Rockefeller Foundation keeps working on their autocratic Lock Step scenario
from Norbert Häring
Ten years ago, the Rockefeller Foundation published the eerily prescient, autocratic Lock-Step-Scenario and, apparently, has been working to make it true. The most recent initiative in this regard is a cooperation of the Rockefeller-funded GAVI immunization alliance with Mastercard and a biometric ID company named TrustStamp.
Before getting to this cooperation, let me briefly remind you of a selection of the assumptions of the Lock Step scenario builders have made their choices 10 years ago:
- A virus pandemic with high contagion and high mortality
- Non-authoritarian response of US-government fails
- Authoritarian Chinese approach works much better
- Other nations emulate authoritarian, high surveillance Chinese approach
- Endurance of more authoritarian rule after pandemic
- Shocked populations welcoming more surveillance
- … and authoritarian rule
- Biometric ID gets a boost
- A multipolar IT-world with US-dominance emerging
- Philanthropic foundations becoming part of US external and security policy.
Let me also remind you, that the Rockefeller Foundation has provided the seed funding in 2017 for ID2020, an initiative to get every world citizen a unified biometric identity by 2030. Partners are Microsoft, the immunization alliance GAVI and Accenture. Accenture recently featured on this blog as creator – for the World Economic Forum – of the total-control dystopia The Known Traveller Digital Identity Project.
With this in mind, I would like to draw your attention to the following recent article of Raul Diego of MintPress News:
Africa to Become Testing Ground for “Trust Stamp” Vaccine Record and Payment System
By Paul Diego. A biometric digital identity platform that “evolves just as you evolve” is set to be introduced in “low-income, remote communities” in West Africa thanks to a public-private partnership between the Bill Gates-backed GAVI vaccine alliance, Mastercard and the AI-powered “identity authentication” company, Trust Stamp.
The program, which was first launched in late 2018, will see Trust Stamp’s digital identity platform integrated into the GAVI-Mastercard “Wellness Pass,” a digital vaccination record and identity system that is also linked to Mastercard’s click-to-play system that powered by its AI and machine learning technology called NuData. Mastercard, in addition to professing its commitment to promoting “centralized record keeping of childhood immunization” also describes itself as a leader toward a “World Beyond Cash,” and its partnership with GAVI marks a novel approach towards linking a biometric digital identity system, vaccination records, and a payment system into a single cohesive platform. The effort, since its launch nearly two years ago, has been funded via $3.8 million in GAVI donor funds in addition to a matched donation of the same amount by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
In early June, GAVI reported that Mastercard’s Wellness Pass program would be adapted in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Around a month later, Mastercard announced that Trust Stamp’s biometric identity platform would be integrated into Wellness Pass as Trust Stamp’s system is capable of providing biometric identity in areas of the world lacking internet access or cellular connectivity and also does not require knowledge of an individual’s legal name or identity to function. The Wellness Program involving GAVI, Mastercard, and Trust Stamp will soon be launched in West Africa and will be coupled with a Covid-19 vaccination program once a vaccine becomes available.
The push to implement biometrics as part of national ID registration systems has been ongoing for many years on the continent and has become a highly politicized issue in several African countries. Opposition to similar projects in Africa often revolves around the costs surrounding them, such as the biometric voter management system that the Electoral Commission of Ghana has been trying to implement ahead of their 2020 general election in December. Bright Simons, honorary VP of the IMANI policy think tank, has questioned the “budgetary allocation” for the new system, claiming that the “unnecessary registration of 17 million people all over again” represents millions of dollars “being blown for reasons that nobody can explain in this country.”
Masking ulterior motives
Trust Stamp’s biometric identity system, largely funded by Mastercard’s massive investment in the company in February, utilizes a technology it calls Evergreen Hash that creates an AI-generated “3D mask” based on a single photo of a person’s face, palm or fingerprint. Once this “mask” is created, much of the original data is discarded and encryption keys are created in place of a person’s name or other more traditional identifiers.
“Only a small percentage of the data that originally existed is in the hash,” Trust Stamp CEO Gareth Genner has stated. “What you have is something safer for storing because it can’t be used to directly identify you. No one would recognize you in this huge jumble of numbers.” The result, according to Genner, is an “irreversible non-personally identifiable information” system that “protects privacy, reduces potential for misuse and allows effective inclusion when there is no other form of legal record.”
Genner also explained in a recent press release that the unique “hash” is capable of “evolving” as a new hash with updated health information is created every time a child or individual gets a vaccine. Trust Stamp’s AI algorithms can accurately determine if different hashes belong to the same individual, meaning that “the hash evolves over time just as you evolve,” said Genner.
It is unclear how much the Wellness Pass initiative is motivated by public health concerns as opposed to free market considerations. Indeed, the GAVI alliance, largely funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates and Rockefeller Foundations, as well as allied governments and the vaccine industry, is principally concerned with improving “the health of markets for vaccines and other immunization products,” rather than the health of individuals, according to its own website. Similarly, Mastercard’s GAVI partnership is directly linked to its “World Beyond Cash” effort, which mainly bolsters its business model that has long depended on a reduction in the use of physical cash.
Dual use tyranny
Trust Stamp also shares this market-focused vision for its digital identity system as the company has stated that it is looking for new commercialization options for its Evergreen Hash technology, specifically with prison systems. Talks with private and public prison systems have revealed an interest in their utilization of Trust Stamp’s technology to provide identification for individuals on parole “without making them pay for pricey ankle bracelets that monitor their every move,” as Trust Stamp’s platform would ostensibly provide that same function but in a “touchless” and less expensive manner.
Trust Stamp’s interest in providing its technology to both COVID-19 response and to law enforcement is part of a growing trend where numerous companies providing digital solutions to COVID-19 also offer the same solutions to prison systems and law enforcement for the purposes of surveillance and “predictive policing.”
For instance, contact tracing software originally introduced as part of the COVID-19 response has since been used by police departments across the U.S. to track protesters during the country’s recent bouts of protests and civil unrest. Similarly, a controversial Israeli tech firm currently being used in Rhode Island offers AI-powered predictive analytic to identify likely future COVID-19 hotspots and individuals likely to contract COVID-19 in the future, while also offering governments the ability to predict future locations of and participants in riots and civil unrest.
What is perhaps most alarming about this new “Wellness Pass” initiative, is that it links these “dual use” digital solutions to cashless payment solutions that could soon become mandated as anything over than touchless, cashless, methods of payment have been treated as potential modes for contagion by GAVI-aligned groups like the World Health Organization, among others, since the pandemic was first declared earlier this year.
This article was published on July 10, 2020 by MintPress. Raul Diego is a MintPress News Staff Writer, independent photojournalist, researcher, writer and documentary filmmaker. MintPress News is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.
Related articles by Norbert Häring
Lock Step – The eerily prescient pandemic scenario of the Rockefeller Foundation
Lock Step: How the Rockefeller Foundation wants to implement its autocratic pandemic scenario
ID 2020 – a unified digital identity for everybody on earth
BIS Praises Indian milestone toward totalitarianism as an example for the world
Leave a comment
—– look inside —– $5.94 / $20.00
—– look inside —– $4.90 / $8.00
—– look inside —– $15.99
—– look inside —– $5.99 / 12.99
—– look inside —– $5.93 / $12.99
—– look inside —– $4.97 / $9.90
—— Ugarteche, Puyana and Madi ——
Gerson Lima / Maria Alejandra Madi
Edward Fullbrook and Jamie Morgan
————— Michael Hudson ————–
Maria Alejandra Madi / Jack Reardon
————- Edward Fullbrook ————-
—————— Steve Keen —————–
————— Richard Smith —————
————– Gustavo Marques————
– Victor Beker and Beniamino Moro –
————– Lars Pålsson Syll ————-
—————– Stuart Birks —————-
Edward Fullbrook and Jamie Morgan
———— Armando Ochangco ———-
Shimshon Bichler / Jonathan Nitzan
————— Mauro Gallegati ————–
————— Herman Daly —————-
————— Asad Zaman —————
—————– C. T. Kurien —————
————— Robert Locke —————-
Real-World Economics Review Blog 
Let me be simple and brutally blunt. Human beings now have two stark choices;
(a) work together in coordinated fashion; or
(b) go extinct from limits to growth, climate change, 6th mass extinction etc. etc.
In terms of civilizational options, there are just three realistic choices;
(i) implement corporate-oligarchic dictatorship (the Rockefeller Foundation model);
(ii) implement one party corporate-oligarchic dictatorship (the Chinese model);
(iii) implement democratic socialism with a heavy nationalized, dirigist foundation.
The non-civilizational options/possibilities are;
(iv) collapse into warlordism;
(v) collapse into “catabolic” and hunter gather tribes;
(vi) extinction.
My prediction is we will follow the path of dictatorships, warlordism, remnant tribes and thence human extinction by or before the year 2100.
We are completely doomed to about a 99% probability. Humanity has failed in every sense but especially as beings who should have been capable of survival and moral behaviors.
I’ll continue to try to care or appear to care but really I have given up all hope for humanity both existentially and morally. These are very bitter words I know. I deem these bitter words merited. We must prepare for our terrible punishment or our terrible natural end. Choose your word term according to your teleological viewpoint.
Here I largely agree with Ike’s analysis, but not his conclusion. In G K Chesterton’s illustrated tribute to Victorian artist G F Watts, a beautiful colour version being available on line, Hope is seen as a Word, with its meaning Pictured as someone hanging on in a desperate situation. We Christians also have a supernatural teleological alternative to a natural end, i.e. a loving Father not punishing but forgiving the profoundly disappointing moral failure of his children, keeping alive hopefully at least the memory of them.
If the only choice offered to people is privacy vs. health, odds are they will choose health in most cases. There will always be some rebels, of course. That means the situation Raul Diego describes has a good chance of becoming the cultural norm, if only these two options are available. But if we offer people instead the route of trust and individual empowerment, the results could be quite different. According to historian Yuval Harari. Consider this thought experiment. A hypothetical government requires every citizen wear a biometric bracelet that monitors body temperature and heart rate 24 hours a day. The resulting data is hoarded and analyzed by government algorithms. Usually using some form of AI. The algorithms will ‘know’ that you are sick even before you know it, and they will also ‘know’ where you have been, and who you have met. The chains of infection could be drastically shortened, and even cut altogether. Such a system could arguably stop the pandemic in its tracks within days. Sounds wonderful, right? Everyone’s health is protected. Others, including Harari consider such a surveillance system terrifying.
If corporations and governments start harvesting our biometric data en masse, they can get to know us far better than we know ourselves, and they can then not just predict our feelings but also manipulate our feelings and sell us anything they want — be it a product or a politician. Biometric monitoring would make Cambridge Analytica’s data hacking tactics look like something from the Stone Age. Because biometric modeling allows for the “hacking” of humans. Harari says this is a false choice. We can have both. Rather than choosing to institute totalitarian surveillance regimes, we can choose instead to empower citizens. He points to South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore. While these countries made some use of tracking applications, they have relied far more on extensive testing, on honest reporting, and on the willing co-operation of a well-informed public. When people are told the scientific facts, and when people trust public authorities to tell them these facts, citizens can do the right thing even without a Big Brother watching over their shoulders. A self-motivated and well-informed population is usually far more powerful and effective than a policed, ignorant population. But to achieve such a level of compliance and co-operation, you need trust. People need to trust science, to trust public authorities, and to trust the media. All trusts under attack and/or waning right now. The COVID-19 pandemic is a major test of citizenship. In the days ahead, each one of us should choose to trust scientific data and healthcare experts over unfounded conspiracy theories and self-serving politicians. If we fail to make the right choice, we might find ourselves signing away our most cherished freedoms, thinking that this is the only way to safeguard our health.
Again, I largely agree with Ken’s warning, and the need to trust the right people. As I see it, though, the problem is knowing who to trust. I well remember the scandal of intelligence testing, where Burt, the scientist whose theory was accepted, was found when he died to have doctored his evidence to justify his position. A situation sadly not unfamiliar in the fields of business and economics. My point is that scientists are people, and it is people who are too often untrustworthy. The rich may be trustworthy, but the innocent too often assume it. The wise require others to earn trust managing small jobs before trusting them with more important ones.
Dave, people never thought that leadership was a matter of knowkedge. It was about ethics. That is what people thought in 1800; they would never have left leadership to a group who had a vested interest in outcomes. How do we teach ethical behavior to leaders. Humboldt thought a lot about it when reforming education.
In the plan Humboldt presented to the King, he urged that the new university utilize to the full, the scientific and cultural resources already available in Berlin, including the Academy of Sciences (founded by Leibniz), the Academy of Arts, the medical facilities, the observatory, botanical gardens, and the collections of natural history and art. In general, he envisioned a place where both professor and student were at the university to serve the cause of “Wissenschaft viewed as something that has not yet been entirely discovered and that can never be entirely discovered”—“to live science” (der Wissenschaft leben).
by 1835, the year of Humboldt’s death, the Berlin model was finding general acceptance in northern Germany. Eventually, the University of Berlin became the most prestigious model for universities throughout the Western world in the Nineteenth century.
Leadership is complex. A leader knows the culture shared with the people, supports it and wants it to prosper. But at the same time tries to see that cultures’ blind spots and historical failures and works to help those in society transcend these and if necessary repair any personal or institutional damage these have created. The leader knows culture and society must be sufficiently dynamic and open in order to address new challenges as they arise but at the same sufficiently closed and steadfast to provide security for everyday life. This is the fullest test of any leadership and often the rock upon which leadership breaks. Formal education is certainly part of any leader’s history. But more important for the good leader in my estimation is experience, both in human associations and in the many forms of work needed for society’s well being.
How did they teach :leadership: in the marines? How did it change when they started to teachf “management?,:
Robert, the Marines begin by teaching a common way of life called esprit de corps. From that point each Marine learns and teaches . Learns from existing leaders while teaching the Marines following after. Each Marine is thus a leader as situations demand.