PQC: Yes, “The Rise of Authoritarianism” means the State, the government will impose total control over the population! Why did this “intellectual” not expose this ultimate purpose of the State/Government instead of just exposing Gates and his ilk?

Again, thank you for your “information” about Gates , Rockefeller Foundations “evil final solution”. We all know this now! Then what? Call for Government action and protection?

Who have been implementing and imposing this “evil final solution” on the people?

Who have been locking people down and forcing people to wear muzzle?

Who have been beating people up and shooting people down when people defied and did not comply?

Without the power of the state that people wrongly believe, could they, just a bunch of psychopathic riches, have pulled off this plot successfully as of now?

(by the way, they become such filthy riches because government support and protect them. In genuinely free market, people will be free to invent, compete, and trade, and be rich, but no one can be such filthy rich by monopoly!)

I don’t have means to carry out a scientific survey. But as I have been biking around and talking to people since this scam began, most of people I talked to express their fear of government more than the “covid19.”

I really don’t know where the brain of these “intellectuals” is anymore!

The Rise of Authoritarianism: From Parasite Stress Theory to Lockstep

Posted on Author Derrick Broze

Empirical evidence indicates that the spread of pathogens leads populations to become more conformist and accepting of authoritarian behavior from governments – what does this mean for the world of COVID19?

As discussed in Multiple Studies Predicted Governments Become Authoritarian in Response to Pandemics, we have an abundance of scientific data highlighting how humans react to perceived threats and how that relates to the type of government the people will accept. I examined the study Pathogens and Politics: Further Evidence That Parasite Prevalence Predicts Authoritarianism, as well as other studies focused on the “parasite stress theory.”

The theory proposes that when a species faces parasites and diseases their values are shaped by the experience. In this context, “parasite” is used to refer to any pathogenic organism, including bacteria and viruses. The theory states that depending on how a disease stresses people’s development it can lead to differences in mating preferences and changes in culture. Proponents of the parasite stress theory also note that disease can alter the psychological and social norms of societies.

“According to a “parasite stress” hypothesis, authoritarian governments are more likely to emerge in regions characterized by a high prevalence of disease-causing pathogens,” the researchers wrote. They define authoritarian governance as “highly concentrated power structures that repress dissent and emphasize submission to authority, social conformity, and hostility towards outgroups.”

Due to the invisible nature of “disease-causing parasites,” attempts to control the spread of a disease “historically depended substantially on adherence to ritualized behavioral practices that reduced infection risk.” The researchers also found that society tends to promote a collectivist worldview, favoring obedience and conformity from the population, in response to parasites.

Unfortunately, according to the parasite stress theory, humanity is prone to accepting violent behavior from governments during pandemics. As noted in Politics and Pathogens, the threat of exposure to a pathogen need not even be realistic for it to create a desire for conformity and obedience to authority.

The book The Parasite Stress Theory of Values and Sociality: Infectious Disease, History and Human Values Worldwide further outlines how populations respond to the uncertainty felt during pathogen spread. The authors discuss how reducing social prejudice and authoritarianism can be accomplished by emancipating people from infectious diseases. However, the authors also note that a government which desired more authoritarian powers – including “full-blown fascism or genocide” – could achieve this goal by “promoting widespread mortality and morbidity from infectious diseases.”

The authors reach similar conclusions as the researchers in the Politics and Pathogens study which showed that populations facing pandemics become more supportive of collectivist mindsets over individualistic ones. “These patterns arise, in part, from the reverence collectivists place on people in authority (authoritarianism), which gives those in authority greater freedom to violate the interests of the populace and impunity when such violations occur,” the authors note.

Clearly, the conclusions of this research have profound implications for our world and the current COVID-19 crisis. As previously noted, we are seeing a massive increase in authoritarian actions from governments around the world. Thermal imaging scanners, documents for travel, fines and arrests of those who fail to wear masks or stay home, and shutting down protests against these actions – have all become regular events in the so-called “New Normal.”

The Gates Foundation Connection

While researching the Politics and Pathogen study I discovered that the editor, Aric Gregson, has some tangential connections to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation through his work on a Malaria vaccine.

Dr. Aric Gregson, MD is an infectious disease specialist in Los Angeles, California. Dr. Gregson currently practices at Ag Infectious Diseases: A Medical Corporation in California. According to his LinkedIn page, from July 2003 to September 2005, Gregson participated in the “Vaccinology Fellowship” at the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development.

He also participated in the Malaria Vaccine Technology Roadmap Process which included two different doctors working with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Roadmap Process also involved Dr. Zarifah Hussain Reed of the World Health Organization (WHO), which is largely funded by the Gates Foundation.

From September 2005 to January 2007, Gregson served as a consultant and clinical vaccinologist for the PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative. PATH is described as “an international nonprofit organization that drives transformative innovation to save lives and improve health” which works with “private industry, government, and academia to develop malaria vaccines.”

According to their website, “MVI is a global program established at PATH through an initial grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.Gregson’s LinkedIn specifies that he was a “Program Officer” for the RTS,S malaria vaccine trials in Africa at the time. The RTS,S is described as  “the world’s first malaria vaccine shown to provide partial protection against malaria in young children.”

One press release about the development of a new malaria vaccine notes that the vaccine was developed by a partnership with pharmaceutical company GSK and the Path Malaria Vaccine Initiative. Once again it is noted that “major funding for clinical development comes from a grant by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to MVI.”

The press release also states that should the vaccine be approved by the regulatory authorities and recommended by the WHO “it will be used for African children, who are most at risk from the disease.” No mention is made regarding the fact that the Gates Foundation is the second top funding source for the WHO, while also funding the MVI and other health authorities.

The connection between the Gates Foundation and the editor of the Politics and Pathogens study is concerning when one understands the outsized influence and control Bill Gates has over global health policy, particularly through the WHO and the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Marching Lock Step To Authoritarianism

In part 3 of my investigation into the life, finances, and goals of Bill Gates, I noted that the Gates Foundation was involved in the Event 201 exercise:

“On October 18, 2019, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation partnered with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and the World Economic Forum on a high-level pandemic exercise known as Event 201. Gates is a long time “Agenda Contributor” for the WEF and has donated to Johns Hopkins. Event 201 simulated how the world would respond to a coronavirus pandemic which swept around the planet. The simulation imagined 65 million people dying, mass lock downs, quarantines, censorship of alternative viewpoints under the guise of fighting “disinformation,” and even floated the idea of arresting people who question the pandemic narrative.”

We also noted that the Gates Foundation’s partners in “philanthropy” – the Rockefeller Foundation – imagined a similar scenario as part of their 2010 document, “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development.” This document includes a scenario called “Lock Step,” which describes a pandemic sweeping the world and resulting in more authoritarian control from governments in developed countries.

Interestingly, Lock Step notes that while the “pandemic blanketed the planet” the countries which took a more aggressive, authoritarian approach fared better.

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,” the document states.

The document describes how national leaders around the world “flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions.” These included mandatory wearing of face masks and body-temperature checks at train stations and markets, as well as “scanners using advanced functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) technology… to detect abnormal behavior that may indicate ‘antisocial intent.’” Lock Step also describes the implementation of biometric ID for all people.

Notably, the paper states, “Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified.”

At first, the population approves of a more controlled world and citizens even willingly gave up “some of their sovereignty—and their privacy—to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability.” The scenario outlines how some of the population were tolerant, and even eager, for “top-down direction and oversight.”

The document goes on to describe how, eventually, the people of the world tire of the control and civil unrest would begin:

“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.”

Final Thoughts

Considering the abundance of evidence indicating that Parasite Stress theory is an accurate representation of how humanity will respond to perceived threats, we must ask whether the Gates or Rockefeller Foundations were aware of the potential for pathogens to lead to more obedient populations and increasingly authoritarian governments. Here’s what we know:

  • We know for a fact that the Gates and Rockefeller Foundations are extremely influential when it comes to global health and education.
  • We also know that at least one researcher involved with Parasite Stress theory has worked with the Gates Foundation.

Reflect back to the passage from The Parasite Stress Theory of Values and Sociality which notes that if someone wanted to encourage authoritarianism – including “full-blown fascism or genocide” – they could achieve this goal by “promoting widespread mortality and morbidity from infectious diseases.” Armed with this knowledge, unlimited financial capital, and global influence, one could easily sway the world towards conformity and authoritarianism.

Is it possible these organizations knew exactly how the people would respond to a perceived threat of a pandemic? Are we witnessing the unfolding of the Lock Step scenario as predicted by the Rockefeller Foundation a decade ago? Question Everything, Come To Your Own Conclusions.