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 scenario 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.

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.

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.

Basically the publication is insinuating that a new world will be formed after a pandemic strikes, allowing “top-down government control” and “more authoritarian leadership”. And you know what? They may not be that far off.Considering this document was put together by the Rockefeller Foundation one must question if it really does hold answers to the ultimate plan of those in leadership. One must also ask why is what they predicted playing out today.

Population reduction white paper argues that the killing of 2 billion people still isn’t enough:

A recent academic paper serves as a perfect example of this hiding our zest for depopulation by any means mentality. Corey J. A. Bradshaw and Barry W. Brook, both of the Environment Institute and School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide Australia, note that even a loss of 2 billion people over the course of five years still would not be enough of a depopulation effort to do the earth much good. The paper, titled, “Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems,” states the issue thusly, in a summary:

The planet’s large, growing, and overconsuming human population, especially the increasing affluent component, is rapidly eroding many of the Earth’s natural ecosystems.Even a catastrophic mass mortality event of 2 billion deaths over a hypothetical 5-y window in the mid-21st century would still yield around 8.5 billion people by 2100. In the absence of catastrophe or large fertility reductions (to fewer than two children per female worldwide), the greatest threats to ecosystems–as measured by regional projections within the 35 global Biodiversity Hotspots–indicate that Africa and South Asia will experience the greatest human pressures on future ecosystems.

What could reduce the global population in such a rapid time? some sort of mass casualty/pandemic/world war? That is the possibility the authors examine in the body of their work.So, buried in their paper is the hoped-for solution: Some sort of “catastrophic mass mortality” that would dramatically reduce the Earth’s population because, you know, that’s what has to happen if we are to save the planet.

Original Article Here

More Here