2010 : the year of a fake pandemic and a strangely familiar fictional scenario
In 2010, the Rockefeller Foundation funded a scenario-planning exercise that envisioned how hypothetical future events could impact the development of technology. This exercise resulted in a document titled “Scenarios for the Future of Technology & International Development”.
The document envisions how the world would be impacted in four different scenarios, one of which, dubbed “Lock Step,” deals with a global pandemic. Here’s an excerpt from this document :
The pandemic […] 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 postpandemic 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.
Overall, the result of this scenario is summarized as follows :
A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback
Also in 2010, Forbes published an article titled “Why The WHO Faked A Pandemic”. In this article, we find the following remarkable statements :
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), a human rights watchdog, is publicly investigating the WHO’s motives in declaring a pandemic. Indeed, the chairman of its influential health committee, epidemiologist Wolfgang Wodarg, has declared that the “false pandemic” is “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century.”
Even within the agency, the director of the WHO Collaborating Center for Epidemiology in Munster, Germany, Dr. Ulrich Kiel, has essentially labeled the pandemic a hoax. “We are witnessing a gigantic misallocation of resources [$18 billion so far] in terms of public health,” he said.
They’re right. This wasn’t merely overcautiousness or simple misjudgment. The pandemic declaration and all the Klaxon-ringing since reflect sheer dishonesty motivated not by medical concerns but political ones.
The article continues :
But how could the organization declare a pandemic when its own official definition required “simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.” Severity — that is, the number of deaths — is crucial, because every year flu causes “a global spread of disease.”
Easy. In May, in what it admitted was a direct response to the outbreak of swine flu the month before, WHO promulgated a new definition matched to swine flu that simply eliminated severity as a factor. You could now have a pandemic with zero deaths.
Under fire, the organization is boldly lying about the change, to which anybody with an Internet connection can attest. In a mid-January virtual conference WHO swine flu chief Keiji Fukuda stated: “Did WHO change its definition of a pandemic? The answer is no: WHO did not change its definition.” Two weeks later at a PACE conference he insisted: “Having severe deaths has never been part of the WHO definition.”
As a matter of fact, for years the WHO on its “Pandemic Preparedness” homepage defined a pandemic as “several simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.” In 2009, however, the part about “enormous numbers of death and illness” was removed. Since 2010, the WHO’s “Emergencies preparedness, response” page now has the following definition: “A pandemic is the worldwide spread of a new disease.”
2016 : Shaping the 4th Industrial Revolution
Fast forward to 2016. On October 10, 2016, the WEF announced the opening of its new Center for the Fourth Industrial Revolution in San Francisco. According to the WEF, the Center will “serve as a platform for interaction, insight and impact on the scientific and technological changes that are changing the way we live, work and relate to one another”. In an article first published in Foreign Affairs, Klaus Schwab, executive chairman of the World Economic Forum explains :
The First Industrial Revolution used water and steam power to mechanize production. The Second used electric power to create mass production. The Third used electronics and information technology to automate production. Now a Fourth Industrial Revolution is building on the Third, the digital revolution that has been occurring since the middle of the last century. It is characterized by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres.
Schwab further argues :
Current systems of public policy and decision-making evolved alongside the Second Industrial Revolution, when decision-makers had time to study a specific issue and develop the necessary response or appropriate regulatory framework. The whole process was designed to be linear and mechanistic, following a strict “top down” approach.
But such an approach is no longer feasible. Given the Fourth Industrial Revolution’s rapid pace of change and broad impacts, legislators and regulators are being challenged to an unprecedented degree and for the most part are proving unable to cope.
Schwab concludes :
We should thus grasp the opportunity and power we have to shape the Fourth Industrial Revolution and direct it toward a future that reflects our common objectives and values.
To do this, however, we must develop a comprehensive and globally shared view of how technology is affecting our lives and reshaping our economic, social, cultural, and human environments.
2019 : From pandemic tabletop exercise to actual global pandemic
Now, let’s fast forward again. This time we go to October 18, 2019. On that day, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security partnered with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to host an event titled “Event 201”. It invited people from business, government and public health to simulate coordinating a policy response to a theoretical global pandemic. The simulation was based on a coronavirus. On the official website of Event 201, you find the following information on this exercise :
Event 201 was a 3.5-hour pandemic tabletop exercise that simulated a series of dramatic, scenario-based facilitated discussions, confronting difficult, true-to-life dilemmas associated with response to a hypothetical, but scientifically plausible, pandemic. 15 global business, government, and public health leaders were players in the simulation exercise that highlighted unresolved real-world policy and economic issues that could be solved with sufficient political will, financial investment, and attention now and in the future.
The exercise consisted of pre-recorded news broadcasts, live “staff” briefings, and moderated discussions on specific topics. These issues were carefully designed in a compelling narrative that educated the participants and the audience.
It also tells us :
Event 201 aimed to educate senior leaders at the highest level of US and international governments and leaders in global industries.
It is also a tool to inform members of the policy and preparedness communities and the general public. This is distinct from many other forms of simulation exercises that test protocols or technical policies of a specific organization. Exercises similar to Event 201 are a particularly effective way to help policymakers gain a fuller understanding of the urgent challenges they could face in a dynamic, real-world crisis.
On the same day Event 201 took place, in Wuhan, China, an event took place officially known as the 7th CISM Military World Games. It was the first international military multi-sport event to be held in China and also it was the largest military sports event ever to be held in China, with nearly 10,000 athletes from over 100 countries competing in 27 sports.
According to eg. the Daily Mail and the NY Post, a terrible influenza knocked out numerous athletes during the Wuhan Military Games. This was revealed by the French pentathlete Elodie Clouvel to the television station Loire7. Then the Italian swordsman Matteo Tagliariol, Treviso champion of fencing and Olympic Gold Medal in Beijing 2008, reiterated this in his statements to the local Italian newspapers. Speaking to the Mail on Sunday, German volleyball player Jacqueline Brock also alleged that she got COVID-19. Several Swedish athletes were also reportedly unwell, including swimmer Raphael Stacchiotti.
As News18 reports, China’s first confirmed case of coronavirus was at the start of December but Gorges claimed that Wuhan’s streets were “nearly empty” during the games. “It was a ghost town,” he said. “There were rumours that the government warned the inhabitants not to go out.” A study titled “Emergence of genomic diversity and recurrent mutations in SARS-CoV-2”, published by the international medical journal “Infection, Genetics and Evolution” indicates that COVID-19 may have already been spreading rampantly between Oct. 6 and Dec. 11.
As the Global Times informs us, George Webb, an investigative journalist in Washington, DC claimed in recent videos and tweets that he believes Maatje Benassi, an armed diplomatic driver and cyclist who was in Wuhan in October for the cycling competition in the Military World Games, could be patient zero of COVID-19 in Wuhan. In a report by the US Department of Defense official website on October 25, Maatje Benassi has participated 50-mile cycling road race in Wuhan. Webb also quoted a military lab, the Fort Detrick laboratory that handles high-level disease-causing organisms such as Ebola, in Fredrick, Maryland, which was shut down and moved in July due to unqualified facilities and management system.
Earlier in March, Zhao Lijian, an outspoken Chinese diplomat, raised a suspicion on his personal Twitter account that it might have been the US army representatives to the Military World Games who brought the novel coronavirus to Wuhan in October 2019, after a top US health official admitted detecting coronavirus infections on some deceased flu patients. Zhao urged the US to disclose further information, exercise transparency on coronavirus cases and provide an explanation to the public.
If the Covid-19 outbreak in Wuhan did indeed start during the Military World Games, what are the odds that on that very same day a global pandemic exercise is co-organized by the World Economic Forum? Could it be that this virus was intentionally released? And if this were the case, why would anyone possibly do this?
2020 : From great pandemic to Great Reset
Remember the “Lock Step” scenario mentioned at the start of this article? Well, consider a prediction made by Cognizant in a white paper on how our life will look like 3 years from now :
Pre-COVID-19, legislation such as GDPR in Europe, POPI in South Africa and APPI in Japan had emerged, based on a recognition that personal data was a new source of economic wealth and that this wealth was accruing to a small number of large technology companies — not to the providers of that data.
The need to stop the virus, however, overruled misgivings about data privacy, and leaders in Israel, China and South Korea forged ahead with sophisticated monitoring policies, particularly after initial exhortations to practice social distancing and self isolation fell on deaf ears. What had seemed like calls for good old-fashioned common sense were ignored by those without it — especially younger individuals, who continued to gather in groups, use public transport (still running for essential workers) and socialize as though nothing was wrong.
The white paper continues :
Some said the introduction of Black Mirror-style social monitoring was only a temporary, necessary phenomenon — that this type and level of surveillance would end as the crisis waned. History, though, paints a very different picture. […] What terrifies many is that it isn’t just clicks and likes that are analyzed but also our health, movement and biometric data that — when combined — can be used (is being used) to not just see what you look at but how you physically respond to this input, as well. Put simply, our very emotions are now capable of being tracked and analyzed.
Of course, during the COVID-19 crisis, surveillance sounded sensible, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In a post-virus age, are we finally seeing the true death of privacy? Are we finally answering the question many people have posed over the years: How did 1984 happen?
In an article from june 2020, Klaus Schwab argues :
[T]he world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a “Great Reset” of capitalism.
Schwab continues :
The Great Reset agenda would have three main components. The first would steer the market toward fairer outcomes. To this end, governments should improve coordination (for example, in tax, regulatory, and fiscal policy), upgrade trade arrangements, and create the conditions for a “stakeholder economy.” At a time of diminishing tax bases and soaring public debt, governments have a powerful incentive to pursue such action.
Moreover, governments should implement long-overdue reforms that promote more equitable outcomes. Depending on the country, these may include changes to wealth taxes, the withdrawal of fossil-fuel subsidies, and new rules governing intellectual property, trade, and competition.
The second component of a Great Reset agenda would ensure that investments advance shared goals, such as equality and sustainability. Here, the large-scale spending programs that many governments are implementing represent a major opportunity for progress. The European Commission, for one, has unveiled plans for a €750 billion ($826 billion) recovery fund. The US, China, and Japan also have ambitious economic-stimulus plans.
The third and final priority of a Great Reset agenda is to harness the innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution to support the public good, especially by addressing health and social challenges. During the COVID-19 crisis, companies, universities, and others have joined forces to develop diagnostics, therapeutics, and possible vaccines; establish testing centers; create mechanisms for tracing infections; and deliver telemedicine. Imagine what could be possible if similar concerted efforts were made in every sector.
Schwab concludes :
[T]he pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future.
Could it be that a global pandemic was declared with the explicit goal of triggering such a “Great Reset”? Could it be that all these lockdowns and other draconian measures were taken not to help us survive a pandemic, but to weaken our economy and instil fear on a global scale, to convince the public that such a “Reset” is necessary? If you never heard of the “Great Reset” before, I’m sure this must sound crazy. But is it really?
2021 : A world locked down
As I’m writing this text, people across the globe are being forced to undergo a second lockdown. Many people defend such a lockdown, arguing that it is necessary to stop the pandemic from getting out of hand. But is it really necessary? Do we really need to risk countless businesses failing, countless people losing their jobs, and even more people ending up with major mental health problems due to the many consequences of these lockdowns and other draconian measures?
The more reliable method for determining exactly how dangerous Covid-19 really is, is to look at excess mortality, which refers to the number of deaths from all causes above and beyond what we would have expected to see under ‘normal’ conditions.
The graphs you see here represent the excess mortality of 10 different European countries, each of which tackled Covid-19 in a different manner. Belgium, for example, had some pretty extreme measures, including a general lockdown and then continued with various draconian measures after that, now followed by a second lockdown. Sweden, in contrast, never had a general lockdown and has taken very limited measures during the months that followed.
Yet, when you compare different these 10 European countries with each other, it is anyhing but obvious that lockdowns actually reduce the spread of Covid-19. In fact, Sweden actually does significantly better than Belgium, in spite of Belgium’s general lockdown and its overall much stricter measures.
Does this mean that lockdowns don’t work? Well, no, it doesn’t. But it does mean that you can achieve similar results without destroying people’s social lives or businesses. Sure, cultural dufferences may have played a role in allowing them to “flatten the curve” without going in lockdown. But still…
Yes, we need to protect our elderly and others who are at high risk for respiratory conditions. But I see no justification for locking the country down to a degree that many, many more people will suffer from loneliness, depression, unemployment, bankruptcy, etc. It becomes ever harder to deny that the measures taken against this virus do more harm than good. And it’s important we keep this in mind as we enter this second lockdown.
And it’s also important to keep in mind the “Great Reset”, “Event 201” and “Scenarios for the Future of Technology & International Development”. We need to ask ourselves how these all relate to our every day experience. And she should not trust the media to keep us informed of these matters, as they’ve failed miserably to do so up to this point.
Regardless of whether our current situation is caused by incompetence or corruption, we need to hold our politician accountable. We are currently experiencing the most unprecedented totalitarianism that is not likely to end anytime soon. We should not let fear cloud our judgement. We should not be afraid to ask questions about why Covid-19 is changing our lives. We should not be afraid to ponder whether all these measures we’re facing a really driven by health concerns or by other, more nefarious agendas.