Operation Lock Step

Understanding The Rockefeller Foundation's Operation Lock Step through Neema Parvini's lecture, The Octopus.

How is it I am just discovering Harry Vox?

For some Operation Lock Step might be old news, but for most it isn’t. The teacher arrives when the student is ready and in 2014 when Harry did this interview, the student was not ready. He is barely ready now.

Let’s start by listening to Harry Vox, in this short 12-minute segment, from Oct 2014. He is referring to The Rockefeller Foundation’s report from May 2010.

---

---

8-point summary

1.      Quarantines and Curfews as Control Tools: Harry Vox suggests that measures like quarantines and curfews, long sought by ruling classes, are tools to enforce totalitarian control. That such mechanisms are introduced under the guise of public safety but serve to establish deeper authoritarian governance.

2.      Ebola as a Manufactured Threat: Vox says that outbreaks like Ebola are intentionally spread to provoke fear and justify enhanced control measures, positing that NGOs or other entities could deliberately spread diseases for these purposes.

3.      Rockefeller Foundation's "Lockstep" Scenario: A cited Rockefeller Foundation document, "Scenarios for the Future of International Development," outlines plans for a world of increased government control following a pandemic. Vox interprets this as evidence of a premeditated strategy to erode freedoms.

4.      Pandemic Narratives as Authoritarian Justifications: The described scenario includes measures such as mandatory quarantines, mobility restrictions, and invasive surveillance, which Vox interprets as part of a broader agenda to consolidate power and control.

5.      Praise for Authoritarian Models: Vox criticizes how the Rockefeller document praises China’s authoritarian pandemic response, suggesting it serves as a model for Western governments seeking to implement stricter control mechanisms.

6.      Economic and Social Isolation: Measures such as the halting of international mobility and local restrictions are highlighted as deliberate strategies to weaken industries like tourism and isolate individuals within controlled environments.

7.      Depopulation and Resource Control: Referencing Henry Kissinger’s National Security Memorandum 200, Vox highlights a longstanding agenda to depopulate regions for resource acquisition, linking this to broader global strategies.

8.      Call to Action Against Apathy: The discussion concludes with a warning that public apathy enables these authoritarian shifts. Vox urges people to educate themselves, organize, and resist perceived encroachments on freedom to avoid living under a "slave state."

I’m reminded of CJ Hopkins here:

Pathologized Totalitarianism 101

But the most significant difference between 20th-Century totalitarianism and this nascent, global totalitarianism is how New Normal totalitarianism “pathologizes” its political nature, effectively rendering itself invisible, and thus immune to political opposition. Whereas 20th-Century totalitarianism wore its politics on its sleeve, New Normal totalitarianism presents itself as a non-ideological (i.e., supra-political) reaction to a global public health emergency.

The Monster - Lies are Unbekoming

Let me tell you about the monster.

The monster is legion. It goes by many names. It wears many faces. They change over time. William S. Burroughs called it “The Control Machine.” Some people call it the corporatocracy. I call it global capitalism. The monster doesn’t care what we call it. It doesn’t care who we are, what our politics are, or which side of what war we think we are on. It doesn’t care what we believe, which religion we profess. It couldn’t care less how we “identify.”

All it cares about is power. All it cares about is control.

It is everywhere, and nowhere. It has no country. No nationality. It doesn’t exist. It is everything, and nothing. It is the non-existent empire occupying the entire planet. It has no external enemies because there is no outside, not anymore. So there is no real war. There are only insurrections, carried out by rebels, traitors, terrorists.

The monster, our non-existent empire, is the first global empire in human history. It is not a group of evil people. It is maintained by people, but they are all interchangeable. It has no headquarters. There is no emperor. There isn’t any “Bastille” to storm. It is a logos. A system. An operating system.

Here is Harry Vox again in March 2020.

8-Point Summary

1. Biological and Chemical Warfare Connection: The discussion highlights the intertwined nature of biological and chemical warfare, with examples such as LSD experiments, germ warfare, and the use of weaponized diseases for geopolitical control.

2. Rockefeller Plan and Martial Law: Reference is made to the Rockefeller Foundation’s "Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development," highlighting how it describes using pandemics to impose martial law and control populations.

3. Compartmentalized Bio-research: The conversation critiques the vast network of U.S.-led biological research, emphasizing its dual-use potential—ostensibly for research but potentially adaptable for bioterrorism.

4. Global Bio-weapons Infrastructure: U.S. bio-labs are reportedly placed in corrupt or unstable countries like Georgia and Liberia, raising concerns about oversight and motives behind such global operations.

5. Weaponized Insects and Patents: Specific examples, like a U.S. patent for a drone releasing toxin-carrying mosquitoes, underscore fears of weaponizing everyday tools under the guise of research.

6. Corporate and Political Corruption: A recurring theme is the influence of military-industrial corporations on government and academia, with accusations that leaders are compromised by funding from entities like Lockheed Martin or Raytheon.

7. Media and Information Control: Vox says that platforms like Google manipulate information visibility, particularly regarding controversial subjects like U.S. involvement in bioweapons or war profiteering.

8. "Not One Cent" Movement: The discussion concludes with a call for a movement to ostracize politicians or entities taking funding from military contractors, aiming to reduce corruption and militaristic policies.

---

An important line I’ve learnt from Neema Parvini is that: “The regime does not play 4D chess.” They telegraph their intent. You just need to know what to read and to believe them.

In May 2010 The Regime telegraphed its intent. Here is the full Rockefeller report.

Rockefeller Foundation

5.12MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Here is a 12-point overview of the Rockefeller Report viewed through the lens of Neema Parvini’s lecture, The Octopus.

The Octopus - Lies are Unbekoming

1. Global Power Structure:

The Octopus Lecture outlines a model where financial systems and NGO networks form the highest tier of global influence, with traditional power centers like media and academia operating at lower levels of the hierarchy. This organizational understanding reveals how small, well-coordinated groups can systematically direct and control larger populations through sophisticated institutional mechanisms and precisely coordinated actions.

The Rockefeller Foundation's scenarios, particularly "Lock Step," can be seen as an exploration of how these hierarchical control systems might evolve and be implemented. The scenario's description of increased top-down authority and institutional control following a global crisis aligns with the power structure outlined in the Octopus model, suggesting a fundamental shift away from traditional state-based power toward a system dominated by non-state financial and philanthropic institutions.

2. Role of Technology:

Financial institutions like BlackRock and Vanguard demonstrate the Octopus model's technological dimension through systems like Aladdin software, which exerts influence over global markets and corporate behavior. This technological control extends beyond pure financial applications into social governance through ESG scoring systems and corporate compliance mechanisms, showing how technology serves as both infrastructure and enforcement mechanism for institutional control.

The Rockefeller scenarios present multiple potential futures for technology's role, ranging from the tightly controlled systems of "Lock Step" to the fragmented, localized innovations of "Smart Scramble." However, these variations can be understood as different methods of implementing institutional control, whether through direct oversight or through the strategic limitation of technological capabilities in certain regions or populations. The scenarios effectively map out possible technological architectures that could support various forms of centralized or distributed control systems.

3. NGO/Foundation Influence:

The Tony Blair Institute serves as a prime example of how NGOs function as policy vehicles that can outmaneuver traditional government structures. These organizations, funded primarily by major foundations, produce ready-made policies that governments adopt wholesale, demonstrating how policy-making has effectively been outsourced from elected officials to unelected organizations operating within the broader network of institutional power.

The Rockefeller report's scenarios acknowledge this evolution of NGO influence, particularly in "Clever Together" where coordinated NGO actions shape global development. The scenarios explore how philanthropic organizations might adapt their operations to various future contexts, from centralized "fortress models" to decentralized "guerrilla philanthropy," while maintaining their position as key architects of global policy and development initiatives.

4. Governance Models:

Mosca's Law demonstrates how organized minorities inevitably dominate larger disorganized groups, providing a theoretical framework for understanding modern governance structures. This principle manifests in how NGOs, despite their relatively small size, can effectively control government policy-making since politicians are too focused on short-term issues and media management to develop comprehensive policies themselves.

The Rockefeller scenarios examine different manifestations of this governance principle, from the authoritarian control in "Lock Step" to the fragmented local governance in "Smart Scramble." Each scenario presents a different balance between centralized and decentralized power, yet all reflect the fundamental truth that organized, coordinated groups maintain control over larger, less coordinated populations.

5. Crisis Response:

The strategic use of crises as catalysts for institutional change emerges clearly in institutional responses to challenges like pandemics or climate change. The organized response networks, positioned above traditional government structures, use these moments of instability to implement pre-prepared policy solutions and reshape social structures according to institutional priorities.

The Rockefeller report's "Lock Step" scenario particularly illustrates this dynamic, showing how a pandemic enables the implementation of more restrictive control systems. The scenario's progression from crisis response to permanent social change mirrors historical patterns of institutional adaptation and control consolidation during periods of instability.

6. Economic Systems:

The nearly $20 trillion managed by major financial institutions represents unprecedented concentrated financial power, allowing these organizations to effectively control market dynamics and corporate behavior through investment decisions and ESG requirements. This financial control system operates above traditional government structures, demonstrating how economic power has shifted from state actors to institutional networks.

The Rockefeller scenarios present various economic futures, from globally integrated systems to locally fragmented economies. However, each scenario reflects different aspects of institutional financial control, whether through centralized global coordination in "Clever Together" or through the managed chaos of "Hack Attack," where financial institutions maintain influence even in a degraded global system.

7. Media Control:

The Associated Press functions as a central messaging system that distributes approved narratives to journalists, creating uniform messaging across media outlets. This centralized control of information flow demonstrates how seemingly independent media organizations actually function as implementation mechanisms for decisions made at higher institutional levels.

The Rockefeller scenarios explore various information control systems, from the tightly managed communications of "Lock Step" to the fractured networks of "Smart Scramble." These different scenarios reflect possible variations in how institutional messaging might be maintained and distributed under different global conditions.

8. Innovation Patterns:

Research funding mechanisms actively direct academic and technological innovation through targeted grants and specific calls for proposals. This system ensures that innovation serves institutional priorities by creating financial incentives for researchers to focus on pre-selected topics and approaches that align with broader institutional objectives.

The Rockefeller scenarios present different innovation models, from centralized to grassroots, but each reflects how institutional priorities shape technological and social development. Whether through direct control in "Lock Step" or through managed chaos in "Hack Attack," the scenarios show how innovation remains bound by institutional frameworks.

9. Social Control:

Corporate HR departments serve as internal enforcement mechanisms for institutional values, creating a dialectical relationship where even high-level executives must respond to pressure from internal compliance systems. This creates a self-reinforcing control structure where institutional priorities are maintained through both external pressure and internal enforcement.

The Rockefeller scenarios explore different models of social control and resistance, from direct authoritarian control to more subtle forms of influence. Each scenario presents different mechanisms for maintaining social order and implementing institutional priorities, whether through explicit rules or implicit incentive structures.

10. Resistance and Adaptation:

The spectrum of allowable dissent reveals how institutional control systems manage opposition by permitting certain forms of resistance while strictly prohibiting others. This controlled opposition strategy allows for the appearance of debate and disagreement while maintaining fundamental power structures and preventing genuine threats to institutional control.

The Rockefeller scenarios acknowledge various forms of resistance and adaptation, from the organized pushback in "Lock Step" to the local innovations in "Smart Scramble." However, these variations in resistance and adaptation occur within broader institutional frameworks that maintain overall control while allowing for limited forms of local autonomy.

11. Global Development:

International development serves as a mechanism for implementing institutional priorities across different regions and populations. The coordination between financial institutions, NGOs, and development organizations creates a unified system for directing global change according to institutional objectives.

The Rockefeller scenarios examine different possible futures for global development, from coordinated international efforts to fragmented local initiatives. Each scenario presents different methods for implementing development goals, while maintaining the broader institutional framework that guides global change.

12. Future Trajectories:

The interface between financial power, technological control, and social governance systems suggests several possible futures for institutional control mechanisms. These potential developments range from increased centralization to managed fragmentation, but all maintain the fundamental structure of institutional power.

The Rockefeller scenarios effectively map these possible futures, presenting different variations on how institutional control might evolve. Whether through direct authoritarian control, coordinated global governance, or managed chaos, the scenarios reflect different possible manifestations of the underlying power structure described in the Octopus model.

I’ve written about The Regime’s pandemic planning before. Here is a summary of the events we know about over the last 20 years.

War Games - Lies are Unbekoming

Atlantic Storm (2003, 2005):

• Organized by US and European military, intelligence, and medical officials.

• Focused on imposing global control during health emergencies, bypassing civil rights.

• Discussed scarcity of medical resources and need for coordinated global security protocols.

• Recommended militarized strategies: police controls, propaganda, censorship, and coerced vaccination.

Global Mercury (2003):

• Simulated smallpox spread by terrorists; coordinated response among GHSAG nations.

• Aimed to refine communication and global response mechanisms.

SCL Simulation (2005):

• UK-based psyops firm promoted disinformation and domestic compliance with lockdowns.

• Demonstrated manipulation of public behavior using media-driven mass deception.

Scenario Planning and Obedience Techniques:

• Biosecurity exercises became tools for imposing centralized autocratic governance.

• Techniques borrowed from CIA psychological warfare and Milgram’s obedience experiments.

• Explored strategies like social isolation to demoralize and control populations.

Lockstep Simulation (2010):

• Rockefeller Foundation scenario predicting a pandemic leading to authoritarian governance.

• Framed pandemic control as requiring strict surveillance and centralized power.

• Projected long-term erosion of civil liberties.

SPARS Pandemic Scenario (2017):

• Simulated a coronavirus outbreak from 2025–2028, eerily foreshadowing COVID-19.

• Focused on mass propaganda, censorship, and coercive vaccination campaigns.

• Predicted resistance to vaccines and public skepticism.

Clade X (2018):

• Explored responses to a bioengineered pathogen with no vaccine.

• Emphasized militarized responses, censorship, and vaccine prioritization.

Event 201 (October 2019):

• Gates-led simulation modeled a global coronavirus pandemic.

• Focused on censorship, propaganda, and mandatory vaccination strategies.

• Predicted 65 million deaths and global economic collapse, exaggerating real COVID-19 outcomes.

Crimson Contagion (2019):

• Simulated a respiratory pandemic originating in China.

• Involved federal, state, and local entities, predicting COVID-19 case numbers and disruptions.

• Advocated for aggressive social distancing and federal authority expansion.

TOPOFF Exercises (2000–2007):

• Large-scale drills preparing for chemical and bioweapons attacks.

• Modeled quarantine measures and militarized responses.

Key Themes:

• Centralized Control: Repeated emphasis on autocratic governance during pandemics.

• Militarization of Public Health: Advocated for military and police-state strategies.

• Suppression of Dissent: Use of propaganda, censorship, and isolation.

• Focus on Vaccines: Overlooked alternative therapies, focusing on rushed vaccine development.

• Erosion of Democracy: Coordinated exercises served as training for dismantling democratic norms under the guise of pandemic management.

Lastly, I leave you with Operation Lock Step, in The Regime’s own words.

---

Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development

The Rockefeller Foundation - May 2010

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 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 post-pandemic 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.

Across the developing world, however, the story was different—and much more variable. Top-down authority took different forms in different countries, hinging largely on the capacity, caliber, and intentions of their leaders. In countries with strong and thoughtful leaders, citizens’ overall economic status and quality of life increased.

In India, for example, air quality drastically improved after 2016, when the government outlawed high-emitting vehicles. In Ghana, the introduction of ambitious government programs to improve basic infrastructure and ensure the availability of clean water for all her people led to a sharp decline in water-borne diseases. But more authoritarian leadership worked less well—and in some cases tragically—in countries run by irresponsible elites who used their increased power to pursue their own interests at the expense of their citizens.

There were other downsides, as the rise of virulent nationalism created new hazards: spectators at the 2018 World Cup, for example, wore bulletproof vests that sported a patch of their national flag. Strong technology regulations stifled innovation, kept costs high, and curbed adoption. In the developing world, access to “approved” technologies increased but beyond that remained limited: the locus of technology innovation was largely in the developed world, leaving many developing countries on the receiving end of technologies that others consider “best” for them. Some governments found this patronizing and refused to distribute computers and other technologies that they scoffed at as “second hand.” Meanwhile, developing countries with more resources and better capacity began to innovate internally to fill these gaps on their own.

“IT IS POSSIBLE TO DISCIPLINE AND CONTROL SOME SOCIETIES FOR SOME TIME, BUT NOT THE WHOLE WORLD ALL THE TIME.

– GK Bhat, TARU Leading Edge, India"

Meanwhile, in the developed world, the presence of so many top-down rules and norms greatly inhibited entrepreneurial activity. Scientists and innovators were often told by governments what research lines to pursue and were guided mostly toward projects that would make money (e.g., market-driven product development) or were “sure bets” (e.g., fundamental research), leaving more risky or innovative research areas largely untapped. Well-off countries and monopolistic companies with big research and development budgets still made significant advances, but the IP behind their breakthroughs remained locked behind strict national or corporate protection. Russia and India imposed stringent domestic standards for supervising and certifying encryption-related products and their suppliers—a category that in reality meant all IT innovations. The U.S. and EU struck back with retaliatory national standards, throwing a wrench in the development and diffusion of technology globally.

Especially in the developing world, acting in one’s national self-interest often meant seeking practical alliances that fit with those interests—whether it was gaining access to needed resources or banding together in order to achieve economic growth. In South America and Africa, regional and sub-regional alliances became more structured. Kenya doubled its trade with southern and eastern Africa, as new partnerships grew within the continent. China’s investment in Africa expanded as the bargain of new jobs and infrastructure in exchange for access to key minerals or food exports proved agreeable to many governments. 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, one-size-fits-all solutions yielded few positive results.

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.

ROLE OF PHILANTHROPY IN LOCK STEP

Philanthropic organizations will face hard choices in this world. Given the strong role of governments, doing philanthropy will require heightened diplomacy skills and the ability to operate effectively in extremely divergent environments. Philanthropy grantee and civil society relationships will be strongly moderated by government, and some foundations might choose to align themselves more closely with national official development assistance (ODA) strategies and government objectives. Larger philanthropies will retain an outsized share of influence, and many smaller philanthropies may find value in merging financial, human, and operational resources.

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. Many governments will place severe restrictions on the program areas and geographies that international philanthropies can work in, leading to a narrower and stronger geographic focus or grant-making in their home country only.

TECHNOLOGY IN LOCK STEP

While there is no way of accurately predicting what the important technological advancements will be in the future, the scenario narratives point to areas where conditions may enable or accelerate the development of certain kinds of technologies. Thus for each scenario we offer a sense of the context for technological innovation, taking into consideration the pace, geography, and key creators. We also suggest a few technology trends and applications that could flourish in each scenario.

Technological innovation in “Lock Step” is largely driven by government and is focused on issues of national security and health and safety. 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.

Technology trends and applications we might see:

• Scanners using advanced functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) technology become the norm at airports and other public areas to detect abnormal behavior that may indicate “antisocial intent.”

• In the aftermath of pandemic scares, smarter packaging for food and beverages is applied first by big companies and producers in a business-to-business environment, and then adopted for individual products and consumers.

• New diagnostics are developed to detect communicable diseases. The application of health screening also changes; screening becomes a prerequisite for release from a hospital or prison, successfully slowing the spread of many diseases.

• Tele-presence technologies respond to the demand for less expensive, lower-bandwidth, sophisticated communications systems for populations whose travel is restricted.

• Driven by protectionism and national security concerns, nations create their own independent, regionally defined IT networks, mimicking China’s firewalls. Governments have varying degrees of success in policing internet traffic, but these efforts nevertheless fracture the “World Wide” Web.

LIFE IN LOCK STEP

Manisha gazed out on the Ganges River, mesmerized by what she saw. Back in 2010, when she was 12 years old, her parents had brought her to this river so that she could bathe in its holy waters. But standing at the edge, Manisha had been afraid. It wasn’t the depth of the river or its currents that had scared her, but the water itself: it was murky and brown and smelled pungently of trash and dead things.

Manisha had balked, but her mother had pushed her forward, shouting that this river flowed from the lotus feet of Vishnu and she should be honored to enter it. Along with millions of Hindus, her mother believed the Ganges’s water could cleanse a person’s soul of all sins and even cure the sick. So Manisha had grudgingly dunked herself in the river, accidentally swallowing water in the process and receiving a bad case of giardia, and months of diarrhea, as a result.

Remembering that experience is what made today so remarkable. It was now 2025. Manisha was 27 years old and a manager for the Indian government’s Ganges Purification Initiative (GPI). Until recently, the Ganges was still one of the most polluted rivers in the world, its coliform bacteria levels astronomical due to the frequent disposal of human and animal corpses and of sewage (back in 2010, 89 million liters per day) directly into the river.

Dozens of organized attempts to clean the Ganges over the years had failed. In 2009, the World Bank even loaned India $1 billion to support the government’s multi-billion dollar cleanup initiative. But then the pandemic hit, and that funding dried up. But what didn’t dry up was the government’s commitment to cleaning the Ganges—now not just an issue of public health but increasingly one of national pride.

Manisha had joined the GPI in 2020, in part because she was so impressed by the government’s strong stance on restoring the ecological health of India’s most treasured resource. Many lives in her home city of Jaipur had been saved by the government’s quarantines during the pandemic, and that experience, thought Manisha, had given the government the confidence to be so strict about river usage now: how else could they get millions of Indian citizens to completely shift their cultural practices in relationship to a holy site?

Discarding ritually burned bodies in the Ganges was now illegal, punishable by years of jail time. Companies found to be dumping waste of any kind in the river were immediately shut down by the government. There were also severe restrictions on where people could bathe and where they could wash clothing. Every 20 meters along the river was marked by a sign outlining the repercussions of “disrespecting India’s most treasured natural resource.” Of course, not everyone liked it; protests flared every so often. But no one could deny that the Ganges was looking more beautiful and healthier than ever.

Manisha watched as an engineering team began unloading equipment on the banks. Many top Indian scientists and engineers had been recruited by the government to develop tools and strategies for cleaning the Ganges in more high-tech ways. Her favorite were the submersible bots that continuously “swam” the river to detect, through sensors, the presence of chemical pathogens.

New riverside filtration systems that sucked in dirty river water and spit out far cleaner water were also impressive—especially because on the outside they were designed to look like mini-temples. In fact, that’s why Manisha was at the river today, to oversee the installation of a filtration system located not even 100 feet from where she first stepped into the Ganges as a girl. The water looked so much cleaner now, and recent tests suggested that it might even meet drinkability standards by 2035. Manisha was tempted to kick off her shoe and dip her toe in, but this was a restricted area now—and she, of all people, would never break that law.

---

---

I appreciate you being here.

If you've found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.

Please make full use of the Free Libraries.

Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.

Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.

Stories

I'm always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com

For COVID vaccine injury

Consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.

Baseline Human Health

Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.