Evidence of Pandemic's Design to Increase Authoritarian Rule

Keep in mind, this is from TEN YEARS BEFORE the Coronavirus pandemic.  A huge revealing clue in this “hypothetical prediction” from The Rockefeller Foundation’s 2010 “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development” (pg. 18).  Note that is is written in past tense describing current events in perfect detail.  The future is not only being anticipated, it is being orchestrated (just a bit behind schedule):

“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… 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’ initial policy of 'strongly discouraging' citizens from flying proved deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not just within the US, 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.  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... 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…

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... 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.”