"The founding myth of the lockdown is almost the opposite of the truth. Science did not triumph over politics on March 23rd..the strategy which preceded the lockdown, unpopular though it now is, was based on science whereas the decision to go into lockdown was political"
14 November 2019:
The Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, met the Executive President of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Martin Schwab at Palazzo Chigi.
https://t.co/Dd7RgmGrdy
#KlausSchwab went to #Rome to meet Italian PM Giuseppe #Conte on the 14th November 2019. The first case of SARSCoV2 was dated by Chinese media to the 17th November 2019.
https://t.co/cdKuAu6mvW
#Italy was the first country in the world to implement a national lockdown, even #China limited itself at city-wide or maximum regional lockdowns. Italy's scientific committee advised against a national lockdown, yet the Prime Minister over-ruled the scientific committee.
To this day it is not known who told him to over rule his own scientists.
#Italy PM #Conte set the stage for national lockdowns in the world, something that had never been done before, as it is not based on any real science or experiment. Also, the WHO advises against lockdowns. It was Giuseppe Conte who legitimized this measure, not the WHO.
On 9 March 2020, the government of Italy under Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte imposed a national lockdown, restricting the movement of the population except for necessity, work, and health circumstances.
The lockdown measures were the largest suppression of constitutional rights in the history of the Italian Republic.
Conte announced on 11 March that the lockdown would be tightened, with all commercial and retail businesses except those providing essential services, like grocery stores, food stores, and pharmacies, closed down.
The question is, who advised the Italian PM Giuseppe Conte to lockdown the entire country and close down all "non essential" retail?
The technical committee in Italy also ONLY recommended masks for those who feel ill. Who pushed for mandatory masks in public interior spaces? Group hysteria or:
"Every call📱 I’m on with the PHARMA LEADERS 💉 & the LEADERS of COUNTRIES."
🇨🇳🇮🇹🇬🇧 et al. (2020).

William Henry Gates III 
as quoted by Bloomberg ⬇️
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2020-bill-gates-covid-vaccine/

So it turns out that a video which the BBC sold as China locking up Covid patients in Wuhan was an anti-terrorism drill misrepresented by the BBC. Presumably most of those early videos claiming to be about Covid19 had nothing to do with Covid19, but the BBC and other media claimed they did. Even the Chinese call out the BBC as the laughing stock of the planet when it comes to "news"..
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMLP6fLoF/?k=1

(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

Who is caving first?

Trump tariffs live updates: Phones, computers, chips exempt from new tariffs

The Trump administration is exempting smartphones, computers, and other electronics from his reciprocal tariffs, according to a bulletin posted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection late Friday night.

The exemptions also include solar cells, flat panel TV displays, flash drives, computer processors, memory chips, semiconductor-based storage devices, and machines that are primarily used to make semiconductors.

Trump's total 145% tariffs on all goods from China was expected to hit tech companies like Apple, which relies on China to assemble the iPhone. UBS had estimated that the cost of the new iPhone16 Pro Max could jump by $950.

But the reprieve could be temporary. Trump has said he would impose tariffs on specific sectors, like semiconductor chips.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/trump-tariffs-live-updates-us-stronger-despite-market/

#China #Trump #TradeWar #Tariffs