Rockefeller Study: Future Dictatorship Controlled by Elite

Paul Joseph Watson

Global pandemics that kill millions, mandatory quarantines, checkpoints, biometric ID cards, and a world of top-down government control. These things are not lifted from the latest sci-fi blockbuster movie, they’re part of the Rockefeller Foundation’s vision for what the globe might be like in 15-20 years’ time under a new world order tightly controlled by the elite.

This is one of four scenarios for the future of the planet outlined in the Rockefeller Foundation’s “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development,” a study produced in association with the Global Business Network.

Entitled “Lock Step,” the scenario depicts,”A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback.”

After global H1N1 pandemic originating from geese infects 20 per cent of the global population and kills 8 million people, the economy grinds to a halt and governments impose authoritarian measures to respond to the crisis.

“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,” states the study.

Tellingly, even after the pandemic fades, these draconian measures remain in place and even intensify, as leaders take a “firmer grip on power” and citizens willingly sacrifice their sovereignty and privacy, leading to “a more controlled world” bossed by “paternalistic states” who impose biometric ID cards for all citizens. “Enforced cooperation” with global regulatory agreements forges the path towards global governance even as a backlash ensues following public displays of “virulent nationalism”.

Eco-fascism is also brought to the fore in the “lock step” scenario, which discusses how “high-emission” cars will be banned and every home will be forced to install solar panels by law.

The implementation of top-down authoritarianism causes entrepreneurial activity to wither and the economy stutters, but by 2025 people start to grow weary of “so much top-down control and letting leaders and authorities make choices for them” and an organized “pushback” against this tyranny begins to gather momentum.

“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,” the study concludes.

The important thing to understand from the scenario outlined by the Rockefeller study is that China is praised as the model for how governments globally should respond to crises. The most draconian and dictatorial policies, including mandatory quarantines, are praised in the scenario as having “saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post pandemic recovery,” while allowing people freedom of mobility is scorned as having worsened the crisis.

Ironic therefore it is that just this week, the Associated Press reported on how the Chinese government has already virtually imposed checkpoint quarantines on its poorer citizens, by “gating and locking some of its lower-income neighborhoods overnight, with police or security checking identification papers around the clock, in a throwback to an older style of control.”

The Rockefeller study is not a warning against preventing the kind of tyranny contained in this scenario from unfolding, it’s a blueprint for how globalists want to exploit global crises like bio-terror attacks and pandemics in order to completely destroy society and rebuild it under a new world order in their image.

The Rockefeller scenario bears more than a passing resemblance to a 2007 UK Ministry of Defence study which forecast that by 2035, people would have brain chips implanted, that the middle class would become revolutionary, and that society would be gripped by chaos and civil unrest as a result of increased globalization, immigration and a more authoritarian state.

It is crystal clear from reading the “Lock Step” scenario that the oppressive society portrayed in the study is not presented as an admonishment of how governments would cynically seize upon a pandemic to set up a police state and empower themselves as dictators, it’s a ringing endorsement that this approach would be the correct thing to do.

This is the post-industrial society demanded by Bilderberg luminaries like European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso.

This is what the globalists want – pandemics, warfare, chaos and crises that they can engineer and then exploit to lock in place a dictatorial society ruled by the elite from their ivory towers, while the citizens are reduced to impoverished, squabbling, dependent peasants tightly controlled with sophisticated big brother technology, far too concerned about where their next meal is coming from to have time to overthrow their new rulers.

Corrupt Newspapers ‘softened’ Torture After U.S. began Using it

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
July 2, 2010

Torture, as a tool to obtain information from a human being is disgusting, inhumane and illegal by all measurements in past and

Do as I say, not as I do. This seems to be the motto of the torturers and the pandering media.

modern societies.  It is unthinkable that anyone with red blood in their veins could consider it acceptable to torture a person in order to obtain information that as it has been widely demonstrated, (1) has never provided any useful details to prevent a disaster.  In the western world, torture is mostly seen as unjustified, (2) and only some power men who control the militaries of the world still agree to use torture in various forms to get details of ‘plots’ to attack the free world.  Only a population that never experience torture as a tool to criminalize citizens could hesitate before the question, Is Torture Ever Justified? (3)

How would public perception change if the media that feeds propaganda to them on a daily basis simply began to indirectly condone or soften torture as a tool the government uses in times of war? A study conducted by Harvard reveals that the four newspapers with more circulation in the U.S. effectively mischaracterized the use of waterboarding -as a form of torture- after it was discovered the United States waterboarded and humiliated prisoners.  (4) The study conducted by Law students at Harvard says that The New York Times, the USA Today, the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal either refused to call waterboarding torture or did it in only and handful of their articles that talked about the use of torture by the United States.

We found a significant and sudden shift in how newspapers characterized waterboarding…   … from 2002‐2008, the studied newspapers almost never referred to waterboarding as torture. The New York Times called waterboarding torture or implied it was torture in just 2 of 143 articles (1.4%). The Los Angeles Times did so in 4.8% of articles (3 of 63). The Wall Street Journal characterized the practice as torture in just 1 of 63 articles (1.6%). USA Today never called waterboarding.

According to the study, newspapers were more likely to call waterboarding torture if another country was the perpetrator of the crime.

The New York Times, 85.8% of articles (28 of 33) that dealt with a country other than the United States using waterboarding called it torture or implied it was torture while only 7.69% (16 of 208) did so when the United States was responsible. The Los Angeles Times characterized the practice as torture in 91.3% of articles (21 of 23).

Although waterboarding has been debated and talked about since the beginning of the century, it was never so close to home as it has been in the last decade.  After 9/11, and in the middle of a careless campaign to hunt a nonexistent enemy, the U.S. launched a military assault in Iraq and Afghanistan to find and kill the murderers who had killed innocent Americans.  There was very little concern in the public’s mind as to how this goal was achieved and what would it take to bring them to justice.  Then came Abu Ghraib (5) and a mass awakening took place.  Was the U.S using the very same techniques it had condemned in the past?  The answer was YES.

Harvard’s study examined the newspapers’ coverage using electronic databases.  “Our research team word searched for the term “waterboarding”, these included classifying the practice as “torture,” giving it some lesser, negative classification (such as calling waterboarding “inhuman”), giving it a softer, less negative classification (such as calling waterboarding “objectionable”), or not characterizing the practice at all.”  The study analyzed the reporting of four major newspapers using Proquest, LexisNexis, and the NY Times website archives.  Read more about the methodology on page 5 of the study.

“The results of this study demonstrate that there was a sudden, significant, shift in major print media’s treatment of waterboarding,” concludes the study.  After the Abu Ghraib scandal, the four studied newspapers changed the word torture for “harsh” and/or “coercive”, to describe waterboarding.  This behaviour was seen both in articles considered as “news” as well as those classified as “opinion”.  Although Harvard’s study does not provide any possible reason why this change in wording occurred, it does cite an article by New York Times editor Clark Hoyt, who said that this behaviour was a deliberate decision made by Journalists and Editors in an effort to remain “neutral”.

The study refutes Mr. Hoyt’s statement with the fact newspapers comfortably called waterboarding and other practices of the sort “torture” before 9/11 and even before 2004 without any reserves.  Another reason why Mr. Hoyt’s affirmation is baseless, is that waterboarding had been labeled torture and an illegal practice by American law, international law, and the very same newspapers that now justify their actions by calling themselves “neutral”.

(1) http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-torture-does-not-work-as-history-shows-777213.html

(2) http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/military_0604.pdf

(3) http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/04/pew-poll-public-support-for-torture-at-five-year-high/

(4) http://www.hks.harvard.edu/presspol/publications/papers/torture_at_times_hks_students.pdf

(5) http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=8560

Link between tanning beds, melanoma grows stronger

USA Today

Strong evidence now links tanning beds to melanoma, a deadly form of skin cancer that afflicts nearly 69,000 Americans a year.

People who have ever used tanning machines were 74% more likely to develop melanoma than others, according to a study of 2,268 patients reported today in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

Those who tanned the most — for 10 years or more — had more than twice the risk of melanoma compared with people who never used tanning beds, says co-author Martin Weinstock of Brown University School of Medicine. Those risks didn’t change when researchers accounted for age, sex, income, family history, education, skin and eye color, freckles, moles, sunscreen use or time in the sun.

About 2.5% of men and 1.7% of women develop melanoma, according to the American Cancer Society.

The study provides some of the strongest evidence yet to link tanning beds to melanoma, which kills nearly 7,000 Americans a year, says Electra Paskett of Ohio State University.

The study includes information on the newest tanning technologies, finding that machines emitting both types of ultraviolet light — UVA and UVB — increased melanoma risk, says Allan Halpern of New York’s Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.

Halpern and many other doctors say they’re especially concerned about the risks of tanning salons for teenagers, which are popular this time of year as kids prepare for proms, graduations and beach trips. About 35% of 17-year-old girls use tanning machines, according to the Food and Drug Administration.

The new report comes at a time of increased scrutiny of indoor tanning:

•The FDA is considering recommendations from an advisory panel that suggested that teens be barred from tanning salons, or at least get parental consent before tanning.

•Congress included a 10% tax on indoor tanning in the health reform bill to help pay for expanding medical coverage and to make it harder for teens to afford indoor tanning.

•The International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, in July listed ultraviolet radiation-emitting beds as “carcinogenic to humans,” its highest category of cancer risk.

In a statement, the Indoor Tanning Association’s John Overstreet says scientists disagree about the link between melanoma and tanning beds. “When reputable researchers are coming to vastly different conclusions, it’s clear that a lot more research is needed,” he says. “The science on both sides of the question needs to be weighed before consideration is given to any sweeping policy changes.”

Vacuna con Virus Porcinos? Aprobada!

Por Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
Mayo 20, 2010

Todos sabemos que cuando las cosas se adoptan en Inglaterra, son, tarde o temprano adoptadas en los Estados Unidos. Además, una vez aprobadas allí, rápidamente se abren camino a otras regiones del mundo. Bueno, la cuestión que preocupa aquí es que la Food and Drug Administration de los EE.UU. ha decidido dar un pase libre a vacunas envenenadas con virus porcino. Estas vacunas son inyectadas en niños a temprana edad.

Como lo habíamos informado antes, vacunas contra el rotavirus se encontraron contaminadas por un virus porcino. Este descubrimiento fue realizado por la misma FDA. El resultado de la investigación fue que la FDA decidió que el virus porcino no es perjudicial para los niños. Por lo tanto, la vacuna contra el rotavirus, producida por GlaxoSmithKline, seguirá siendo inyectada en los niños pequeños sin ningún tipo de análisis, estudio científico o suspensión temporal de la vacuna. La FDA no quiso analizar profundamente los efectos de este virus en los menores que son inyectados con la vacuna, y solo mantuvo una reunión para discutir lo que podría o no pasar “teoricamente.”

Según Reuters, la FDA concluyó que: “… era seguro para los médicos reanudar las vacunaciones con los pacientes usando Rotarix de Glaxo y continuar usando Rotateq de Merck. La agencia dijo que no había pruebas que la contaminación causaría ningún daño … “Esta conclusión se alcanzó a pesar de que la vacuna causa una enfermedad degenerativa en los cerdos bebés, causando diarrea intensa, pérdida de peso y otras dolencias.

A pesar de que ADN del virus fue encontrado en las células maestras utilizadas para producir la vacuna, el panel de asesores de la FDA dijo que el riesgo para la salud humana de la contaminación viral era sólo “teórica”. Claro, si la FDA simplemente ignora la pruebas de que la vacuna puede tener efectos no deseados en los que la usan, entonces es fácil decir que no hay daño!

Una vez más, las empresas farmacéuticas parecen operar como las compañías de alimentos.Las compañías de alimentos luchan casi a diario para evitar el etiquetado de productos modificados genéticamente porque esta etiqueta permitiría que las personas que han sido perjudicadas por los ingredientes encuentren el origen de su dolencia, trazen la conexión a los ingredientes GMO, publiquen y exijan que dichos componentes tóxicos en los productos alimenticios sean prohibidos. En el caso de la vacuna, la FDA decide ignorar las posibles causas de las complicaciones de salud sin estudiarlas, así que cuando un ser humano saludable aparece enfermo, se puede negar que la vacuna tuviera nada que ver con eso.

Está claro por qué esta vacuna no fue suspendida, y mucho menos estudiada. La vacuna contra elrotavirus proporcionó un billón de dólares a la industria farmacéutica el año pasado. ¿Puede usted imaginarse lo que significaría para ellos si una vacuna es suspendida? Es por eso que las empresas farmacéuticas a menudo supervisan su propio proceso de producción y estudios. Para ellos es normal que las personas se enfermen a consecuencia de la utilización de una vacuna y no hay necesidad de investigar. Y si se investiga, siempre tienen una negación plausible porque la FDA aprobó el medicamento. Por ejemplo, en el caso de la vacuna contra el virus H1N1, si las personas demandan a la compañía farmacéutica por daños y perjuicios, estas no pagarán un centavo ya que, según el acuerdo entre las grandes farmacéuticas y los Ministerios de Salud, las empresas farmacéuticas no pueden ser demandadas por daños y perjuicios originarios con esta vacuna. Entonces, ¿quién paga? El gobierno toma el dinero de impuestos para crear un fondo para financiar este asesinato legalizado.

Resto del mundo, ¡cuidado! Ahí les va una vacuna con virus porcino!

Vaccines with Pig Virus? Approved!

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
May 20, 2010

We all know that when things are adopted in England, they are sooner or later adopted in the United States.  Also, once adopted there, they rapidly make their way to other regions of the world.  Well, the issue of concern here is that the Food and Drug Administration of the U.S. has decided to give vaccines poisoned with pig viruses a pass.

As we had reported before, Rotavirus vaccines were found to be tainted with a pig virus.  This discovery had been made by the very same FDA.  The result of the investigation was that the FDA decided the pig virus is not harmful to children.  Therefore, the Rotavirus vaccine, produced by Glaxosmithkline, will continue to be injected into young children without any further analysis, study or recall of the vaccine.

According to Reuters, the FDA concluded that: “…it was safe for doctors to resume giving patients Glaxo’s Rotarix and continue using Merck’s Rotateq. The agency said there was no evidence the contamination caused any harm…”  This conclusion was reached even though the vaccine causes a wasting disease in baby pigs, causing intense diarrhea, loss of weight and other ailments.

Although DNA from the pig virus was found in the master cells utilized to produce the vaccine, the FDA’s advisory panel said the risk to human health from the viral contamination was only “theoretical.”  According to NaturalNews.com, if the FDA simply ignores the evidence the vaccine can have unwanted effects on those who use it, it is then easy to say there is no harm.

Once again, the pharmaceutical companies seem to operate like the food companies.  Food companies fight almost daily to avoid the labeling of GMO products because this labeling would allow people who are harmed by the ingredients to find the origin of their ailment, trace it to the GMO ingredients, publish it and demand the removal of such toxic components from the food products.  In the case of the vaccine, the FDA chooses to ignore the possible causes of the health complications without studying them, so when an unhealthy human appears, they can deny that the vaccine had nothing to do with it.

It is clear why this vaccine was not even recalled, much less studied.  The rotavirus vaccine provided around one billion dollars to the pharmaceutical industry last year.  Can you imagine what it would mean for them if a vaccine is recalled or suspended?  That is why the pharmaceutical companies often oversee their own production process and studies.  For them, sick people as a result of the use of a vaccine is normal and there is no need to investigate it.  And if it is investigated, they always have plausible deniability because the FDA approved the drug.  For example, in the case of the H1N1 vaccine, if people sue the pharmaceutical company for damages, they will not pay a cent because according to the agreement between big pharma and the Health and Human Services Department, pharmaceutical companies cannot be sued for damages originating with this vaccine.  So who pays?  The government takes tax money to create a fund to finance legalized murder.

Rest of the world, beware!  There is a pig virus vaccine on the way!