Forwarded from DISASTER X (Maximilian Forte)
(continued from above)
...China, however, resorts to authoritarian measures, including “quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens” and the “instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders.” These measures “save millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post-pandemic recovery.”
Other nations react much the same way:
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.
“Citizens” at first accept the new draconian regime and are “eager for top-down direction and oversight.” The first-world imposes “biometric IDs for all citizens” as well as “tighter regulation of key industries whose stability was deemed vital to national interests.”...
...There is a rise in “virulent nationalism”; the “top-down rules and norms” harm “entrepreneurial activity,” and in the longer term there is political unrest:
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.
“Lock Step” is a world in which “philanthropic organizations … face hard choices” and “Many governments … place severe restrictions on the program areas and geographies that international philanthropies can work in.” Also too, “organizations interested in promoting universal rights and freedoms” are “blocked at many nations’ borders.”...
Not only is “Lock Step” not a sequence of events even remotely desired by the Rockefeller Foundation or the GBN, but there is also nothing all that prescient about its details. They are lifted, very transparently, from the Chinese response to SARS. After an initial period of reluctance to acknowledge the outbreak in 2003, China responded with extreme aggression, quarantining not only contacts of documented cases but also imposing proto-lockdowns on select hospitals and housing units, and closing all manner of public-facing businesses and institutions in affected areas. They even mobilised the population in a “People’s War” against the virus to encourage community-level case reporting, and they established temperature screenings at the entrances to public buildings and offices. Community masking became the norm across Asia.
Theses of “Operation Lockstep” as a pandemic plan for the Corona era represent a complete misreading of SFTID....
CONTINUE HERE:
https://www.eugyppius.com/p/everything-you-never-wanted-to-know
#ThreeEleven #OperationLockstep #Plandemic #China #SARS #Rockefellers
...China, however, resorts to authoritarian measures, including “quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens” and the “instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders.” These measures “save millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post-pandemic recovery.”
Other nations react much the same way:
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.
“Citizens” at first accept the new draconian regime and are “eager for top-down direction and oversight.” The first-world imposes “biometric IDs for all citizens” as well as “tighter regulation of key industries whose stability was deemed vital to national interests.”...
...There is a rise in “virulent nationalism”; the “top-down rules and norms” harm “entrepreneurial activity,” and in the longer term there is political unrest:
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.
“Lock Step” is a world in which “philanthropic organizations … face hard choices” and “Many governments … place severe restrictions on the program areas and geographies that international philanthropies can work in.” Also too, “organizations interested in promoting universal rights and freedoms” are “blocked at many nations’ borders.”...
Not only is “Lock Step” not a sequence of events even remotely desired by the Rockefeller Foundation or the GBN, but there is also nothing all that prescient about its details. They are lifted, very transparently, from the Chinese response to SARS. After an initial period of reluctance to acknowledge the outbreak in 2003, China responded with extreme aggression, quarantining not only contacts of documented cases but also imposing proto-lockdowns on select hospitals and housing units, and closing all manner of public-facing businesses and institutions in affected areas. They even mobilised the population in a “People’s War” against the virus to encourage community-level case reporting, and they established temperature screenings at the entrances to public buildings and offices. Community masking became the norm across Asia.
Theses of “Operation Lockstep” as a pandemic plan for the Corona era represent a complete misreading of SFTID....
CONTINUE HERE:
https://www.eugyppius.com/p/everything-you-never-wanted-to-know
#ThreeEleven #OperationLockstep #Plandemic #China #SARS #Rockefellers
Eugyppius
Everything You Never Wanted to Know About "Operation Lockstep"
This is the second instalment (the first is here) in an ongoing series, in which I propose to examine the various pandemic wargame and planning scenarios in detail, one after the other.
👍33❤9💯3🥴2