It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rockefeller Foundation fictional scenario depicts pandemic to be used for “top-down government con

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 03:34 AM
link   

CURRENT EBOLA OUTBREAK PREDICTED, FICTIONALIZED AS “FLU”


No surprise there. They did the same with the not so virulent Swine Flu. Just testing the water as usual.


A Rockefeller Foundation white paper published in May of 2010 titled Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development takes a look at hypothetical future scenarios which may be used to benefit privy globalist corporations, businessmen and organizations at a later time.

Shockingly published in the Scenario Narratives section on page 18, titled Lock Step, the Rockefeller Foundation nearly hit the nail on the head with their futuristic and fictitious scenario. I mean what are the chances? Come on. It literally follows lockstep.


And what does all that mean? This will sound oh so familiar given the current situation with Ebola and EV-D68.


An excerpt from page 18 reads:

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 post-pandemic recovery.


Yikes! This is a fictional scenario but you can see that this is in fact a pre-plan of what THEY want to happen.

Sounds to me they are preparing what they outlined in Agenda 21 (Now renamed 'Future Earth'). They have been planning Pandemics for Population control for a long time. As detailed in the documentary 'Esoteric Agenda' I watched years ago well before the release of the H1N1 Swine Flu virus.

War and disease are the top dogs of Population Control. That also includes Vaccines that seem to be the cause of most of the ailments of today. That includes Autism!

So is Ebola and or EV-D68 the reality of their fictional scenario? Maybe not yet as they are not very virulent.........YET!!!

Rockefeller Foundation Predicts Pandemic In Fictional Scenario
edit on 8-10-2014 by Tedgoat because: Forgot link




posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 03:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Tedgoat

Yikes! This is a fictional scenario but you can see that this is in fact a pre-plan of what THEY want to happen.
No. Not really.


The scenarios that follow are not meant to be exhaustive — rather, they are designed to be both plausible and provocative, to engage your imagination while also raising new questions for you about what that future might look and feel like. Each scenario tells a story of how the world, and in particular the developing world, might progress over the next 15 to 20 years, with an emphasis on those elements relating to the use of different technologies and the interaction of these technologies with the lives of the poor and vulnerable.


Here's another scenario presented:

There was a push for major innovations in energy and water for the developing world, as those areas were thought to be the key to improving equity. Better food distribution was also high on the agenda, and more open markets and south-south trade helped make this a reality. In 2022, a consortium of nations, NGOs, and companies established the Global Technology Assessment Office, providing easily accessible, real-time information about the costs and benefits of various technology applications to developing and developed countries alike. All of these efforts translated into real progress on real problems, opening up new opportunities to address the needs of the bottom billion — and enabling developing countries to become engines of growth in their own right.


It's a pretty neat read. It's called futurism, or even speculative fiction. Distopia/utopia.
www.rockefellerfoundation.org...

edit on 10/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 04:38 AM
link   
It's Science fact that pandemics have occurred in the past and will occur in the future. It's a constant battle between cures and bugs, and the bugs are always changing.
So it's really no surprise that scenarios will be laid out for this kind of thing. It always amuses me to see accusations that the elite want to wipe us out with some crazy virus, but the elite need us working, skilled people to survive too. Without us, they would be the working class themselves. Why bite the hand that feeds you?



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 04:49 AM
link   
a reply to: grantbeed


I guess you haven't watched 'Esoteric Agenda', heard about Agenda 21, listened to researchers talking about this 20 years ago or even acknowledged the message on the 'Georgia Guide-stones'.

Or how about listened to Bill Gates speeches talking about how new vaccines can lower the population by 10 or 15 percent.

A smaller population is a more controlled population.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 05:03 AM
link   
Well neither the Georgia guide stones or Agenda 21 mention anything about launching a global pandemic on Earths people.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 05:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Tedgoat




First, we’ve got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent, but there we see an increase of about 1.3.


Gates was talking about all of those services combined will STILL LEAD to a 1.3 billion increase (healthier increase that 3.0). Nowhere in there does it say "VACCINES WILL WIPE OUT 10 or 15 PERCENT".

And the Guide Stones? Funny really, we used to walk up and down a small beach when I was a kid on the shores of Lake Michigan. Being an "alien junkie" my friends and I would carve crazy symbols in these giant breakwater rocks while laughing about how somebody could find these someday and they could end up in a museum. I can only imagine what I would've done if I had a giant parcel of land and tons of money...



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 05:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Tedgoat



Or how about listened to Bill Gates speeches talking about how new vaccines can lower the population by 10 or 15 percent.

How about you actually listen to what he says. (You know, like actually reading the Rockefeller piece? But I know, it's more fun to read what other people tell you about what he said.)

First, we've got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent, but there we see an increase of about 1.3.
www.ted.com...

Reducing population growth = reducing population? Keeping the population from reaching 9 billion is nefarious?

edit on 10/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 05:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Tedgoat



How about you actually listen to what he says. (You know, like actually reading the Rockefeller piece? But I know, it's more fun to read what other people tell you about what he said.)

First, we've got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent, but there we see an increase of about 1.3.
www.ted.com...


Perhaps Mr. Phage. you should take your OWN advice and actually read and comprehend the article.
Two of the three solutions offered by Mr. Gates and espoused by YOU would actually sustain life, allowing people to live LONGER, thus increasing population, the only one of those three choices that could possibly decrease population would be reproductive health.

It appears as though you like to admonish others for just posting content without reading and/or attempting to deny ignorance, it would seem that your glass house seems to have some cracks.

Parker



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 06:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: ParkerCramer

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Tedgoat



How about you actually listen to what he says. (You know, like actually reading the Rockefeller piece? But I know, it's more fun to read what other people tell you about what he said.)

First, we've got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent, but there we see an increase of about 1.3.
www.ted.com...


Perhaps Mr. Phage. you should take your OWN advice and actually read and comprehend the article.
Two of the three solutions offered by Mr. Gates and espoused by YOU would actually sustain life, allowing people to live LONGER, thus increasing population, the only one of those three choices that could possibly decrease population would be reproductive health.

It appears as though you like to admonish others for just posting content without reading and/or attempting to deny ignorance, it would seem that your glass house seems to have some cracks.

Parker


Here Here


Seen this too may time form Phage. I do like some of the things he comments on,very interesting but I have seen this too many times.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: ParkerCramer

Yes exactly. I know what he said too. I watched the video.

But a couple of points. He said New Vaccines. Vaccines contrary to what the Medical association and the media say have actually gotten worse for people causing all sorts of diseases Neurological Disorders. They are great for the Cancer industry too.

Reproductive Health is basically Gate's Father's Eugenics program called 'Planned Parenthood'.

You can see through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation like a polished Window.

War, Pandemics, Vaccines, Water Fluoridation, Cancers. Population control and making a sh1t load of money at the same time.

Slightly off of where we are in this discussion but I saw this snippet of info. In 1952 Mary Lasker who owns the American Cancer Society lobbies Congress for funds "to fight cancer", and the National Cancer Institute Budget goes from $18 million per year to $110 million per year over half involved chemotherapy. Mary would also begin to plan the looting of the US Treasury for the "cancer program". In the same year up to 1956 US cities on the "fluoridation list" began to fluoridate their water supplies. As the process of water fluoridation continued, the cancer death rate of the fluoridated cities began to far exceed the rate of the un=fluoridated cities. It's the same with the Vaccine Industry.

The Vaccine Industry and Water Fluoridation Services go hand in hand with the cancer Industry.

And this:

US Representative Dr.A.L.Miller, Chairman of the Special Committee on Chemicals and Foods, stated, "I sometimes wonder if ALCOA Aluminum and its subsidiaries might not have a deep interest in getting rid of sodium fluoride, a toxic waste product of the aluminum industry. In this connection it is interesting to note that the person in charge of the public health, Oscar Ewing, is also an attorney for ALCOA."


All these industries go hand in hand with the Eugenics programs and at the same time are as rich as hell!

In 1953 the American Medical Association in direct collaboration with the National Cancer Institute and the Federal Drug Administration entered into a conspiracy to suppress alternative, effective cancer treatments.

Yikes!

So Pandemics? Would they be planning them? Yes more than likely. They always said the goal of the New World Order once it got to a certain stage to announce itself would kill off a great deal of the population with means at their disposal which includes Viral Pandemics. It's probably not going to happen yet. Ebola and that Polio related one EV-D68 are probably test viruses and diseases. Ebola can alo be used to get the US firmly planted in Africa. War and Pandemics are also great for Resource control!

For decades they have been mutating diseases, vaccines etc just to test how nasty they can be. One day when they get it right they may start a Global Pandemic and wipe out most of the human population!

Just my 2 cents!!

edit on 8-10-2014 by Tedgoat because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Tedgoat

The original warnings came from biologists - just my ATS postings date back to 2004. Not a surprise at all - smart people always look to the future. Rich smart people look harder 'cuz they have more to "protect."



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   
wrong thread



edit on Oct-08-2014 by xuenchen because:




posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Two of the three solutions offered by Mr. Gates and espoused by YOU would actually sustain life, allowing people to live LONGER, thus increasing population, the only one of those three choices that could possibly decrease population would be reproductive health.

So, tell me. Where does Gates say that he wants to reduce the world population by 10 to 15 percent? That's what the claim is.

Longer lives do not increase population as much as a very high birth rate does. The idea here is to reduce the birth rate and thus decrease population growth. People who live longer tend to have fewer children. People who live in areas where infant mortality is lower tend to have fewer children. By improving living conditions, population growth is slowed.
Here is what Gates says about it:

Take Afghanistan, where child mortality—the number of children who die before turning five years old—is very high. Afghan women have an average of 6.2 children. As a result, even though more than 10 percent of Afghan children don’t survive, the country’s population is projected to grow from 30 million today to 55 million by 2050. Clearly, high death rates don’t prevent population growth (not to mention the fact that Afghanistan is nobody’s idea of a model for a prosperous future).
Source
Think about that. Six kids and one of the six dies. That means the average mother in Afghanistan has 5 kids who survive.




Improving the health and welfare of a population tends to reduce the birth rate. That is why developed regions have lower birth rates (and more slowly growing populations) than underdeveloped regions.
2.bp.blogspot.com...
upload.wikimedia.org...


edit on 10/9/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 04:51 AM
link   
OK enough with the fearmongering.

Just to put ebola in Perspektive. Yes it is the worst case yet with over 8000 infected. almost a hundred percent of the infected and dead are in Africa. Casualities of gun violence and traffic accidents number 40000 a year all in the US.




top topics



 
9

log in

join