By now, it’s pretty obvious what happened. The lockdown scenario was prepared well in advance, and was sitting on the shelf, waiting to be used. Then the virus came along – probably by chance – and the global elite saw an opportunity to grab more power, so they dusted off the plan.
We can see this in the bizarre nature of the political reaction to the virus, which had two stages. In the first stage, lasting roughly through the end of February, Western governments reassured their people that there was no reason to panic, even as an estimated 760 million Chinese citizens were placed under lockdown. Meanwhile, normal public health measures were taken to monitor the outbreak and prepare hospitals for increased stress.
In the second stage, which started in late February or early March, the Western establishment executed a rapid and complete U-turn. Public officials and the media began spreading the message that this virus was the end of the world as we know it; millions will die unless you cease all social activity and stay home indefinitely. Key moments in this U-turn include the phased lockdown of Italy (starting with a dozen towns in Lombardy and Veneto on Feb. 22, extended to a quarter of the Italian population on March 8, and finally to the whole country on March 9); the curfew imposed on Hoboken, New Jersey on March 14; the lockdown of the San Francisco Bay Area announced on March 16; and the federal social distancing guidelines unveiled on the same day. On March 23, the Washington Post reported that nearly 100 million Americans were living under stay-at-home orders. Germany banned all gatherings of more than two people on March 22 and the radical lockdown of Britain began on March 23.
Thus, if we take the Italian lockdown as the starting point, there was a period of a month during which the Western world lurched from relative nonchalance about the virus to a state of total emergency in which normal life was suspended by government decree. The vast majority of these changes happened after March 8, so it would be fair to say that the seismic shift in the Western response to the virus occurred over the span of roughly a fortnight.
Now, it needs to be remembered that at the time, the death toll from coronavirus fell far short of what one would expect from a truly dangerous pandemic. By March 23, there had been a grand total of about 15,000 coronavirus deaths in the whole world – more than 10 weeks after the first known death was reported on Jan. 11. To put this number in perspective, the US experienced some 61,000 influenza-associated deaths in the severe flu season of 2017-18. The current, probably inflated, death toll stands at around 205,000 in Europe and 154,000 in the US. The global death toll has now reached 685,000; still less than the roughly one million people estimated to have succumbed to the Hong Kong flu in 1968, including roughly 100,000 deaths in the US. (Note that the US population in 1968 was about three-fifths of its current level and the world population was less than half.)
Lockdowns, moreover, are pseudo-scientific nonsense, an experimental measure pioneered by Communist China and untested in the West when the flurry of decisions were made to shut down the world. The public health benefits of placing whole populations under de facto house arrest were never clear, whereas the terrible costs of such an intervention were only too obvious. Yet all major Western nations (the US, Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Spain, Russia a bit later…) adopted the same radical policy at almost the same time, like a school of fish turning in unison.
Such an anomaly cries out for an explanation. Fortunately, the global elite likes to signal its intentions, and a remarkable scenario-planning document from 2010 prefigures the Great Lockdown of 2020 with such eerie precision that it reads more like a blueprint than a hypothesis about the future. The report, released by the Rockefeller Foundation, is titled “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development,” and it covers four scenarios, the first of which is called “Lock Step.” Here is the relevant passage:
A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback
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 postpandemic recovery.
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.
At first, the notion of a more controlled world gained wide acceptance and approval. Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty — and their privacy — to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability. Citizens were more tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight, and national leaders had more latitude to impose order in the ways they saw fit. In developed countries, this heightened oversight took many forms: biometric IDs for all citizens, for example, and tighter regulation of key industries whose stability was deemed vital to national interests. In many developed countries, enforced cooperation with a suite of new regulations and agreements slowly but steadily restored both order and, importantly, economic growth.
The full report is available here (PDF). Keep in mind that this fantasy of a “more controlled world” presupposes a very deadly virus that harvests 8 million people in seven months, the majority of them healthy young adults. When all is said and done, COVID-19 is likely to kill a fraction of that number, and most of the victims will be elderly and/or people with chronic illnesses. In other words, the virus we ended up with is too weak to serve as a plausible pretext for the sort of totalitarian power-grab envisioned by the report; yet the power-grab happened anyway, as if the nature of the threat doesn’t matter. That is, of course, because the nature of the threat does not matter; the lockdowns are not about the virus – they were never about the virus!
Luckily for the architects of our new reality, most people are too stupid or brainwashed to see through the scam or too passive to resist it in any manner. The Western public marches forward as if in a daze, completely in thrall to the arbitrary commands of their new masters, the public health experts – or whoever is working through them. Perhaps it seems that the lockdowns are being “lifted” and “eased,” but that is like letting the dog outside to play. The basic relationship between the public and their new masters, established in March, remains intact: they tell us what to do, and we do it. The public has more or less accepted that the lockdowns are here to stay, modulated by experts as the alleged threat waxes and wanes. Of course, we will never be free of deadly viruses, so there is nothing stopping the experts from telling us to wear masks or avoid human contact year-round. Maybe they will discover tomorrow that masks are dangerous and ban them. And we will obey, because we must – we have accepted the principle that they rule us with an iron fist, albeit one covered tactfully with a medical glove. The plan worked.