top of page
Search
  • Writer's pictureDean Dwyer

In Step with Lockstep?

Operation Lockstep. Chances are most of you have never heard the term. Yet, it has the internet buzzing, particularly regarding the current COVID-19 pandemic. But let me start at the beginning, because you need to understand who the Rockefellers are in order to understand the latest (supposed) smoking gun.

The Rockefeller Foundation was founded in 1913 as the primary philanthropic vehicle for the charity of Standard Oil billionaire John D Rockefeller Sr (1839 – 1937). Its projects over the past century have included funding medical research, supporting the “Green Revolution” and backing controversial population control movements.

Despite many believing that Rockefeller was Jewish (most probably because of the usual anti-Semitic trope that all Jews are wealthy and want to exert global control), he was in fact a devout Close Communion Baptist. Because of the principles of stewardship taught to him, he had a Biblical view of helping the less fortunate. Because of his generosity, according to his assistant, Frederick T Gates, “Neither in the privacy of his home or at his table, not anywhere else, was Mr Rockfeller secure from insistent appeal. Mr Rockefeller was constantly hunted, stalked and hounded almost like a wild animal.” And so, in the early 1900’s, the Rockefeller Foundation was established, first under the control of John Rockefeller Snr and then John Rockefeller Jnr. In the early years, the Foundation focused on medical research and agronomy. However, in 1952, John D Rockefeller III convened 31 experts to create the Population Council, an advocacy group targeting supposed world overpopulation.

Many of the members of the Population Council were eugenicists. Eugenics (meaning “good creation”) is the practice or advocacy of improving the human species by selectively mating people with specific desirable hereditary traits. It aims to reduce human suffering by “breeding out” disease, disabilities and so-called undesirable characteristics from the human population. According to Historian Linda Gordon, six of the ten members of the Council’s medical and scientific boards were associated with the eugenics movement. Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as national policy in the US by forced sterilisation and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, enacted in 27 states. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilised some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in “colonies” and persecuted untold numbers in ways the world is just learning about now. Before World War II, nearly half of coercive sterilisations were done in California and even after the war, the State accounted for a third of all such surgeries. In fact, California was considered the epicentre of the American eugenics movement. When you next pick up a box of Kellogg’s cereal, remember that John Harvey Kellogg was an avowed eugenicist who established the Race Betterment Foundation in 1911 and tabled a “pedigree registry”.

In 1904, the Carnegie Institution established a laboratory complex at Cold Spring Harbour on Long Island (US) that stockpiled millions of index cards on ordinary Americans, as researchers carefully plotted the removal of families, bloodlines and whole peoples through their eugenics program. Essentially, this was racism cloaked in science. In fact, the founder of eugenics was Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. Through Darwin’s “theory of evolution” and the work of Galton, untold horror has been wrought upon the minds and bodies of men and women throughout history, all because they saw humanity as a giant science experiment, instead of what it truly is – a collection of eternal beings, lovingly knitted together by our great God.


I am largely going to reproduce excerpts from the original publication and let you make up your own mind about whether there was any sinister intent behind the article or if it was purely coincidental, as many proclaim. These words are taken from a report dated May 2010 entitled “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development” jointly produced by The Rockefeller Foundation and the Global Business Network. The full report is available online for any wishing to read it in its entirety. For the sake of time and space, I will include only relevant portions:-

Lock Step – 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 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.

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.

Just as many people may have a five or ten-year plan in their individual lives, so too do world governments and NGO’s (non-governmental organisations). If you have heard of Agenda 2030, one author surmised that the pandemic had created an opportunity for the global elite to bring forward the goals of Agenda 2030 by a full decade. To the cynical, sustainable development (the supposed goal of Agenda 2030 and wrapped up in technocracy) is the endgame of the global elite who want control over all resources on earth, including people. The “Great Panic of 2020” has now been weaponised to create the biggest economic coup in the history of the world and it seems many are powerless to stop it. Where is this all leading? Think about it – in order to introduce the Mark of the Beast system, the people at the top need to control every resource and dollar in order to distribute it to those who accept the Mark – something which the Great Reset proposed by the World Economic Forum will seek to achieve in part. As the Bible has warned for some time, these events are leading straight into the Tribulation Period and the rise of the Antichrist and False Prophet.

Yet, may I remind you that we are not given to a spirit of fear, particularly since the Bride of Christ, His church, is going to be raptured into His eternal kingdom before that terrible day arrives. May He come soon!

36 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


bottom of page