by JackBlood
THE FOLLOWING IS TAKEN FROM A NEW DOCUMENT PUT OUT BY THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION AND THEIR “GLOBAL BUSINESS NETWORK” (GBN – A member of the MONITOR Group) TITLED: “SCENARIOS FOR THE FUTURE OF TECHNOLOGY AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT”
It lays out a future of total chaos, hunger, catastrophe, pandemics, terror, war, and crime… IF they do not (as Philanthropists), take preemptive action to save us. Of course we have to fund it and go along with it. If we do not…. Well they have now warned us what will happen. They don’t like to be “wrong” and I have the greatest confidence that they will MAKE these things happen if we resist! So its up to us, DO WE HAVE WHAT IT TAKES TO TEMPORARILY ENDURE A BITTER FUTURE, SO THAT WE MAY OBTAIN OUR OWN FREEDOM AND PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY? OR WILL WE SUCCUMB TO THESE OUTRAGEOUS THREATS BY THE ELITE?
Better hurry and decide where you stand…. As for me? I CHOOSE FREEDOM AT ANY COST! GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!
~ Jack Blood
“The Rockefeller Foundation supports work that expands opportunity and strengthens
resilience to social, economic, health, and environmental challenges — affirming
its pioneering philanthropic mission, since 1913, to “promote the well-being” of
humanity.” – Judith Rubin (President of the Rockefeller Foundation)
A good starting point for any set of scenarios is to understand those driving forces that we can be reasonably certain will shape the worlds we are describing, also known as “predetermined elements.” For example, it is a near geopolitical certainty that — with the rise of China, India, and other nations — a multi-polar global system is emerging. One demographic certainty is that global population growth will continue and will put pressure on energy, food, and water resources — especially in the developing world. Another related certainty: that the world will strive to source more of its energy from renewable resources and may succeed, but there will likely still be a significant level of global interdependence on energy.
FOLLOW THE HEGELIAN DIALECTIC HERE
On one end of the axis, we would see a more
integrated global economy with high trade
volumes, which enables access to a wider range
of goods and services through imports and
exports, and the increasing specialization of
exports. We would also see more cooperation
at the supra-national level, fostering increased
collaboration, strengthened global institutions,
and the formation of effective international
problem-solving networks. At the other
axis endpoint, the potential for economic
development in the developing world would
be reduced by the fragility of the overall
global economy — coupled with protectionism
and fragmentation of trade — along with a
weakening of governance regimes that raise
barriers to cooperation, thereby hindering
agreement on and implementation of largescale,
interconnected solutions to pressing
global challenges.
Once crossed, these axes create a matrix of four
very different futures:
LOCK STEP – A world of tighter top-down
government control and more authoritarian
eadership, with limited innovation and
growing citizen pushback
CLEVER TOGETHER – A world in which
highly coordinated and successful strategies
emerge for addressing both urgent and
entrenched worldwide issues
HACK ATTACK – An economically
unstable and shock-prone world in which
governments weaken, criminals thrive,
and dangerous innovations emerge
SMART SCRAMBLE – An economically
depressed world in which individuals and
communities develop localized, makeshift
solutions to a growing set of problems
LOCK STEP
Scenario
Narratives
A world of tighter top-down government control and more
authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing
citizen pushback
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 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.
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 highemitting
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. •
(CLEVER “TOGETHER” means doing it the Rockefeller way. We will not reprint here but in the bullet points above, and in the linked PDF – you will know what happens if we are not “Clever together”) Back to DOOMSDAY!
Continued at Deadline LIVE
No comments:
Post a Comment