27 Agosto 2021 Pubblicato da Marco Tosatti

Marco Tosatti

Dear friends and enemies of Stilum curiae, Agostino Nobile offers us this disturbing analysis on the role that the Rockefellers have had in the last decades in directing and interfering with world politics and governments, in particular the weakest and most vulnerable ones. Enjoy your reading, with the author’s own translation.

§§§

IN 2010 ROCKEFELLER FORESAW THE LOCK STEP 

The ‘philanthropic’ Rockefeller Foundation began to address family planning issues with John D. Rockefeller Jr. supporting family planning initiatives. In 1924, Raymond Fosdick, president of the Rockefeller Foundation, wrote to J. Rockefeller about overpopulation: “Unless something is done along the lines that these people are suggesting, we will hand down to our children a world in which the struggle for food and livelihood will be far more bitter than anything we know at present”. J. Rockefeller Jr. thus authorised a donation of $10,000 to the cause of Margaret Sanger (supporter and founder of the first contraceptive research clinic, later to be called the infamous abortion mill Planned Parenthood).

In 1940, the Rockefeller Foundation funded research into sexual behaviour by the insectologist Alfred Charles Kinsey. Later it became known that the method and the percentages were faked to do a favour for Rockefeller & C., who were determined to promote sexual freedom and homosexism.

David Rockefeller, John’s son, in his book Memoirs, published in 2003, writes: “Some even believe that we are part of a secret cabal, working against the best interests of the United States, characterising me and my family as ‘internationalists’, and conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – a world, if you will. If that is the charge, I plead guilty, and I am proud of it.”

So we are talking about an organisation that since the beginning of the last century has involved Western governments in implementing their socio-economic programmes.

Following the same path, in 2010 David Rockefeller spoke at the UN about the need to reduce the world’s population: https://www.marcotosatti.com/2021/08/06/nobile-le-manifestazioni-non-fermeranno-il-piano-antivita-mondiale/

In the same year, the Rockefeller Foundation published “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development”: file:///C:/Users/Usilizador/Desktop/Article%20Rocke/Rockefeller-Foundation-2010-Scenarios-for-the-Future-of-Technology-and-International-Development.pdf

Describing the facts as having already occurred, in the Lock Step chapter they speak of a pandemic that broke out in the year 2012. As we shall see, the public order, economic and socio-political consequences are a copy and paste of what we are experiencing.

Here the chapter 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. 

LOCK STEP “IT IS POSSIBLE TO DISCIPLINE AND CONTROL SOME SOCIETIES FOR SOME TIME, BUT NOT THE WHOLE WORLD ALL THE TIME.” – GK Bhat, TARU Leading Edge, India. [In 2010, there were no widespread electronic controls implemented by the Chinese government. Once you control every step of the citizen, revolt is almost impossible].

«Strong technology regulations stifled innovation, kept costs high, and curbed adoption. 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». 

It closely resembles Draghi’s speech at the G30 meeting in December 2020. In my article published on this site on10 March 2021 https://www.marcotosatti.com/2021/03/10/nobile-draghi-la-conferma-di-speranza-c-avvalora-ogni-dubbio-sul-governo/, Draghi talks about “zombie enterprises” that the state has to abandon in order to make them fail.

LOCK STEP 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». 

Below are the governmental actions that are considered positive (probably to scare and convince unsuspecting, clueless or corrupt politicians. 

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 

In order to terrorise countries that do not comply with the memorandum, they are expected to:

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.

There is no mention of compulsory vaccines (at least, from a quick reading, it doesn’t seem so), most likely because Western constitutions consider them morally illicit. As we know, with media terrorism and the covid-pass, puppet governments have achieved what even the cynical authors of this memorandum did not consider. 

As we have seen, the Rockefellers & C. together with corrupt governments, major digital platforms and the media are aiming at what I have been writing about for over a year: the Chineseisation of the West. For those who don’t know what that means, I recommend reading the article published in June 2020: https://www.marcotosatti.com/2020/06/10/lallarme-di-nobile-il-prossimo-virus-e-il-credito-sociale/

Forgive my boldness, but reading this memo it seems that I have been absolutely right: the pandemic is not just about enriching big tech. It has been deliberately and militarily directed to impose on us a Chinese dictatorship and an economy run exclusively by the financial elite. That is why no one, except Donald Trump, has demanded sanctions and reparations from Xi Jinping for the millions of deaths, psychological damage across generations and economic catastrophe caused by the Covid-19 virus. Except for the mock politicians, they are all in agreement and all responsible.

Agostino Nobile

§§§

Condividi i miei articoli:

Tag: nobile, rockfeller

Categoria: Generale