In researching Global Governance 2025, I was led to believe (as were many others) that this was the infamous document that contained a fictional scenario that refers to an attack on the London 2012 Olympics, killing several million people. Whilst researching some forthcoming material relating to the upcoming Olympic Games, it seems I stumbled across the actual document with the reference.The “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development” report was published in May 2010 and makes for very interesting reading. Straight off the bat, it is crucial to highlight those responsible for producing this opus: The Global Business Network and… The Rockefeller Foundation.
Anything that pertains to these “Agenda Player” families should be a cause to sit up and pay attention. However, as with all these important documents, it is always worth remembering to read between the lines. What is ‘not said’ can be just as significant. The included letter from the foundation president Judith Rodin lauds the efforts and methods of those involved and the report itself, highlighting how such work is crucial to “improve the lives of poor and vulnerable populations around the world”. Very noble of them…
Drawing upon foundation staff, grantees and ‘external experts’ (including SRI – Stanford Research Institute, Cisco & University of California-Berkeley), the report is an attempt to analyse some of the “driving forces that would affect the future of technology and international development”. The document utilises fictional scenarios and builds them around specific “critical uncertainties” to create four possible global structure outcomes over the next several decades. These include: “Lock Step”, “Smart Scramble”, “Hack Attack” and “Clever Together”. Each of these four ‘set-ups’ are triggered by a number of “shock” events in order to advance the narratives toward their conclusions.
The report is very similar in structure to “Global Governance 2025” (possibly why the two have been muddled). Superficially, the “Clever Together” appears the favoured one. The title is a much less rigid/extreme use of language and sounds more positive than the other three. Further ‘proof’ of this can be seen in the tone and context of the “Clever…” narrative and also when compared to the other three. Remember though that more is often said in the greyer areas...
The first scenario – “Lock Step” – presents a “world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback.” It begins with the outbreak of a pandemic in 2012: “unlike 2009’s H1N1, this new influenza strain — originating from wild geese — was extremely virulent and deadly.” The virus would go on to infect “nearly 20 percent of the global population and (kill) 8 million in just seven months.”
It would ultimately do devastating damage to the global economy, business, tourism, etc. The result would create varying forms of “top-down authorities” across the world (with numerous countries introducing mass bio-metric ID for example) and began the dismantling of international/global perspectives - creating regional trading blocs. “Cross-border ties proliferated in the form of official security aid. While the deployment of foreign security teams was welcomed in some of the most dire failed states.” The narrative paints the global masses as largely in favour of this until the mid-2020s.
The report looks at the role of philanthropy in this situation: “Philanthropic organizations interested in promoting universal rights and freedoms will get blocked at many nations’ borders. Developing smart, flexible, and wide-ranging relationships in this world will be key; some philanthropies may choose to work only in places where their skills and services don’t meet resistance.” The technological effect of “Lock Step” is also discussed. “Most technological improvements are created by and for developed countries, shaped by governments’ dual desire to control and to monitor their citizens. In states with poor governance, large-scale projects that fail to progress abound.”
The second narrative – “Clever Together” – is shown as “a world in which highly coordinated and successful strategies emerge for addressing both urgent and entrenched worldwide issues.” This sections catalysts are “environmental” and “climate” issues. A fictional flooding of New York due to a storm surge is also provided. It is interesting to note that this scenario posits that the global “economic crisis” of 2008 (and now, of course) would fizzle out by 2010 and growth would explode and prosper subsequently. “A functioning global cap and trade system was also established. Worldwide, the pressure to reduce waste and increase efficiency in planet-friendly ways was enormous. New globally coordinated systems for monitoring energy use capacity were rolled out.”
“Centralized global oversight and governance structures sprang up, not just for energy use but also for disease and technology standards… Nation-states lost some of their power and importance as global architecture strengthened and regional governance structures emerged. International oversight entities like the UN took on new levels of authority.”
The result here is global governance, with NGOs and companies playing huge roles. Hunger and disease is severely reduced via access to inexpensive technology, enhanced GMOs and “more effective vaccines”. This scenario is painted in such positive tones (the section on philanthropy calls it a “virtual model world”), with only the prospect of global food shortages by 2027 being suggested as a negative.
Scenario Three – “Hack Attack” – is described as “an economically unstable and shock-prone world in which governments weaken, criminals thrive, and dangerous innovations emerge.” The trigger here is the infamous “2012 Olympic bombing, which killed 13,000.” It follows with “an earthquake in Indonesia killing 40,000, a tsunami that almost wiped out Nicaragua, and the onset of the West China Famine, caused by a once-in-a-millennium drought linked to climate change.” We are obviously encouraged here to see this as the “fear” scenario…
The resulting humanitarian cost would damage the global economy and effect “citizen demands for more security, more healthcare coverage, more social programs and services, and more infrastructure repair.” Countries would turn their foreign policy back to domestic concerns, allowing crime, drug trafficking, violence and terrorism to have a free reign… according to the report anyway!
On a technological front, hacking and cyber-crime would damage advancement. “The threat of being hacked and the presence of so many thefts and fakes lowered the incentives to create “me first” rather than “me too” technologies.” However, it does suggest that “genetically modified crops (GMOs) and do-it-yourself (DIY) biotech became backyard and garage activities, producing important advances.” By 2021, “Synthetic Biology” would be out of control and, by 2027, there would be the onset of “Water Wars” in various countries.
The final scenario – “Smart Scramble” – is pictured as “an economically depressed world in which individuals and communities develop localized, makeshift solutions to a growing set of problems.” The trigger here is that the global economic situation of 2008 snowballed. Eventually “the United States lost much of its presence and credibility on the international stage due to deepening debt, debilitated markets, and a distracted government… the Chinese sharply curtailed their investments in Africa and other parts of the developing world.”
Unemployment and xenophobia is presented as the result. ”London had been drained of immigrants, as they headed back to their home countries, taking their education and skills with them.” Decline in communities and poverty is blamed for the lack of reliable technological advances – “Internet access had not progressed far beyond its 2010 status… When cell phone towers or fibre optic cables broke down, repairs were often delayed by months or even years.” The scenario suggests an upturn toward the late 2020s but perhaps only “staying isolated, and survival and success would remain a local — not a global or national — phenomenon.”
Many of these documents, presented by those continuously cited as being (or in close proximity to) controllers of the global agenda, are often very curious items. It is never truly clear what the intent is in presenting them. It is clear that most ordinary folk in the world will never read them, so suggesting that they are a form of predictive programming is a difficult call to make. Their readership will always be contained to those closer to the workings of the global machine. Are they possibly a strange form of ‘training manual’ for the facilitators and middlemen of the agenda? Are they orchestrated misinformation designed to create misdirection when some of us think we’re starting to see the bigger picture? Or are they a statement of intent on the part of the controlling elite – not obvious even in plain sight… hidden, but not really hidden?...
As a final thought, I'm always concerned by the flippant inclusion of these cataclysmic events in many of these damning documents. They seem to serve no other purpose than to titillate the powerful, frighten the uninformed and annoy or confirm the suspicions of those who see the bigger picture. Maybe that is the point after all...
Whatever the real reasons, we should always be aware. Spread the knowledge. Do our best to think for ourselves and never, ever allow ourselves to be told what IS.
Open minds and level heads!
Until Next Time…
The Truth Seeker’s Guide.
Links for Damning Documents - Parts 1 - 4: