{"id":5636,"date":"2021-10-15T20:18:18","date_gmt":"2021-10-16T03:18:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thedaily.ca\/news\/?p=5636"},"modified":"2021-10-15T20:59:23","modified_gmt":"2021-10-16T03:59:23","slug":"operation-lockstep-2010-rockefeller-foundation-paper-perfectly-predicts-the-you-know-what","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thedaily.ca\/news\/2021\/10\/15\/operation-lockstep-2010-rockefeller-foundation-paper-perfectly-predicts-the-you-know-what\/","title":{"rendered":"Operation Lockstep: 2010 Rockefeller Foundation paper perfectly \u201cpredicts\u201d the you know what!"},"content":{"rendered":"

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.10.6″ _module_preset=”default” custom_padding=”48px||0px|||” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.10.6″ _module_preset=”default” custom_padding=”0px|||||” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.10.6″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.10.6″ _module_preset=”default” text_font=”|700|||||||” text_text_color=”#000000″ text_font_size=”25px” text_orientation=”center” custom_margin=”||0px|||” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n

LISTEN<\/p>\n

[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_audio audio=”https:\/\/thedaily.ca\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2021\/10\/1-The-Future-of-Technology-And-International-Development.mp3″ title=”AUDIO STORY” _builder_version=”4.11.0″ _module_preset=”default” use_background_color_gradient=”on” background_color_gradient_start=”#e02b20″ background_color_gradient_end=”#000000″ hover_enabled=”0″ border_radii=”on|5px|5px|5px|5px” border_width_all=”1px” border_color_all=”#000000″ box_shadow_style=”preset4″ global_colors_info=”{}” album_name=”Part 1. Introduction Letter: The Future of Technology And International Development” sticky_enabled=”0″ title_text=”1-The Future of Technology And International Development” custom_padding=”48px|||||”][\/et_pb_audio][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/thedaily.ca\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2021\/10\/Screen-Shot-2021-10-15-at-8.43.42-PM.png” _builder_version=”4.11.0″ _module_preset=”default” title_text=”Screen Shot 2021-10-15 at 8.43.42 PM” url=”https:\/\/thedaily.ca\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2021\/10\/Scenarios_for_the_Future_of_Technology_a.pdf” url_new_window=”on” hover_enabled=”0″ sticky_enabled=”0″][\/et_pb_image][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.22″ global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding=”1px|||||”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”3.25″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text” _builder_version=”4.11.0″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n

The Future of Technology And International Development<\/a><\/span><\/h1>\n

Scenario For The Future of Technology And International Development (Rockefeller Foundation) – Global Business Network (GBN) A member of the Monitor Group<\/p>\n

Rockefeller Foundation paper published over a decade ago in 2010. The paper lays out various schemes to advance globalist technocracy, shoddily disguised as \u201ctheoretical scenarios.\u201d<\/p>\n

Essentially, the document describes various factors that may play into the implementation of the United Nations\u2019 Agenda 21 plan (also known as Agenda 2030, Sustainable Development Goals, and so on).<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cWe now invite you to immerse yourself in each future world and consider four different visions for the evolution of technology and\u00a0international development to 2030<\/strong>.\u201d
\u2014 Scenarios for the Future of Technology (2010)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The Rockefellers were heavily involved with the founding of the United Nations, and they continue to bankroll the organization to this day. The UN\u2019s headquarters were built on Rockefeller-owned land along East River in New York.<\/p>\n

\n
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

The Rockefellers cofounded many other leading globalist organizations, such as the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, and Club of Rome (which led the climate change psyop).<\/p>\n

\n
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

In\u00a0Scenarios for the Future of Technology (2010)<\/em>, a \u201cscenario\u201d titled\u00a0Clever Together<\/em>\u00a0describes\u00a0\u201ca consortium of nations, NGOs [non-governmental organizations], and companies\u201d<\/em>\u00a0establishing a global technocracy known as the\u00a0\u201cGlobal Technology Assessment Of\ufb01ce.\u201d<\/em>\u00a0This reflects a main agenda of The Great Reset: \u2018Stakeholder Capitalism\u2019 \u2014 the fusion of private and government sectors into a technocratic world government.<\/p>\n

\n
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

The \u201cscenario\u201d titled\u00a0Operation Lockstep<\/em>\u00a0(page 18 of the paper) describes the COVID plandemic down to the letter: A virus emerges from China and rapidly spreads around the world, destroying the economies of the West. However, China\u2019s economy was saved due to the country\u2019s\u00a0\u201cquick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders.\u201d<\/em>\u00a0The various governments of the world use the virus as an excuse to advance technocratic surveillance, implementing various transhumanist and bio-technologies, such as digital identities and vaccine passports. In this \u201cscenario,\u201d the masses blindly welcome the tyranny with open arms, abandoning all of their sovereignty and freedoms. Sound familiar?<\/p>\n

The full text of the Operation Lockstep scenario is quoted below the line, but the\u00a0full PDF is here<\/a>, if you\u2019d like to read it all.<\/p>\n

\n

LOCK STEP<\/h2>\n

A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback<\/h3>\n

In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years \ufb01nally hit. Unlike 2009\u2019s H1N1, this new in\ufb02uenza strain \u2014 originating from wild geese \u2014 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 of\ufb01ce buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers.<\/p>\n

The pandemic blanketed the planet \u2014 though disproportionate numbers died in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central America, where the virus spread like wild\ufb01re in the absence of of\ufb01cial containment protocols. But even in developed countries, containment was a challenge. The United States\u2019s initial policy of \u201cstrongly discouraging\u201d citizens from \ufb02ying 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 \u2014 China in particular. The Chinese government\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

China\u2019s 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 \ufb02exed 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 intensi\ufb01ed. In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems \u2014 from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty \u2014 leaders around the world took a \ufb01rmer grip on power.<\/p>\n

At \ufb01rst, the notion of a more controlled world gained wide acceptance and approval. Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty \u2014 and their privacy \u2014 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 \ufb01t. 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.<\/p>\n

Across the developing world, however, the story was different \u2014 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\u2019 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 \u2014 and in some cases tragically \u2014 in countries run by irresponsible elites who used their increased power to pursue their own interests at the expense of their citizens.<\/p>\n

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 \ufb02ag. Strong technology regulations sti\ufb02ed innovation, kept costs high, and curbed adoption. In the developing world, access to \u201capproved\u201d 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 \u201cbest\u201d for them. Some governments found this patronizing and refused to distribute computers and other technologies that they scoffed at as \u201csecond hand.\u201d Meanwhile, developing countries with more resources and better capacity began to innovate internally to \ufb01ll these gaps on their own.<\/p>\n

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 \u201csure bets\u201d (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 signi\ufb01cant 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 \u2014 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.<\/p>\n

Especially in the developing world, acting in one\u2019s national self-interest often meant seeking practical alliances that \ufb01t with those interests \u2014 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\u2019s 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 of\ufb01cial security aid. While the deployment of foreign security teams was welcomed in some of the most dire failed states, one-size-\ufb01ts-all solutions yielded few positive results.<\/p>\n

By 2025, people seemed to be growing weary of so much top-down control and letting leaders and authorities make choices for them.<\/p>\n

Wherever national interests clashed with individual interests, there was con\ufb02ict. Sporadic pushback became increasingly organized and coordinated, as disaffected youth and people who had seen their status and opportunities slip away \u2014 largely in developing countries \u2014 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\u2019s governments had worked so hard to establish.<\/p>\n

ROLE OF PHILANTHROPY IN LOCK STEP<\/h3>\n

Philanthropic organizations will face hard choices in this world. Given the strong role of governments, doing philanthropy will require heightened diplomacy skills and the ability to operate effectively in extremely divergent environments. Philanthropy grantee and civil society relationships will be strongly moderated by government, and some foundations might choose to align themselves more closely with national of\ufb01cial development assistance (ODA) strategies and government objectives. Larger philanthropies will retain an outsized share of in\ufb02uence, and many smaller philanthropies may \ufb01nd value in merging \ufb01nancial, human, and operational resources.<\/p>\n

Philanthropic organizations interested in promoting universal rights and freedoms will get blocked at many nations\u2019 borders. Developing smart, \ufb02exible, and wide-ranging relationships in this world will be key; some philanthropies may choose to work only in places where their skills and services don\u2019t meet resistance. Many governments will place severe restrictions on the program areas and geographies that international philanthropies can work in, leading to a narrower and stronger geographic focus or grant-making in their home country only.<\/p>\n

TECHNOLOGY IN LOCK STEP<\/h3>\n

While there is no way of accurately predicting what the important technological advancements will be in the future, the scenario narratives point to areas where conditions may enable or accelerate the development of certain kinds of technologies. Thus for each scenario we offer a sense of the context for technological innovation, taking into consideration the pace, geography, and key creators. We also suggest a few technology trends and applications that could \ufb02ourish in each scenario.<\/p>\n

Technological innovation in \u201cLock Step\u201d is largely driven by government and is focused on issues of national security and health and safety. Most technological improvements are created by and for developed countries, shaped by governments\u2019 dual desire to control and to monitor their citizens. In states with poor governance, large-scale projects that fail to progress abound.<\/p>\n

Technology trends and applications we might see:<\/p>\n