The article below addresses the 11,000-pound elephant in the room that nobody in the mainstream media or our government wants to address. The COVID19 coronavirus is not the first or even the most dangerous pandemic to hit the world over the last 20 years. Others have infected more and killed at a rate at least as high. That begs the question: Why?

Why are world leaders treating this virus so differently than all the others? There is perhaps no one more qualified to answer that question than Patrick Wood, an economist who has for decades been studying the global technocracy movement [aka sustainable development and green new deal]. He has written extensively about it on his website and in two books, Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation and Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order. He believes COVID19 may be just what the doctor ordered for technocrats to usher in what they have long coveted — a so-called new international economic order.  Below is a condensed version of his article that originally appeared at Technocracy News and Trends.

The coronavirus is real, the panic is orchestrated….

People want to know: Just how bad is the COVID-19 virus and is fighting it worth the destruction of the world’s economic and financial system while disrupting the lives of hundreds of millions of people?

The story behind the story will make it clear that things are seldom as they seem.

And when seen through the lens of sustainable development, aka technocracy, the whole world has just been punked and then panicked into destroying itself over COVID-19.

The culprit? A world-class technocrat in Britain, Dr. Neil Ferguson, PhD, a professor at Imperial College in London that bills itself as a “global university.”

Imperial is thoroughly steeped in Sustainable Development and more dedicated to social causes than academic achievement. In fact, Imperial is well-known for its alarmist research reports on climate change, carbon reduction, environmental degradation, loss of biodiversity, etc.

The problem with the global warming meme is that it’s a tired, worn-out racehorse that much of the world simply ignores.

Global warming alarmists have tried every trick in the book to stampede the world into Sustainable Development. They have knowingly falsified climate data, flooded the world with inaccurate academic reports, held world meetings like the Paris Accord in France, threatened and bullied their critics, created a global youth movement to shame leaders into action, etc. All of these strategies have failed to usher in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy, and show little promise of success in the future.

What the Sustainable Development crowd needed was to put their non-performing racehorse, “global warming,” out to pasture and find a brand-new horse that could finally run and win the race to what the U.N. calls “deep transformation” of the entire global economic system.

The new horse is named “COVID-19.” Different horse, same jockey, same race, same finish line.

Imperial College

The president of Imperial College is professor Alice Gast. She considers the college to be part of a “new paradigm of the global university” that promises to be “a contributor to a better future.” Gast also notes the three general areas of focus at Imperial are “epidemics, shortages of natural resources and environmental crises.” 

In other words, the environment, natural resources and epidemics are seen as intertwined and inseparable.

The “global university” is indeed a new paradigm, and one that radically transforms the traditional role of education into one of social activism. Success is measured by social impact on society and not according to scholastic achievement.

Furthermore, the global university is invariably framed as a champion of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development and Imperial is no exception. The head of Sustainability at Imperial is Professor Paul Lickiss. His web page states, “Sustainability should run through the whole of College thinking and activity at all levels and across all campuses.” A casual examination of the various departments at Imperial confirm this statement: Sustainability, environmentalism and climate change themes are seen everywhere.

The Work Begins

Once the release of COVID-19 in Wuhan was recognized as a potential pandemic, academic researcher Dr. Neil Ferguson went to work developing a computer model to track and forecast its rapid spread. He has had extensive experience tracking other infectious diseases such as the swine flu in 2009, Dengue in 2015 and Zika in 2016.

Ferguson is a British epidemiologist and a professor of mathematical biology at Imperial College. With a master of arts degree in physics, he received a doctor of philosophy degree in theoretical physics. He has no medical or related degree, but rather chose to apply his education to use his mathematical skills by modeling the spread of infectious diseases.

In other words, Ferguson is a data-driven technocrat with direct access to policy-makers around the world. According to the New York Times:

Imperial College has advised the government on its response to previous epidemics, including SARS, avian flu and swine flu. With ties to the World Health Organization and a team of 50 scientists, led by a prominent epidemiologist, Neil Ferguson, Imperial is treated as a sort of gold standard, its mathematical models feeding directly into government policies.

Ferguson’s COVID-19 Study

Early on in the COVID-19 outbreak, Ferguson began to advise officials in Britain and the United States on the spread of the infection as well as ways to fight it. Thus, he served as both researcher and policy advisor at the same time.

Ferguson’s conclusion that COVID-19 would kill as many as 500,000 people in Britain and over 1.1 million in the United States, set off a tidal wave of panic that has not subsided. His policy recommendations were just as shocking, namely, that societies must be entirely locked down in order to survive.

On March 16, 2020, Ferguson finally released his formal report, Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID19 mortality and healthcare demand.

Here are some observations from reading his report:

• Well before publishing, he advised policy makers, disclosing that he modeled his study for “informed policymaking in the UK and other countries in recent weeks.”
• He compared COVID19 to the 1918 Spanish flu: “it represents the most serious seen in a respiratory virus since the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic”
• He applied this and a previous model to UK and US: “we apply a previously published microsimulation model to two countries: the UK (Great Britain specifically) and the US.”
• There are two possible strategies: Mitigation and Suppression.
• Mitigation: This proposed social distancing, home-isolation of sick, home-quarantine of relatives, “We find that that optimal mitigation policies (combining home isolation of suspect cases, home quarantine of those living in the same household as suspect cases, and social distancing of the elderly and others at most risk of severe disease) might reduce peak healthcare demand by 2/3 and deaths by half.”
• In spite of reducing deaths by half, “the resulting mitigated epidemic would still likely result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and health systems (most notably intensive-care units) being overwhelmed many times over.”
• Thus, he argues that Suppression is the only option
• Suppression: Additional measures include social distancing of the entire population, home isolation of infected, household quarantine of family members, school and university closures.
• Long term: Suppression “will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more).”

These doomsday predictions, based entirely on computer simulations similar to those used in climate studies, were believable enough that national leaders accepted them at face value.

Worse, they accepted Ferguson’s policy recommendations and implemented them with precise detail.

The report’s conclusion states:

“…suppression will require the layering of more intensive and socially disruptive measures than mitigation. The choice of interventions ultimately depends on the relative feasibility of their implementation and their likely effectiveness in different social contexts. (p. 14)

It goes on to suggest that:

• “A minimum policy for effective suppression is therefore population-wide social distancing combined with home isolation of cases and school and university closure. (p. 14)
• To avoid a rebound in transmission, these policies will need to be maintained until large stocks of vaccine are available to immunise the population – which could be 18 months or more. (p.15)
• Technology – such as mobile phone apps that track an individual’s interactions with other people in society – might allow such a policy to be more effective and scalable if the associated privacy concerns can be overcome. (p. 15)

He then predicts that hospitals in the UK and US will not be able to treat all the infected, resulting in more than a million deaths in the U.S. alone.

“…the surge limits for both general ward and ICU beds would be exceeded by at least 8-fold under the more optimistic scenario for critical care requirements that we examined. In addition, even if all patients were able to be treated, we predict there would still be in the order of 250,000 deaths in GB, and 1.1-1.2 million in the US. (p. 16)

The mind of a technocrat can be clearly seen in this whole package.

All of these draconian measures must be maintained until a vaccine is created, which is at least 18 months. The use of mobile phone apps to track the world’s population could be effective if citizens could be railroaded into it. What is not seen is one word about the destruction of the global economic system that would certainly result from such extreme policy measures.

Climate alarmists who articulated the Green New Deal policies also call for radical measures to transform society and they are likewise silent about the inevitable destructive effects such policies would have on the global economy.

Destroy Capitalism & Free Enterprise

Why do technocrats not discuss the destruction of capitalism and free enterprise? Because that is their exact goal. When Christiana Figueres was head of the U.N. Climate Change agenda in 2015, she stated:

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history. This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change… It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.” (emphasis added)

People argue that this cannot be the goal. It’s just too big to comprehend.

My reply is that if a killer points a gun at you and says he is going to kill you, will you take defensive action or just stand there and let him shoot you? Direct threats must be taken seriously, especially when the perpetrator has the means to carry out the threat.

In the heat of the Great Depression during the early 1930s, technocrats were certain that capitalism and free enterprise would be dead within months. Their economic replacement system was technocracy. But technocracy would not and could not work unless the existing economic system completely failed. Unfortunately for them, capitalism recovered and technocracy withered.

Today, however, the United Nations is clearly articulating the same premise and it is at the ready with its resource-based economic system called Sustainable Development, aka technocracy. The most clearly articulated example of Sustainable Development is the Green New Deal as recently unveiled by U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA).

The World Panics

Thanks to Neil Ferguson and Imperial College, the entire world has panicked over COVID-19 and, worse, leaders have implemented their policy recommendations lock, stock and barrel. Meanwhile, the entire global media obediently follows, fanning the flames of fear into a raging forest fire.

As a result, the U.S. economy is in a tailspin, the financial system is on the verge of total collapse, stocks have entered a full-blown bear market, some U.S. Treasury notes are trading at negative interest rates and unemployment claims soared to 3.3 million last week as businesses shut their doors. Employment experts forecast more than 40 million Americans will lose their jobs by the end of April.

The economy has been dealt a mortal wound.

Even if all restrictions were immediately lifted globally, it is highly doubtful the economy could recover to its former state. Moreover, that doubt is increased every week that restricted activity continues.

In the U.S., the primary agent of panic has been the highly-esteemed Dr. Anthony Fauci, who also has close ties to the World Health Organization. According to National Review, Fauci hypothesized in late February in the New England Journal of Medicine that the fatality rate of COVID-19 may be “considerably less than 1% because many people who are infected experience either no symptoms or very mild symptoms and therefore do not report.” 

Yet, the media routinely states the mortality rate is 3.4% or higher. Fauci himself continues to claim that COVID-19 is 10x as bad as the flu, even though his own estimates of 100K to 200K deaths compares to the CDC’s reported deaths during the 2019-2020 flu season of between 24,000 and 62,000. If Fauci’s 10X figure is accurate, then he should be estimating between 240,000 and 620,000 deaths, which he is not. His numbers simply do not add up!

Conclusion

We are all rightfully saddened for anyone who loses their life to COVID-19, but we are going to be a lot more sorry for having trusted a Technocrat to tell us how to deal with the pandemic. The destruction of the economy will result in many more deaths and hardships than COVID-19 could ever imagine.

There is much more to be written on this topic. The main point of this article is to establish the “panic of 2020” as a Technocrat operation so that Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy, can be quickly moved forward if not completely ushered in. Furthermore, it is a replacement strategy for global warming to induce panic. As stated above, different horse, same jockey, same race, same finish line.