Why Are They Doing This?
The Possible Motivations behind Lockdown Governance
In these, the first months of 2021, we are living through an unprecedented global regime of lockdowns, mandated masking, and social distancing in response to covid. We are also increasingly living under a regime of censorship, blacklisting, surveillance, and authoritarian measures directed at dissidents and nonconformists. Why is this happening? It is an item of significant curiosity that so few seem to be asking that question. Why is there a paucity of substantial public debate in prevailing media institutions regarding the most monumental and intrusive policies of our lifetimes? Why is citizen debate and discourse censored by social media platforms regarding these matters? Why are so many governments marching in lockstep uniformity, with only nominal opposition? Why these policies?
One answer to these questions is that no other kind of response could be reasonably considered or implemented by any rational or sincere actor. Media debate is not needed, nor is it appropriate. There are no rational responses worth considering other than the ones imposed by the leadership. Citizen debate should clearly be curtailed and censored to prevent the promulgation of dissent. Only the most dangerous elements in society could possibly object to what is happening, and all right-thinking people agree on the need to silence such voices, or even forcibly detain those who speak out. No responsible government could possibly object to these policy measures. Rational citizens all agree: the governments that have failed to implement these measures are misguided and acting irresponsibly — they ought to be disparaged or ignored so as to not encourage them.
I have given my response to this kind of answer in my previously published article: What to Make of Covid and the Lockdowns. Please refer to that article to review my refutation of the type of answer transcribed above. In that article, I propose that the primary reasoning used to support the mainstream narrative on the covid response is “They wouldn’t be doing this if it weren’t necessary.” I then demonstrate the path of reasoning and evidence informing my conclusion that the current global regime of lockdowns, mandated masking, and social distancing is neither necessary nor useful, and is not in the service of public or individual health or flourishing.
This conclusion produces the contrary postulate: “They are doing this even though it isn’t necessary.” But if this is so, why is it so? What are the true purposes and objectives of these policies? How can we make sense of the near-uniformity of authoritarian responses found in governments, corporate actors, and global institutions across the planet? In this article, I will attempt to enumerate the possible answers to the question “Why are they doing this?” as I understand them. This article will primarily focus on the situation in the United States, the land of my birth and residence, but is intended as generally applicable (if not specifically applicable) to the Western World as a whole, other countries subject to the influence of the West, and ultimately the whole global system.
~
1. The Perfect Storm Hypothesis (or, the Confluence of Inveterate Hysteria and Bad Luck)
To begin, let us return to the world stage in March, 2020. What happened one year ago? Were the events of that time planned and deliberate, or mere opportunistic happenstance? Generally speaking, people in positions of power routinely plan ahead and take action to shape the course of future events. That much is clear from the public record if not from common sense. It is also clear that the powerful take advantage of events opportunistically as much as they can. Like anyone, they can also be surprised and caught off guard by unexpected developments. That said, although the course of events since March, 2020 has greatly benefited the most powerful people and institutions in the world, this may have simply been a lucky break for them rather than something they had planned for, hoped for, or contributed to.
One possible explanation goes something like this: Quite independent of any intentional design or plan, events conspired to precipitate a global panic that swept over the conference tables and board rooms of the global leadership, and from there, swept the world. The outbreak of a new virus in China in the final months of 2019 inspired speculation that this virus would be different from Swine Flu, Avian Bird Flu, Ebola, SARS, MERS, and every other Chicken Little superflu we were instructed to be terrified of in the past 20 years. Whispered prophecies began to circulate from the lips of computer modelers and technocrats in January 2020, warning that this virus would afflict the world with unprecedented death and destruction of doomsday proportions. The natural affinity of these technocrats for authoritarian forms of control led them to turn their eyes to China’s outbreak response with longing and approval. They began to recommend that China’s unprecedented policy of universal citizen lockdown be imitated by the world.
The dam burst in Italy, and on March 9, 2020, the first Italian lockdowns were imposed. Then the panic escalated into hysteria. No one could believe that a Western democracy like Italy would institute such extreme measures unless it were absolutely necessary. One by one, the governments of the world imitated Italy and China, fearful of being blamed for the deaths of millions if they did nothing. The global press smelled blood in the water and began cranking their own hysteria into overdrive, spreading the fear contagion into the minds of ordinary citizens. Decades of predictive programming from mass media entertainment (depicting zombie apocalypses and other societal collapses) activated the citizenry to clamor for their governments to save the world from devastation with military-level action. By the end of March, most of the world had entered into Chinese-style lockdown. Fear and hysteria had spread across the globe in viral fashion, first in the minds of the governing classes, then spreading to the media institutions, and finally reaching pandemic proportions in the public at large.
By May, the data on the virus was beginning to clarify. The curve of new cases and deaths had flattened all around the world — in places with and without lockdowns alike. The hospitals were never overwhelmed. Numerous field hospitals, feverishly erected at great expense, lay dormant. The public whiled away their days in lockdown viewing synchronized dance routines on TikTok performed by idle nurses in empty wards. We learned that the virus had already achieved widespread proliferation, that it had spread months earlier than originally believed, that large percentages of the population had pre-existing immunity, and that over-aggressive treatment interventions, suppression of tried-and-true therapies, and the shipping of infectious elders into nursing homes rather than hospitals had resulted in unnecessary deaths. The death rate was continually revised downward, from 9% to 5% to 3% to 1% to 0.4%, and eventually to 0.1%–0.2%. We learned that the young and healthy were at no particular risk of harm from the virus, and that the small percentage of the vulnerable were the unhealthy, physically fragile, and elderly — precisely the populations who are always at increased risk of harm from any illness.
All of this should have been great news. We knew there would be a seasonal recurrence in the winter, but we had learned that extreme measures were not needed. Luckily, covid-19 had turned out not to be the Spanish Flu of 1918. It had turned out to be on the order of the China Flu of 1957, or the Hong Kong Flu of 1968. About twice as bad as a regular seasonal flu, but nothing strong enough to disrupt society, culture, or daily life. By June, lockdowns should have been lifted throughout the world. Instead, we saw a rollout of mask mandates across the globe, coupled with instructions that our rulers would not allow us to return to normal life until a vaccine was developed and distributed to everyone on the planet.
What happened? If the events of March-May were the result of a perfect storm of contagious panic, June should have been the moment the fever lifted. Instead, it became the moment the lockdowns were converted from a temporary emergency measure into a permanent fixture of life.
~
2. True Believerism (or, Go Along to Get Along)
The next explanation for what happened, and what is still happening, is that even though these policies of lockdown, masking, forced social distancing, censorship, surveillance, and coerced vaccination are wrong and not proportional or helpful in regards to coronavirus (while producing terribly destructive secondary effects), the reason our media, government and other quasi-official institutions are sticking with them is because the leadership of these institutions sincerely believe that these policies are necessary and effective.
In addition, many functionaries in such institutions are well-trained in obedience, and it does not occur to them to question the wisdom of the prevailing narrative. The thought process goes something like this: “We are in a state of crisis, and the best thing to do is unify. Now isn’t the time to question or undermine authority. It’s better to implicitly trust in the authorities and cooperate with them obediently to help make their efforts more effective.” Like a computer program, the dominant narrative is downloaded, installed, and becomes operational in the mind. The only question remaining is how to best serve the purposes of the New Normal.
A useful illustration of this principle can be found in the brilliant 2003 Errol Morris documentary The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara. During World War II, McNamara served as a tactician under the command of US General Curtis LeMay, who organized bombing raids that killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians in 1944–1945. As McNamara states in the documentary: “I was part of a mechanism that, in a sense, recommended (the bombing raids).” In this short clip from the film, McNamara recounts the horrors of the bombing campaign: “Killing 50–90% of the people of 67 Japanese cities, and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs, is not proportional, in the minds of some people, to the objectives we were trying to achieve.” He goes on to assert that he and LeMay were both acting as war criminals during the war.
It is clear from watching the documentary that McNamara is a thoughtful and empathetic man, highly intelligent, and motivated by the desire to do good. However, he is also a man with a strong sense of duty and hierarchy, and he successfully adapted himself to the shape and contours of a machine in the course of his career. This is what can happen when human beings become machine-like in their thinking and actions. They become agents of the machine: capable of wreaking untold destruction and suffering in the name of doing good. And this is accomplished by unquestioning obedience to those higher up on the chain of command.
~
3. In for a Penny, In for a Pound (or, Cover Your Rear End)
Explanation 2 has a pretty big hole in it, though. It explains the obedience of those lower down in the chain of authority, but it doesn’t account for the degree of uniformity in the continued lockdown responses favored by political leaders across the globe. It certainly is not the case that scientists or medical professionals uniformly agree with these measures; nor is it the case that lay people uniformly agree with them. Indeed, significant levels of dissent exist in both groups. As demonstrated by The Great Barrington Declaration, thousands of medical practitioners and scientists disagree with the measures. Millions of lay persons also disagree, all over the world. Many have protested in the streets, risking fines, imprisonment, and injury to do so.
With so much dissent among both experts and lay people, it would follow that the political, media, and corporate leadership should also be split by significant divisions in opinion. Yet we find remarkable levels of uniformity in the professed opinions of these leaders, at least in the Western world. True Believerism cannot provide an adequate explanation for this discrepancy.
The next hypothesis to explore is that these leaders have placed themselves in something of a double-bind. The lockdowns they imposed have resulted in ruined businesses, lost jobs and livelihoods, economic devastation, social isolation, fear, panic, depression, increased suicides, drug addiction, overdoses, and domestic abuse, as well as the loss of civil liberties and democratic freedoms — altogether a severe disruption of personal life unparalleled since at least World War II, setting the stage for mass protests and rioting in the summer. If the governments and other world leaders admitted that none of it had been necessary, their credibility would be damaged beyond repair. The only way to subdue the masses and maintain the ruling order was to insist that not only had all of it been necessary, it was also necessary to carry on further with the measures. Right at the moment when the restrictions should have been lifted, they would instead be redoubled.
Mask mandates proved the perfect tool suited for this purpose. The masks provided a constant visible symbol to remind people they were not safe — that they were at unprecedented levels of elevated danger. Forcing people to wear them rather than just recommending them was the perfect way to convince people to believe. (They wouldn’t be doing this if it weren’t necessary.) Getting people to put the masks on their own faces was an incredibly powerful induction into obedience training. As with any form of psychological domination, maximum effectiveness is reached when the target for submission believes they have chosen the mask freely. Ironically, this is best achieved by forcing the target to comply until they have internalized the behavior and begin to practice it even in situations where it is not required. This exercise of state power also offered the people reassurance that their governments were doing something to protect them.
The masks served the further valuable purpose of separating people from each other, disrupting the needed recognition of facial features, smiles, and emotional mirroring needed to generate empathy and closeness. The masks communicate a clear message: “Stay away from me. I’m dangerous. And you are dangerous to me.” This prevents the common people from gathering, exchanging ideas, and fomenting unrest. Most of all, it prevents them from questioning the wisdom of the leadership and the official narrative, while symbolically silencing their voices.
As a final benefit, mask culture allows the leadership to convey the message that everyone is in terrible danger from the virus, while simultaneously providing people with confidence that they are safe as long as they wear a mask and follow the rules. This gets people to keep working at jobs society needs them to show up for, but still keeps their fear alive — and their submission. In this way, the leadership escaped blame for imposing their devastating lockdowns and authoritarian measures on society. The people were turned against each other rather than against their leaders. Everything bad that was happening would be blamed on people not wearing masks, not on the government. The disruption had to be lasting, not temporary. It had to be intrusive enough and long enough in duration to manufacture consent in the minds of the ruled.
If this hypothesis were accurate, the restrictions would only continue long enough for the various governments to allow things to settle down, introduce distractions, and gently shift the narrative over time. It would not be necessary or even desirable to extend the authoritarian measures as long as a year. Given that the measures have already lasted one full year as of this writing and are actually continuing to increase rather than abate (now with demands that we wear two masks at once, and threats of vaccine passports), this hypothesis does not seem particularly strong or likely to contain the whole picture.
~
4. Opportunity Knocks (or, Feeding Frenzy at the Trough)
The remaining explanation that accounts for how the Perfect Storm was converted into lasting tyranny is sheer opportunism. It actually complements both 2 and 3 nicely. Under this hypothesis, our leaders sincerely overreacted to the virus, then realized they had done so and concealed their mistake by doubling down on it. While this was going on, they also identified a series of excellent opportunities for power acquisition. Not only would they conceal the fact that the harm they inflicted on the public had been unnecessary by increasing and prolonging the harm, they would be able to take advantage of the situation and consolidate power.
To understand how this works, the first portion of understanding is to recognize that the ruling class is not in a relationship of empathy with regular people. It is in a relationship of exploitation. The rulers may experience a certain fondness for the ruled, and may imagine themselves as providing paternal guidance and affection, but the relationship is ultimately analogous to that of the farmer to the farm animal. It’s perfectly fine to care for and tend to the health of your livestock, but one cannot retain the position of farmer without the ability to harden one’s heart when the time comes for the inevitable harvest and slaughter.
I point this out in anticipation of the reader’s recognition that while certain industries have benefited from the lockdowns, others have been harmed. Online retailers and delivery services have benefited, for instance, while arts and entertainment have been harmed. This recognition loses sight of the overall and more important trend: 2020 has produced the largest, most sudden upward transfer of wealth in history. This is plainly evident. One easily identifiable marker of this, for instance, is that America’s 651 billionaires increased their collective net worth by over a trillion dollars between March and December, 2020 (rising from $2.95 trillion in net worth to $4.01 trillion in 9 months, according to Forbes). The economy did not expand in 2020 — this trillion dollars was previously held by people who are not billionaires.
Where did the appropriated wealth come from? It was taken from millions of working Americans who lost their jobs due to lockdowns. It was requisitioned from the small business owners whose life’s work was destroyed: 100,000 small businesses permanently shuttered in 2020. It came from those who lost fortunes in the stock market convulsions of March and April. The insiders sold at the peak, able to see the coming crash, as well as the corporate bailouts that followed. They bought back their stock at the trough, knowing their operatives in Congress had their backs covered, as always.
Since then we have witnessed a bizarre spectacle: a return to record-setting stock prices in the midst of economic wreckage for ordinary people. The rich are cross-invested in all the major corporate players. It’s unimportant to them that some corporate industries take a hit if other corporations reap the benefits — as long as the overall trend is the transfer of wealth from middle class home and business owners to corporate ownership and ruling class enrichment. When regular investors attempted to beat the hedge funds at their own game during the GameStop affair early in 2021, Washington and Wall Street openly colluded once again to protect the rich by stepping in and rigging the rules of the investment game against the people.
The lockdowns were leveraged to destroy independent small business owners. It wasn’t just a case of transnational corporate interests wiping out their competition. Lockdowns established a model for society in which as many people as possible are dependent on corporate institutions (or on welfare from the state) for their livelihood. The mega-corporations can withstand lockdowns. Indeed, in many jurisdictions they are specifically exempt from them while the independents are driven to bankruptcy by their governors, in service to capital.
Independent barbers and hair stylists will be converted into Supercuts employees. Independent restaurant owners will be converted into Olive Garden and Applebee’s servers. Independent café owners will become Starbucks baristas. Previously independent retailers will now find themselves reliant on a Walmart paycheck to survive. All of those once-thriving storefronts are then scooped up by the corporate giants at rock-bottom prices after their former owners have been converted into paupers by their elected leaders. The once free, self-reliant citizen is transformed into a wage laborer stacking boxes in an Amazon warehouse or a gig worker delivering groceries for Instacart. The common denominator is not just the transfer of wealth from regular people to corporations, it’s the imposition of obedience and dependency on those regular people.
To understand the ambitions of those who are already rich, it’s necessary to differentiate between the middle/working class conception of wealth and what wealth represents to the upper classes. For the regular person, wealth means freedom from the daily grind. It means not worrying about where your next dollar is coming from. It means having nice things, like a fancy car, a fancy house, and fancy vacations. What many regular people don’t realize is that this kind of wealth reaches an apex. Sometime after accumulating $10 million, but certainly by the time one has amassed $100 million, the level of luxury in one’s life becomes limitless. Accruing further wealth may produce the opportunity to purchase more luxuries, but it can’t produce the additional time needed to experience them. After a person crosses that threshold of wealth, additional wealth can only be used to purchase the true object of wealth: power. Specifically, it purchases power over others — the power to shape the world to one’s vision.
As F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote: “Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me.” For billionaires and centimillionaires, power is the true currency. Wealth is just a tool that can be used to accumulate and exercise power. The billionaire might be a sociopath who enjoys the exercise of power for the intoxicating thrill of it. Conversely, the billionaire may be a self-styled altruist, believing their exercise of power is done for the benefit of the ruled, not for the purpose of domination. The common people may be deceived and manipulated, but this is done for their own good, or if not that, for the greater good. Regardless of whether power over others is conceived of as selfish or altruistic, the people subject to power retain the same lack of choice and sovereignty. Real power is not measured in dollars — it is realized in the power to control the ideas of others, to shape their dreams and beliefs, to dictate their actions and options. Power is realized in political control and social control. It is realized in technological control. And with technology, it is realized by expanding one’s physical and mental abilities — by extending one’s very lifespan. More on that later…
For now, it is enough to recognize that the lockdown regimes of 2020 did more than just achieve the upward transfer of wealth. It also changed society, changed people’s beliefs, and generated obedience and dependency. Lockdowning separated people from each other, destroyed their independence, censored their speech, and controlled the flow of information and thought. Lockdowning strengthened authoritarian powers in government. Lockdowning has also cemented the ideology of technocracy in the public consciousness. Ubiquitous surveillance is one part of this regime. Another aspect of it is the power to impose technological modifications under the imperative of public health objectives.
~
5. The Guided Storm Hypothesis (or, Dreaming of Hell until You Make It Real)
This leads to the next hypothesis: whether the coordinated response of the global leadership might have been planned for ahead of time. By this, I don’t mean that the global leadership deliberately arranged to create SarsCov2 in a lab, release it, and then implement an authoritarian response. What I mean is that representatives of the technocratic ruling class have continually gathered together and planned for possible future scenarios over the course of years, including scenarios such as the advent of a devastating viral pandemic.
Please refer to my article Understanding Technocracy for a thorough description of the technocratic ruling class and their objectives. Simply put, Technocracy refers to a society ruled by technology, stewarded by those human beings at the top of the technological power structure. Insider technocratic consultant David Rothkopf uses the term “superclass” to identify this group in his 2009 book Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making. In his estimation, this refers to about 6,000–7,000 people who stand a tier above the global upper class. Members of the superclass are defined as those with the ability to regularly influence the lives of millions of people in multiple countries worldwide, with a growing allegiance to each other rather than to any particular nation.
Rothkopf himself is not a member of the superclass, but has worked as a consultant to members of this class as a protégé of Henry Kissinger, and can properly be considered a mid-level technocrat. In his book, he identifies some of organizations by which members of the superclass meet, negotiate, and collaborate regarding the course of world events, such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, and the World Economic Forum at Davos. At a level below the superclass, a stable of technological innovators and intellectuals is maintained to manage and implement the directives of the superclass at various think tanks, NGOs, universities, laboratories, and foundations. It’s also important to recognize mainstream media outlets as part and parcel of this network of technocratic support institutions, as described in my article On the Mind-Altering Power of Taboo.
Under the Guided Storm hypothesis, the global response to covid did not unfold as an emergent phenomenon resulting from a perfect storm of happenstance and virus mania, but was instead the result of a pre-written scripted playbook, compiled by members of the technocracy over the course of 10–20 years. When the moment seemed to call for implementation of this playbook, under the impression that a truly devastating virus was about to sweep the world, the playbook was picked up from the shelf, dusted off, and put into service.
Indeed, four such scripts were compiled for a scenario-planning exercise convened by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Global Business Network in 2010 entitled Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development. One of the scripts was entitled “Lock Step.” (You can read it for yourself here, beginning on page 18 of the program agenda.) Lock Step envisions an influenza strain originating from wild geese that kills 8 million people in 7 months. China responds with a mandatory quarantine of all citizens that other nations soon copy, further imposing mandatory face masks, temperature checks, and biometric IDs that persist even as the pandemic fades away. World leaders decide to leverage their newfound power for other purposes: the management of dissent, terrorism, rising poverty, and environmental concerns.
Nine years later in October 2019, at the very moment the first covid infections were appearing in Wuhan, a pandemic simulation exercise entitled “Event 201” was conducted as a collaborative effort sponsored by the World Economic Forum, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. (Johns Hopkins also previously hosted pandemic exercises in 2001, 2005, and 2018 titled “Dark Winter,” “Transatlantic Storm,” and “Clade X” respectively. Clade X was held in conjunction with the WEF.) Event 201 imagined a novel coronavirus pandemic that would kill 65 million people, requiring a global coordinated response between governments, international organizations, and global business concerns. Interestingly, one of Event 201’s primary recommendations was to implement a censorship regime coordinated by both traditional and social media, committed to “…ensuring that authoritative messages are prioritized and that false messages are suppressed including through the use of technology.”
We seem to have inherited a mixture of responses derived from both Lock Step and Event 201. Here we can observe some of the dangers inherent in such predictive exercises, albeit conducted with every intention of prudence and preparedness. Namely, their own doom-laden anticipation of a novel supervirus may have led the global leadership to misidentify SarsCov2 as such prematurely. Predictive computer models devised at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle, and the Imperial College of London (both funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) warned the world leadership that covid-19 would cause tens of millions of deaths along the order imagined in both Lock Step and Event 201. It may be the case that the preexisting bias of having “a supervirus on the brain,” so to speak, resulted in biased and inaccurate computer models. These models then delivered the very predictions anticipated prior to the development of the computer models themselves. Moreover, preexisting biases that overvalue the wisdom of AI and digital algorithms would have further blinded the leadership to the inherent flaws in such models.
In addition, the writers of the Lock Step scenario simply imagined that China’s general citizen quarantine would be the most effective way to handle a supervirus in the absence of any research or evidence to support this supposition (along with the supposition that mandatory face masks would likewise prove effective). This may betray a preexisting bias that assumes authoritarian solutions are inherently superior in managing disease, and that Western democracies would therefore experience a built-in disadvantage vis-à-vis China. To make up for this disadvantage, a coordinated induction of media and governmental hysteria in the general populace (aided by the hyperbolic computer-generated death predictions) would be required to push previously free people into accepting (and clamoring for) the needed authoritarian measures.
The future scenarios imagined by the technocratic world leaders of the Bill and Melinda Gates and Rockefeller Foundations, Johns Hopkins, and the World Economic Forum, reflected their own technocratic biases toward the efficacy of authoritarianism, the power of data and surveillance technology, a fear of uncontrolled organic biological processes, and the need for censorship and propaganda to suppress misinformation. With these future scenarios held firmly in mind, they would have projected those scenarios onto covid-19 when it arose, falsely inflating the degree of danger posed by SarsCov2 and then believing their own inflated predictions, since that was what they expected to see. They also projected their own confidence in authoritarian response measures onto the unfolding scenario, resulting in their own promulgation of false expectations regarding the danger of the virus (along with the panic and hysteria that accompanied these false expectations). They also promulgated inaccurate recommendations regarding how best to respond to the virus (i.e., mandatory lockdowns, social distancing, and masks). Having already implemented the recommended regime of censorship and propaganda to combat misinformation, they found themselves in the ironically inverted position of being the source of misinformation themselves, while views that challenged the official misinformation were censored and silenced.
It is all too easy to identify the enormous temptation posed by the sudden acquisition of unaccountable power. With the benefit of a censorship and propaganda regime set to automatically verify their assertions and denounce and silence their detractors, a golden opportunity dawned. The technocrats, in conjunction with world political leadership, would be able to leverage the authoritarian moment to create desired realities in the consciousness of the global populace with no possibility of official scrutiny or opposition. They would be able to shift that populace into a different way of living — selected by the technocracy to meet the needs of the next phase of human existence.
~
6. The Created Storm Hypothesis (or, How to Make an Omelet)
The Guided Storm Hypothesis answers more questions than the hypotheses explored in parts 1–4, but some questions remain unanswered. Media messages were deployed early on during the lockdowns, heralding the arrival of the “New Normal” and how we would “never go back to how things were before.” These were coupled with ubiquitous catch phrases like “The Great Reset” and “Build Back Better,” suggesting the early presence of a bigger agenda than just the imposition of a pre-existing pandemic response script. These messages point instead to a goal of fundamentally restructuring human life across the planet.
In addition to this, questions regarding the origins of the virus and the Chinese government’s response to the outbreak complicate the matter. Early on, aggressive mainstream media messaging insisted the virus could not have originated via Chinese lab leak. One can observe the deployment of this propaganda with some measure of understanding — there may have been a fear among the Western leadership that if the virus were identified as originating from the Chinese government, global peace might be threatened. And after all, China wouldn’t have purposely unleashed the virus on their own soil. If the virus leaked from their lab, it was surely an honest mistake that could have happened to anyone. No need to draw attention to the recklessly dangerous coronavirus gain-of-function studies conducted by both the United States and China by exposing the lab leak. Better to go with the story of the organic origin of the virus and maintain both world peace and confidence in world governance.
I explore the question of the virus’s origins in my article On the Mind-Altering Power of Taboo. For the purposes of examining the Created Storm hypothesis, the origin of the virus itself is less important than China’s response to it — and the corresponding response of nations and international institutions outside of China. This hypothesis explores the possibility that members of the technocratic leadership knew what they were doing right from the start, to one degree or another. They had dreamed their future vision for a technocratic, top-down controlled world, and they realized the general populace would need to be pushed along into that vision for it to become reality. Only authoritarian inducement would suffice to accomplish such pushing along, and that meant a crisis would either need to be exploited or created. In this case, the created crisis was the lockdown regime itself — not the virus — which was merely exploited as an excuse to create the crisis.
Michael Senger is an American attorney who has compiled research into the course of events progressing from the identification of the SarsCov2 outbreak in Wuhan in December 2019 to the implementation of Chinese lockdowns — to the implementation of Chinese lockdown policy in the rest of the world. In an open letter addressed to the FBI, Senger and his co-authors call for an investigation into China’s role in originating the global lockdown response and the attendant propagation of beliefs and practices regarding the virus the rest of the world then adopted to its detriment. The central claims made, backed up by evidence detailed in the letter, are summarized as follows:
“Lockdowns originated on the order of Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, and were propagated into global policy by the World Health Organization with little analysis or logic . . . Deadly recommendations for early mechanical ventilation came from China. The world’s predominant, wildly-inaccurate PCR testing protocols are based on incomplete, theoretical genome sequences supplied by China. Predominant excessive PCR testing protocols came from China. Studies showing significant asymptomatic transmission, the only scientific basis for lockdowns of healthy individuals, came from China. The CCP engaged in an early, broad, systematic, and global propaganda campaign to promote its lockdown response.”
The letter further details evidence of pro-China bias in the World Health Organization and other prominent public health and policy-making institutions across the world that contributed to the adoption of Chinese measures. It notes that the Imperial College of London, whose alarmist computer models frightened the world into lockdown, maintains a special relationship with the Chinese government, and describe themselves as “China’s best academic partner in the West.” The letter makes the case that many prominent pro-lockdown supporters not only demonstrate pro-Chinese government bias, but are unqualified to provide public health advice, and demonstrate unusual indifference to the devastating consequences of lockdown policies. In this informative interview with Robert Spalding, Senger reviews the content and reasoning contained in this letter while providing insight into China’s social media and Twitter bot campaign in the early months of lockdown, including viral videos such as the famous staged clip of a man falling over face-forward in the street like a stricken zombie, supposedly due to covid.
Various explanations can be suggested to explain the circumstances listed above, including the application of the hypotheses I’ve already explored to China’s response. In some ways, those hypotheses fit China’s response better than the response in the rest of the world. It could be argued that China’s initial response was a combination of panic, over-confidence in authoritarian measures, and propaganda to protect their reputation. By March, enough data had come in to show their measures to be unnecessary and ineffective, and that the virus was within the range of regular pathogenic risk. China realized if they simply stopped reporting positive test results and death counts, they could declare victory over the virus, and no one would be able to tell the difference between cases and deaths due to covid and those due to the regular flu.
China then ended their own lockdown and shifted into the Opportunity Knocks phrase, recognizing they could gain a relative global economic advantage by luring the rest of the world into lockdown as a strategic power play — crippling economies internationally via the strength of their propaganda and influence at institutions like the World Health Organization. As the rest of the world helplessly watched their societies and economies crumble, unable to awaken from the Chinese dreamspell, China roared back to life.
The first bump in this narrative is that China initiated its global propaganda and influence campaign very early on — as soon as they initiated their own lockdowns in January. If they were seeking to gain relative advantage over the West, and they were true believers in their own methods, they would be motivated to dissuade other countries from adopting Chinese policies, not encourage them.
The explanation suggested by Senger is basically that China was already at the Opportunity Knocks level of awareness right from the start. They knew the lockdowns were bad policy very early on, but they were a useful way to briefly tighten their authoritarian grip over their own people while inducing the rest of the world into needless self-inflicted wounding. (The mainstream narrative, that these lockdown measures actually are necessary and effective, and that China deployed them with such authoritarian streamlined efficiency that covid-19 vanished from their country of 1.4 billion people, after 3 months of unchecked spread among 18% of the world’s population, strains credulity to the level of farce, and deserves outright dismissal.)
Out of the various possibilities, Senger’s narrative seems to best fit the facts, but it leaves one glaring question unanswered: If China had induced the rest of the world into lockdown as a hostile action and power grab, why did rest of the world remain locked down later than June? By then, enough evidence would have been available to expose the deception campaign, which would have been regarded as a national security threat by the intelligence agencies, militaries, and state departments of most governments. It is quite baffling that a broad phalanx of nations has continued to participate in lockdown measures that progressively weaken them in relation to China the longer the measures continue.
How then to explain this prolonged regime of self-inflicted wounding on the part of the world’s nations, continually redounding to the benefit of China in terms of relative power? The dynamic is only baffling insofar as one views geopolitics in terms of nation-states vying for power vis-à-vis other nation states, as was traditionally the case on the world stage. The dynamic makes perfect sense, however, if one views geopolitical events through the lens of technocracy and the superclass.
Put simply, under the vying nation-state model, national governments are instruments of power designed to protect and serve the interests of their own citizens (perhaps primarily serving the interests of the most powerful and influential of those citizens, but still in service to domestic rather than foreign interests nonetheless). The national government is engaged in rivalry with other nations, attempting to flourish and gain power — either at the expense of other nations, or in mutually beneficially alliances with other nations.
In contrast, the role of government has shifted under the new model of technocracy and superclass. The governments answer to the superclass and its aggregated capital rather than to the citizenry. Different national governments are no longer in rivalry with each other in the traditional sense. They are instead partners with each other, in common rivalry against the interests of their own people. Due to overmastering global economic influence and commonly held interests, the superclass views governments as tools that are either effective or ineffective at extracting power from various populations of regular people and natural resources. Systems of power and control are reformulated to flow from the superclass, through national governments, and to be enacted on the people. Exponential advances in the power of digital surveillance, robotics, AI, and genetic engineering allow the technocracy, stewarded by the superclass, to continually perfect and strengthen the efficacy of these processes.
Understanding the technocratic framework of global power easily explains the phenomenon of continued lockdowns outside of China. The global leadership wanted to stay in lockdown, independent of China’s propaganda. They did not view China’s influence campaign as a national security threat — if anything, this influence campaign was viewed as a helpful aid and justification for implementing domestic authoritarian controls.
~
The Governing State as Technological Device
Why would the technocratic superclass outside of China wish to implement such a policy of devastation while China flourished, unscathed? Why would they wish to copy Chinese authoritarian measures? I will once again refer you to my article Understanding Technocracy for full analysis of this question. Summarized in brief, the Chinese system is the ideal system for technocratic governance. The society is organized efficiently, like a machine. Technological advancements are widely promoted and adopted. The people have no rights, and are therefore subject to ubiquitous surveillance, restriction of speech, imprisonment, and loss of freedoms at will. Generally speaking, China’s totalitarian form of government offers the perfect bridge to the future. It is a technological device that can be used to usher in the totalitarian rule of the AI surveillance state.
Seen from the technocratic perspective, China’s authoritarian governance system is an advanced kind of technology. Certain barriers exist to full implementation of this technology in other countries, particularly in the Western democracies. The whole world is viewed in terms of a programmable system, like a computer, as are its constituent parts. The nation of China can be viewed as a computer which is running the world’s most advanced, state-of-the-art operating system: technocratic totalitarian state of governance. Meanwhile, a nation like the United States, while constructed from very powerful hardware, has an old, clunky operating system that interferes with streamlined and efficient computing.
The problem is, how do you remake the rest of the world in the image of China? How do you convert nations with centuries of democratic tradition and a proud spirit of independence into totalitarian technocracies? Covid was apparently the perfect opportunity to do so. In order to install the new Chinese-style operating system, you have to kind of dismantle the old operating systems used by other countries and reconfigure their hardware to make it compatible with the new upgrade. This, at least, is the narrative considered in the Created Storm Hypothesis.
Viewed through this lens, China’s deception was not designed to weaken other countries, but was conducted in consort with the superclass (as demonstrated by the predictive planning conferences such as Event 201 and by years of publicized technocratic advocacy along these lines). China’s efforts proved invaluable in the campaign to impose lockdowns and the New Normal on the unsuspecting citizenry of the world (and to bully stubborn or reluctant national governments to comply as well) in order to install the new technocratic operating framework.
I myself lived in Beijing for a brief interval of 7 months in 2013. While I was there, I commonly encountered Western expats who waxed effusively on the notion that China’s form of totalitarian governance was superior to Western democracy, and ought to be the model emulated by the rest of the world. I have heard reports that this is also a commonly-held view among global billionaires, Davos attendees, and other members of the superclass.
~
Bill and Klaus’s Excellent Adventure
To provide additional context regarding some of these superclass technocrats and their vision for humanity’s future, the best place to start is probably with the host of the Davos superclass gatherings himself: Klaus Schwab. The personage of Schwab represents the aims, ideologies, and political connections of the ruling technocracy better than any other figure. Having founded the World Economic Forum (originally called the European Management Forum) in 1971, Schwab hosts a gathering at Davos, Switzerland every year, attended by global political leaders and the most powerful and influential members of the world ruling elite in the realms of finance, technology, media, business and governance. There they convene and coordinate to set the agenda for the planet.
What is the agenda, you ask? Schwab’s vision for the future is a world dominated by AI, automation, and ubiquitous invasive technology called the 4th Industrial Revolution. To quote Schwab: “At the end, what the 4th Industrial Revolution will lead to is a fusion of our physical, our digital, and our biological identities . . . Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed.” In a seeming audition for the role of James Bond supervillain Blofeld, head of the criminal organization SPECTRE which is bent on world domination, Schwab proclaims the coming of a worldwide “Great Reset” during the summer of 2020 in this one-minute clip, and in this one he insists that the world can never — and will never — go back to normal.
Schwab and the WEF began advocating for implementation of the Great Reset agenda in 2014, and hosted successive pandemic tabletop scenarios in 2018 and 2019 (“Clade X” and “Event 201,” as mentioned previously). Crisis events such as these were offered as examples of why the world needed the reset Schwab was promoting. When Global authoritarian lockdowns were achieved in response to covid the following year, Schwab released his 2020 book: COVID-19: The Great Reset, and now his agenda has swept the world. For a thorough analysis of Schwab’s personal history, future vision, the authoritarian political ramifications of his agenda, and the transhuman, technocratic movements surrounding him, this article provides an excellent overview.
Technocrats like Schwab look forward to a future in which human beings merge with machines — also referred to as transhumanism. The human body, mind, and spirit are to be irrevocably modified through technological intervention. Transhumanists imagine such a world will be a utopia, though the prospect represents a dystopian hellscape to others. During my own time in China, I found that for many of the Chinese business and tech workers I spoke to, the dream of a technocratic future was very alive in their hearts. It was common to hear them describe their longing for a fully automated future world. They imagined that advanced robots would be their servants and relieve them from the burden of unpleasant work. Some of them had also been introduced to the transhuman vision of the future, and longed for immortality through biological or cyborg enhancement, or else to permanently upload their consciousness into a virtual reality dream world.
The technocratic superclass and its transhuman vision can be further clarified by researching the life and work of Bill Gates. He was perhaps the primary figure responsible for planting the seed in the American (and perhaps global) consciousness, as early as March 2020, that the world would have to stay in lockdown until a vaccine was developed and administered to the vast majority of the world’s population. One might wonder what gives Gates the authority to declare what the world must do. One might also wonder whether the man has a conflict of interest in such recommendations, given the fact that vaccines are currently his primary business concern.
The probing documentary by independent journalist James Corbett, Who Is Bill Gates? details the history of Gates’ monopolistic business practices in both tech and public health. It provides a clear picture of the Gates empire and the vision that guides it: top-down control of public and individual health, centered on digital surveillance and synthetic biological modification, all subject to centralized control. A shorter exposé by Russell Brand summarizes Gates’ additional ventures in petroleum, tech, GMO crops, seed patents, synthetic foods, and farmland ownership, for further insight into his technocratic endeavors.
Given Gates’ background in monopolistic business practices running Microsoft, it makes sense that he transitioned to the monopolization of global public health. Pharmaceuticals (particularly vaccines) are analogous to software when seen through the mechanized eyes of technocracy. Human beings are analogous to the computer systems this software is designed to modify.
Many are surprised to learn of Gates’ extensive investments and earnings, believing him to have switched from earning money to giving it away as a philanthropist through his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This misunderstanding is due to a lack of knowledge regarding the nature of private foundations. These entities can best be understood as a form of financial technology finely adapted for the purposes of technocracy. The foundation is created as a funnel that washes clean the billions of dollars a superclass technocrat wishes to spend — simultaneously serving as a PR enhancement device and a tax shelter. As philanthropists, the technocrats become governments unto themselves. The private foundation converts what would otherwise become taxed government revenue into privately controlled expenditure. This set of relationships at the intersection of finance and governance is the perfect illustration of how the superclass exists beyond and above government, and how it progressively assumes the functions of government over time.
The sheer volume of money spent by the Gates foundation is so monumental, Gates can be assured his private investments will succeed. He simply directs these investments into enterprises propped up by massive donations from his foundation. By simultaneously funding mainstream media institutions and their fact-checker correlates at substantial levels (about $250 million per annum), Gates guarantees favorable press coverage. Using his billions through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations), he has become the primary source of funding and authority at the World Health Organization, and was able to install Gates ally and China-backed Tedros Adhanom as director of the WHO in 2017. With the WHO issuing guidelines to nations across the world since 2020 (which are then implemented as laws), and with Gates wielding apparent control over the WHO, not to mention a social media censorship regime that disallows any criticism or disagreement with the WHO’s proclamations, Gates’ level of unaccountable power makes him the poster-child of the unelected superclass technocracy.
~
The Technocratic Vision
One of the sharpest available analyses of technocracy is provided by investment banker and former United States Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Catherine Austin Fitts in her interview for the forthcoming Planet Lockdown documentary. I can’t do justice to the wealth of analysis contained in this interview, or even provide an adequate summary, so I suggest taking the time to listen to the whole interview directly. In it, she describes the confluence of tech, military, pharmaceuticals, media, and central banks in instituting technocracy, suggesting that the global changes taking place since 2020 can properly be described as a coup. In her words, covid-19 “…is the institution of controls necessary to convert the planet from democratic process to technocracy. What we’re watching is a change of control and an engineering of new control systems . . . It’s simple: technology gives you the ability to institute a complete control system and further centralize economic and political control.”
Alison McDowell is another excellent researcher and interpreter of the technocratic and transhumanist agenda. Her presentation, Alison McDowell — Biometric Health Passports And The Panopticon, provides a thorough and exhaustive exposé of the future world planned for us by the world’s leading technologists and the financiers behind them. It’s worth viewing both McDowell’s entire presentation and Fitts’ entire interview to get a full sense of what Klaus Schwab’s 4th Industrial Revolution is meant to look like. Summarized briefly, the goal is to institute ubiquitous surveillance and internet connectivity across the entire planet. In addition, each human being is to be identified with a digitized identity profile, integrated with their central bank digital currency account, social history, and biomedical and vaccination history, with attendant restrictions and privileges applied based on this data.
The technocratic vision of the superclass is not a secret, nor is its admiration for the totalitarian Chinese system of governance. Researchers like Fitts and McDowell are able to compile knowledge on these subjects because the aspirations and sentiments of superclass technocrats like Schwab and Gates are publicly declared. Institutions like the Rockefeller Foundation and Johns Hopkins (which renamed its school of public health “Bloomberg” in keeping with a $1.8 billion donation received from data analysis billionaire and politician/technocrat/media titan Michael Bloomberg) are also open in their attitudes and goals.
The Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and Schwab’s World Economic Forum all started planning tabletop pandemic scenarios several years prior to the covid fiasco. Now all of them are involved in the development and implementation of digital vaccine passports, providing the basis for the digital ID and social credit regime that will be at the core of technocratic totalitarianism of the 4th Industrial Revolution, with China leading the way.
The Planned Storm Hypothesis fits with the pre-existing aims and activities of these entities, and it also fits with the evidence of a coordinated global media and technocratic covid response, in imitation of China. In addition, this hypothesis helps explain the deeper purpose served by the lockdowns. They provide an excuse for Western democracies to disrupt their societies sufficiently enough to install Chinese-style authoritarian control measures. Social distancing and prohibitions on public gatherings stifle dissent and force much of life into the digital realm. Mask mandates dehumanize the individual and instill fear and disdain for organic human biological processes. This conditions the populace to accept future transhuman biological modifications. Censorship and cancelling regimes encourage silent compliance and obedience to technocratic authority. If these changes become permanent — as propaganda phrases like “The New Normal” suggest is intended — the covid lockdown crisis will have effected the greatest change in global governance, finance, and humanity in world history.
To view the world through the eyes of technocracy is to view the world through the eyes of a machine. All of these policies and future goals are perfectly understandable when the world is viewed that way. In the eyes of a machine, there isn’t much appreciation for our human ways, nor is there much concern for the hearts, dreams, and lives of regular human beings. There is an arrogance of machine superiority that comes with the perspective, and a conviction that the technocratic future is simply a superior outcome, or inevitable, or both. Guided by this machine outlook, one takes action in service of this future. One bows into service to the machine.
~
Synthesis
This article was primarily written in order to lay out all of the possible motivations and methods by which our disastrous global lockdown fiasco has been implemented, maintained, and justified. My objective in doing this is to assist readers who find the proposition “They’re doing this even though it isn’t necessary” convincing, but struggle to answer the follow-up question: “Why are they doing this?”
I don’t intend to make the case that any of the hypotheses listed in this article (1. Perfect Storm, 2. True Believerism, 3. In for a Penny In for a Pound, 4. Opportunity Knocks, 5. Guided Storm, or 6. Created Storm) should be regarded as the one true conclusion. If you want my opinion regarding the various hypotheses posed in this article, I believe they are all true.
What I mean by this is that different authorities came to support the lockdown regimes for different reasons, usually overlapping reasons, and these reasons may have changed with time. The six hypotheses are arranged in order from lowest to highest by level of intentionality. Most authorities would have begun their response at level 1, would have looked to others for guidance, and would have discovered this guidance issuing from those few authorities who began their responses at levels 4–6. Doubtless, many authorities still remain at level 1 now — still flailing in the storm, copying the responses of others to make it through. Many others have entered into the True Believerism of level 2, finding it easiest and most sensible to simply trust those who are the authorities to them (found at levels 3–6). Others continue to support the lockdowns to protect their reputations (3), for purposes of opportunistic greed (4), or in sincere service to the technocratic futurist agenda (5).
Only those who entered the game at level 6 actively dream of and hope to create the authoritarian transhuman future the covid lockdowns are guiding us towards. For years, at their scenario planning events, they’ve envisioned the opportunities a pandemic viral crisis would create — eager to showcase the magnificence of a global top-down technocratic response. To be sure, these predicted crises are not limited to the public health arena. Even now, Klaus Schwab is warning us of the next crisis to come: this time it is to be a global computer virus, a “cyber pandemic” that will require a global internet lockdown. Schwab warns us that the consequences of this inevitable cyber pandemic will be so severe, due to disruptions in the power grid, communications, and data access, that our current lockdown crisis will be seen as “a small disturbance in comparison.”
But don’t worry! Klaus has us covered. The World Economic Forum has already begun hosting tabletop scenario planning simulations called Cyber Polygon to prepare for this virtual pandemic, just like they did for the viral pandemic. The first one took place last year, and Cyber Polygon 2021 is planned for July 9. Predictably, Cyber Polygon 2020 recommend implementation of the same totalitarian tech measures that were recommended for the biological virus: further concentration of centralized power, erasing the lines that separate private technocratic entities from national governments, rollout of universal digital ID, and an even more stringent and expansive global censorship regime.
I am hopeful that a growing number of regular people around the world will end this lockdown regime and all its mandates this year. Enough of us simply need to decide the technocratic disaster we’re living through is not so magnificent after all, and refuse to accept it. If that happens, the 2020–21 program of authoritarian lockdowns, ubiquitous surveillance, and imposition of biometric digital IDs can be dismantled before its goals are realized.
If so, the technocracy will likely regroup and take note of which of their authoritarian efforts worked, which ones did not work, and plan how to improve their effectiveness. The new and improved totalitarian tech agenda will be ready for rollout at the time of the next crisis, whether a “cyber pandemic” or a new viral pandemic that is truly as dangerous as the one envisioned in Event 201.
The Superclass is in this for the long haul. We need to be in it for the long haul too.
~
Final Thoughts: Become an Authority unto Yourself
As I reach the close of this lengthy inquiry into the motivations behind the covid lockdowns, I would like to emphasize the authority each of us carries by virtue of our own sovereignty. For me, the primary lesson of 2020 is of the pressing need for regular people to reclaim this sovereignty, and to reclaim our own authority.
It is incorrect to differentiate between some people who are “authorities” and others who are not. This distinction is inherently authoritarian in its essence. All of us share responsibility for this ongoing lockdown regime. We are not so different from those lower-level authorities who were caught in the Perfect Storm and then just listened to and obeyed whoever seemed like they knew what was going on and what to do. It’s the basic stance that says “People more informed than me know what should be done better than I do.” Even those in authority can defer to higher authorities in this way. The follow-up of course remains: “They wouldn’t be doing this if it weren’t necessary.” That’s how we all got trapped.
I know I got caught up in the Perfect Storm in early March, and I rapidly became an early True Believer. I can recall urgently advising friends and family members to take strong measures to protect themselves before they had even transitioned into Perfect Storm mode. My own True Believerism collapsed under the weight of evidence within just a few months, but at the time of this writing, many millions still occupy that space.
My hope is that others reading this article will gain awareness of the technocratic agenda and withdraw their support for leaders, institutions, and policies that intend to take us there. I know that those of us who desire a natural and fully human future are in the majority. It simply remains for us to recognize who we are, what we value, and to act accordingly. It will also be helpful for us to recognize the ideology and religion of technocracy, and understand the future to which it leads. With increasing awareness we will evolve, not into human-machine hybrids, but into fuller expressions of our sacred and divine humanity.
- RCK -
~
Links and Research
I’ve compiled this list of websites, articles, and interviews as an easy reference guide for those who would like to learn more about the topics discussed in this article. I wish all of us to become our own authorities, and urge readers not to accept or dismiss my views uncritically, but to do your own research and draw your own conclusion. These links serve as a jumping-off point for independent researchers seeking alternative facts and perspectives to what is available in the mainstream media outlets.
Video Interviews, Documentaries, and Presentations
Superclass — David Rothkopf. A lecture/presentation by David Rothkopf in which he explains the nature and ways of the 6,000–7,000 people who control the world.
Who Is Bill Gates? The probing documentary by independent journalist James Corbett detailing the life and interests of Bill Gates and the history of his monopolistic business practices in both tech and public health.
The Great Reset: Is Bill Gates Too Powerful? A brief exposé summarizing Gates’ technocratic financial empire, with ownership stakes in tech, oil, pharmaceuticals, farmland, GMO crops, seed patents, synthetic foods, and mainstream media outlets.
Catherine Austin Fitts: Planet Lockdown Interview. An analysis of technocracy in motion provided by investment banker and former United States Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Catherine Austin Fitts in her interview for the forthcoming Planet Lockdown documentary. She describes the confluence of tech, military, pharmaceuticals, media, and central banks in instituting technocracy, and how the covid lockdowns of 2020 facilitate these ambitions.
Alison McDowell — Biometric Health Passports And The Panopticon. Presentation by Alison McDowell, an independent researcher and interpreter of the technocratic and transhumanist agenda. A thorough exposé of the future world planned for us by the world’s leading technologists and the financiers behind them.
How China Caused the World to Lock Down. In depth and thought-provoking video interview of Michael Senger by Robert Spalding, summarizing Senger’s research and findings regarding China’s direct and indirect role in promoting the global lockdown response to covid.
~
Print Journalism
China’s Global Lockdown Propaganda Campaign. Article by Michael Senger, focused on China’s social media, twitter bot, and global propaganda campaigns conducted in the early months of lockdown, with the objective of inducing the rest of the world into copying China’s lockdown response to covid-19.
A timeline of the great rest agenda: from foundation to Event 201 and the pandemic of 2020. An article exploring the formation of Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset and the events leading to its launch in 2020.
A skeptical look at the ‘great rest’: a technocratic agenda that waited years for a global crisis to exploit. Companion article to the one listed above, further exploring the origins and implementation of the Great Reset.
Klaus Schwab & his Great Fascist Reset. A thorough analysis of Schwab’s personal history, future vision, the authoritarian political ramifications of his agenda, and the transhuman, technocratic movements surrounding him.
Why the Bill Gates Global Health Empire Promises More Empire and Less Public Health. Article cataloging the series of conflicts of interest and compromised funding relationships at the core of Bill Gates’ global presence in pharmaceuticals, public health, and at the World Health Organization.
Globalists embrace leveraging social media, location & behavioral data for alternative credit scoring. A summary of current technocratic efforts to impose a social credit system on global society.
Prepping for a cyber pandemic: Cyber Polygon 2021 to stage supply chain attack simulation. Article summarizing Klaus Schwab’s foretelling of and planned authoritarian measures to respond to a hypothetical global computer virus “pandemic.”
~
Open Letters and Planning Documents
Request for Expedited Federal Investigation Into Scientific Fraud in Public Health Policies — Open Letter. This letter, co-authored by American attorney Michael Senger, petitions the FBI to investigate China’s role in originating the global lockdown response and the role of international public health officials and scientific experts in uncritically, even fraudulently, accepting and propagating adoption of the Chinese response.
The Great Barrington Declaration. The case against lockdowns, articulated by preeminent epidemiologists, and co-signed by thousands of doctors, scientists, medical professionals, and citizens.
Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development. Written by the Rockefeller Foundation and Global Business Network in 2010, this document contains an envisioned future world scenario called “Lock Step” (beginning on page 18 of the program agenda). The Lock Step scenario foretells key aspects of the real-life events of 2020, including China’s imposition of a general quarantine and mask mandate that other nations soon copy, and the failure of governments to relinquish their new authoritarian powers after attaining them.
Event 201 Website. The official website of Event 201, a pandemic planning exercise sponsored by the World Economic Forum, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, conducted in October 2019. Event 201 envisioned a future novel coronavirus pandemic and recommended various measures that were implemented in 2020, including coordinated censorship regimes.
~
Companion Articles by Raelle Kaia
The following series of nine articles were written over the course of 2020–21 in response to the wave of authoritarian governance, thought, and belief that swept the world in that year. They represent an appeal to freedom of thought, speech, and conscience, and they advocate for a return to democratic, human, and spiritual values. These articles also offer research, critique, and insight regarding the nature of the crisis of this time and the possible intentions and implications of these events.
Part of the Problem. An encounter with the surreal in June, 2020. An invitation to open up to deeper questions at a pivotal moment in American and world history. June, 2020
Lockdown Evoked a Political and Conceptual Earthquake in my Life. A description of the unraveling process that occurred for me in the summer of 2020 as my prior alignments and sense of truth and trust were shattered by the advent of authoritarianism. September, 2020
The Sacred Left and Right.An analysis of the sacred and authoritarian forms of both left and right political orientations — with a call to support the sacred forms and resist the technocratic authoritarian forms. October, 2020
What to Make of Covid and the Lockdowns? My original article stating the case against lockdowns, masks, and social distancing regimes. An appeal for open discourse. December, 2020
Why Are They Doing This? An exploration of the possible reasons or motives for the continuing lockdown regimes in light of the evidence that they are neither necessary nor useful, and in light of the considerable harm they have caused and continue to cause. March, 2021
On the Mind-Altering Power of Taboo. A critique of censorship as antithetical to human flourishing accompanied by an examination of taboo and censored areas of inquiry, and of who is protected and harmed by their taboo status. April, 2021
Toward a New Religion.An exploration of the “New Normal” societal changes in values and belief that have accompanied the lockdown regimes, seen through the lens of religion and spirituality. April, 2021
Understanding Technocracy. An exploration of the nature of technocracy in further depth, examining it from psychological, ideological, and spiritual perspectives. April, 2021
Fact-Checking is the New Pravda. A dissection of the propaganda technique of fact-checking, which has become a ubiquitous phenomenon in the corporate press in recent years. Fact-checking is perhaps the most effective and important tactic available for shaping and controlling popular thought and belief. July, 2021
~
Incidental Links
The following links from the article lead to snippets of information and video clips that are more incidental to the links listed above. They are compiled here for convenience as well.
Tik Tok Viral Nurse Dancing Videos Nurse Compilation. A montage of many of the dancing nurse videos from Spring 2020.
The Fog of War — Lesson 5. Former US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara discusses the bombing campaigns against Japanese civilians in World War II, relating to these as war crimes.
WEF — World Economic Forum — Klaus Schwab — The Great Reset. Klaus Schwab announces his program to change the world via the Great Reset in June, 2020.
The Great Reset — Klaus Schwab. Another clip from Klaus Schwab in which he explains that the world will never return to the way it used to be, described by him as a fiction which will not happen.