regulatory authorities and recommended by the WHO “it will be used for African children, who are most at risk from the disease.” No mention is made regarding the fact that the Gates Foundation is the second top funding source for the WHO, while also funding the MVI and other health authorities.
The connection between the Gates Foundation and the editor of the Politics and Pathogens study is concerning when one understands the outsized influence and control Bill Gates has over global health policy, particularly through the WHO and the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Marching Lock Step To Authoritarianism
In part 3 of my investigation into the life, finances, and goals of Bill Gates, I noted that the Gates Foundation was involved in the Event 201 exercise:
“On October 18, 2019, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation partnered with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and the World Economic Forum on a high-level pandemic exercise known as Event 201. Gates is a long time “Agenda Contributor” for the WEF and has donated to Johns Hopkins. Event 201 simulated how the world would respond to a coronavirus pandemic which swept around the planet. The simulation imagined 65 million people dying, mass lock downs, quarantines, censorship of alternative viewpoints under the guise of fighting “disinformation,” and even floated the idea of arresting people who question the pandemic narrative.”
We also noted that the Gates Foundation’s partners in “philanthropy” – the Rockefeller Foundation – imagined a similar scenario as part of their 2010 document, “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development.” This document includes a scenario called “Lock Step,” which describes a pandemic sweeping the world and resulting in more authoritarian control from governments in developed countries.
Interestingly, Lock Step notes that while the “pandemic blanketed the planet” the countries which took a more aggressive, authoritarian approach fared better.
“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 postpandemic recovery,” the document states.
The document describes how national leaders around the world “flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions.” These included mandatory wearing of face masks and body-temperature checks at train stations and markets, as well as “scanners using advanced functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) technology… to detect abnormal behavior that may indicate ‘antisocial intent.’” Lock Step also describes the implementation of biometric ID for all people.
Notably, the paper states, “Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified.”
At first, the population approves of a more controlled world and citizens even willingly gave up “some of their sovereignty—and their privacy—to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability.” The scenario outlines how some of the population were tolerant, and even eager, for “top-down direction and oversight.”
The document goes on to describe how, eventually, the people of the world tire of the control and civil unrest would begin:
“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.”
Considering the abundance of evidence indicating that Parasite Stress theory is an accurate representation of how humanity will respond to perceived threats, we must ask whether the Gates or Rockefeller Foundations were aware of the potential for pathogens to lead to more obedient populations and increasingly authoritarian governments. Here’s what we know:
- We know for a fact that the Gates and Rockefeller Foundations are extremely influential when it comes to global health and education.
- We also know that at least one researcher involved with Parasite Stress theory has worked with the Gates Foundation.
Reflect back to the passage from The Parasite Stress Theory of Values and Sociality which notes that if someone wanted to encourage authoritarianism – including “full-blown fascism or genocide” – they could achieve this goal by “promoting widespread mortality and morbidity from infectious diseases.” Armed with this knowledge, unlimited financial capital, and global influence, one could easily sway the world towards conformity and authoritarianism.
Is it possible these organizations knew exactly how the people would respond to a perceived threat of a pandemic? Are we witnessing the unfolding of the Lock Step scenario as predicted by the Rockefeller Foundation a decade ago?
Derrick BrozeI is a staff writer for The Last American Vagabond, is a journalist, author, public speaker, and activist. He is the co-host of Free Thinker Radio on 90.1 Houston, as well as the founder of The Conscious Resistance Network & The Houston Free Thinkers. https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/category/derrick-broze/