The fact that politicians are in the business of accumulating power and wealth while corporations are in the business of accumulating wealth and influence makes this a natural marriage in our time. They each want their fingers in every crevasse of the world for their own purposes, but they’re good enough at propaganda to convince the average blue pill that the latest bailout that redistributes their wealth to the bankers and corporations is good for every party involved, and in all actuality it is going to create more wealth for them then it will for the banks and corporations. This is pretty standard operating procedure when you’re discussing the partnership between the public and private sector. Unfortunately when you bring up Klaus Schwab or the WEF in regards to their influence over governments a lot of people have been so subjected to the mainstream propaganda that they’re unable to even consider the unholy matrimony that is taking place… Elephant in the room – NWO: We’ve all heard the guys running around claiming the “New World Order” idea is the construction of a totalitarian world government that will be oppressive, but when George H W Bush or Clinton say New World Order I hear something else… When I first read The Grand Chessboard by Zbignew Brzenzki I was convinced the NWO was a reference to American hegemony around the world; spreading democracy by military intervention, but I noticed just underneath the geopolitics in the book Brzenzki was always referencing the oil and gas industries of the nations and as I’ve read more Brzenzki and other authors in the same vein I’ve concluded that the NWO is not American hegemony but corporate hegemony working in a conglomerate with countries around the world.
In Between Two Ages Brzenzki calls America a porous empire stimulating economies, introducing international banking, and building corporations as a tool of nation-building much more than utilizing military domination, and this is carving a path for a broader business relationship. He goes on to lay out how America’s development of technology has moved it into an international order, a world without borders, a land blurred by the public and private sectors, unable to distinguish between the two and making cross institutional cooperation easier. He then discusses keeping the peace through an international order with a common goal of science and technology driving the world’s focus into the future.
John Perkins’ book Confessions of an Economic Hitman exposes how the CIA infiltrates multi-national corporations in order to pressure foreign governments to increase the profits influence and power of American based corporations. The coup in Iran was organized when the Iranians refused to cooperate with BP. Many of the directors of the CIA were either international bankers or corporate CEO’s – Allen Dulles and George H W Bush. The public private merger has been taking place for years and has become standard operating procedure for many US bureaucracies.
Is it so absurd to believe that we’ve hit a point in history that other nations have come on board with the US in a potential global partnership? I offer you the UN as evidence this has been happening for a long time.
I offer an anecdote as an example: When I first met my wife she told me that around 80% of the infrastructure in ZA was built by Chinese companies. At no time has America attempted to curb Chinese influence in ZA, on the other hand the US is gifting millions to ZA every year, and when my Brother-in-law started looking for an oil and gas company to go to work for it was only western countries offering oil and gas jobs – he ended up in New Zealand, not Asia. It’s as if behind the scenes there’s a deal that allows US to intervene in African and Middle Eastern countries in order to control oil and gas while China works on the infrastructures… as if what the citizens will tolerate goes into the decisions as to what each country may do to introduce other nations to the corporate hegemony (Americans worship the military and the Chinese are proud of their infrastructure growth) – Trump never attacked Apple or other tech companies depending on Chinese minerals and cheap labor; he attacked the steel and soy industries, Tik Tok, and wa-weh while being called xenophobic, but Hunter Biden and his uncle can openly be in bed with Chinese intelligence agents and corporations with no corporate media scandal to speak of. Mitch McConnell can be married to the CEO of a Chinese logistics company run by the CCP, and no one bats an eye.
These open public private partnerships are not unfamiliar to your audience; the creation of the Federal Reserve, lobbying, the AMA, the military industrial complex, and corporate welfare are often spoken of in liberty circles and all represent public private partnerships.
The WEF mission statement is global public private partnerships (for austerity purposes let me fill in the importance of WEF – Al Gore is on the board, Partners include Cisco, Citi, Bank of America, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Goldman Sachs, among others; a few contributors include Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Rand Corp, Brookings In, Chatham House, and there are a ton of others that you’ve heard of), and over the last year all they’ve been talking about is the Great Reset.
What is the Great Reset?
As explained by journalist James Corbett in his October 16, 2020, Corbett Report above,1 the Great Reset is a new “social contract” that ties every person to it through an electronic ID linked to your bank account and health records, and a social credit ID that will end up dictating every facet of your life.
Michael Rectenwold writes: Klaus Schwab writes that the covid-19 crisis should be regarded as an “opportunity [that can be] seized to make the kind of institutional changes and policy choices that will put economies on the path toward a fairer, greener future.”
The Great Reset means reduced incomes (constantly repeated) and carbon use. But Schwab and the WEF also define the Great Reset in terms of the convergence of economic, monetary, technological, medical, genomic, environmental, military, and governance systems. The Great Reset would involve vast transformations in each of these domains, changes which, according to Schwab, will not only alter our world but also lead us to “question what it means to be human.”
The Great Reset means the issuance of medical passports, soon to be digitized, as well as the transparency of medical records inclusive of medical history, genetic makeup, and disease states.
On the genomic front, the Great Reset includes advances in genetic engineering and the fusion of genetics (mRNA vaccine), nanotechnology, and robotics. (Moderna top scientist Ted talk admits they’re reprogramming people with this new technology: https://leohohmann.com/2021/03/09/modernas-top-scientist-we-are-actually-hacking-the-software-of-life/ )
In terms of governance, the Great Reset means increasingly centralized, coordinated, and expanded government and “governmentalities,” the convergence of corporations and states, and the digitalization of governmental functions, including, with the use of 5G and predictive algorithms, real-time tracking and surveillance of bodies in space or the “anticipatory governance” of human and systems behavior.
The collectivist planners of the Great Reset... mean to drive ownership and control of the most important factors to those enrolled in “stakeholder capitalism.” The productive activities of said stakeholders would be guided by the directives of a coalition of governments under a unified mission and set of policies, in particular those expounded by the WEF itself.
While these corporate stakeholders would not necessarily be monopolies per se, the goal of the WEF is to vest as much control over production and distribution in these corporate stakeholders as possible, with the goal of eliminating producers whose products or processes are deemed either unnecessary or inimical to the globalists’ desiderata for “a fairer, greener future.” Naturally, this would involve constraints on production and consumption and likewise an expanded role for governments in order to enforce such constraints—or, as Klaus Schwab has stated in the context of the covid crisis, “the return of big government”4—as if government hasn’t been big and growing bigger all the while.
“Stakeholder capitalism,” positions private corporations as trustees of society, and is clearly the best response to today’s social and environmental challenges.
In https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/01/klaus-schwab-on-what-is-stakeholder-capitalism-history-relevance/ Stakeholder capitalism is further defined euphemistically-stakeholder capitalism: it is a form of capitalism in which companies do not only optimize short-term profits for shareholders, but seek long term value creation, by taking into account the needs of all their stakeholders, and society at large.
(In every speech I’ve listened to they emphasize that companies will lose between 2-5% in the short term by impact investing and ESG guidelines, so this will necessarily devastate small businesses.)
Back to Time article:
The US Business Roundtable, America’s most influential business lobby group, announced this year that it would formally embrace stakeholder capitalism. And so-called impact investing is rising to prominence as more investors look for ways to link environmental and societal benefits to financial returns.
But to uphold the principles of stakeholder capitalism, companies will need new metrics. For starters, a new measure of “shared value creation” should include “environmental, social, and governance” (ESG) goals as a complement to standard financial metrics. Fortunately, an initiative to develop a new standard along these lines is already under way, with support from the “Big Four” accounting firms and led by the chairman of the International Business Council, Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan.
The second metric that needs to be adjusted is executive remuneration. In the new stakeholder paradigm, salaries should instead align with the new measure of long-term shared value creation.
Finally, large companies should understand that they themselves are major stakeholders in our common future. ...all companies should still seek to harness their core competencies and maintain an entrepreneurial mindset. But they should also work with other stakeholders to improve the state of the world in which they are operating.
They can bring the world closer to achieving shared goals as outlined in the Paris climate agreement and the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda. (Redistribution internationally to assist poorer countries increase standard of living and decrease carbon emissions)
As noted in the book, “Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order”: “… Sustainable Development is Technocracy … The Sustainable Development movement has taken careful steps to conceal its true identity, strategy and purpose, but once the veil is lifted, you will never see it any other way. Once its strategy is unmasked, everything else will start to make sense.”
Shaping 4th ind notes
In Ch 3 he is arguing that tech must be centered around a global new ethic – When developing tech or starting a business your first motivation should be to “do no harm” so to speak – forget the old methods of earning a living, your first priority is to your fellow man. We must engage in a transformative value based leadership in order to rid our world of past oppressions (in chapter 4 he goes woke in some detail) Tech may no longer be used in a laissez-faire manner, consumers as well as developers must consider the values of tech (this comes across as admitting that if they fail to control the tech they will lose power and influence) – if anybody is left out or not benefitting than the tech should be abandoned. You should only use tech that acts in equitable fashions… aka, not btc. He’s setting the stage for the ESG score. He never comes out and says it like he does in the Time article, but the preachy tone makes it evident. Ethics and values must always be considered: socially responsible processes are priority - the only way to reach these goals is a revolution – The way to move the world is to move the money, and investors have the carrot to get entrepreneurs and citizens to adhere to these new values.
Pg 40 was the part that got me, a section called education curricula
Ch 4 – Pg 49 equitable to pg 50 – Then on page 51 he begins making an imperialist argument: we know what’s better for everyone is tone, and he seems to verbalize disdain for cultures that haven’t embraced tech: it’s technological colonialization (these shit hole countries and backwards people can’t be left to their own devices; we must impose our standards and way of life on them) *Freedom pg 51
How do they implement this?
Twitter mobs, BLM, Antifa, youtube banning creators, etc… it’s in effect
But, the investors have the carrot, so introduce ESG scores to investment firms, banks, and investors
Environment - Partnership for carbon accounting and finance (PCAF):
Banks represent most of the available capital globally and since the Paris Climate Agreement the largest banks have still invested more than $3.8 trillion into the fossil fuel sector. This is equivalent to $2 billion for every day since the end of 2015, with no downward trend and no assessment of the carbon impact of that finance.
Mission - Facilitating financial industry alignment with the Paris Climate Agreement (using Greenhouse Gas’s accounting methodology)
The following asset classes are currently covered by the methodology: listed equity & corporate bonds, business loans and unlisted equity, project finance, mortgages, commercial real estate and motor vehicle loans... the globalization of PCAF also focuses on investors (i.e. pension funds, asset owners and managers). We encourage investors to join the initiative and commit to assess and disclose their GHG emissions associated with their portfolio.
By starting with a global group of willing financial institutions, capitalizing on their network and engaging with other influential actors (e.g. NGOs, UN, governments, regulators, etc.), the PCAF initiative aims to grow the number of commitments...
Social - Willis Harman 1981 giving the pets meaning
“...you could argue that people already spend most of their lives in virtual games. Most religions are virtual games superimposed on the reality of life. Do this, and there’s a penalty. Do that, and you get extra points. There is nothing in reality that corresponds to these rules. But you have millions of people playing these virtual reality games. So what is the difference between a religion and a virtual reality game?
Recently I went with my nephew to hunt Pokémon. We were walking down the street and a bunch of kids approached us. They were also hunting Pokemon. My nephew and these children got into a bit of a fight because they were trying to capture the same invisible creatures. It seemed strange to me. But these Pokémon were very real to the children.
And then it hit me: This is just like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict! You have two sides fighting over something that I cannot see. I look at the stones of buildings in Jerusalem and I just see stones. But Christians, Jews, and Muslims who look at the same stones see a holy city. It’s their imagination, but they are willing to kill for it. That’s virtual reality, too.”
Q, American Mythos, Woke, SJW, CRT & covid cult…
Rainbow flags and BLM Corporations lead the populace army in their search for meaning
Soros funding [daily mail 30 million to Ferguson protestors, 220 million to racial justice organizations NYT; the head of BLM has 4 houses – someone paid her, and he’s funding AG’s] (Many people like to say that they’re still waiting for their Soros bucks… this says more about their gullibility than Soros… a whore gets paid to do what a slut does for free.) - Soros is a board member of the organizations funding movements - why are the wealthy so interested in giving the pets meaning: French Revolution… so they happily give the BLM and Antifa movements their meaning, critical race theory, 1619, their virtual reality…
And the Cathedral is fully on board with woke and crt… who is the cathedral – CIA in media and Academia
Governance – diversity of board, how much you pay, diversity of ownership, accounting, taxes…
several US banks have signed on https://carbonaccountingfinancials.com/financial-institutions-taking-action
Bank of America, Citi, Amalgamated, Morgan Stanley... black rock
Bank of America Merrill Lynch have added ESG scores to customer dashboards https://www.investmentnews.com/merrill-edge-adds-esg-scores-to-client-dashboard-73417
The SEC has also gotten on board...
Acting Chair Allison Herren Lee spoke to Center for American Progress about enforcing and mandating ESG compliance
The most fundamental role that the SEC must play with respect to climate and ESG is helping to ensure material information gets into the markets in a timely manner. Investors are demanding more and better information on climate and ESG, and that demand is not being met by the current voluntary framework. Not all companies do or will disclose without a mandatory framework, raising the cost, or resulting in the misallocation, of capital. Investors also aren’t getting the benefits of comparability that would come with standardization. And there are real questions about reliability and level of assurance for the disclosures that do exist. Meanwhile issuers are assailed from all sides by competing and potentially conflicting demands for information. That’s why we have begun to take critical steps toward a comprehensive ESG disclosure framework aimed at producing the consistent, comparable, and reliable data that investors need.
In 2010, under the leadership of Mary Schapiro, the Commission for the first time provided guidance to public companies regarding existing disclosure requirements as they apply to climate change matters. Part of what the staff will do now is review the extent to which public companies address the topics identified in the 2010 guidance and comply with current requirements. It’s also important that the staff engage with public companies on these issues and use the opportunity to evaluate the current state of climate disclosure. Much has changed in the last decade – in terms of market practices for gauging ESG-related risks, in terms of the science of climate change, and, unfortunately, in terms of the urgent nature of climate-related risks. And we need to assess how these risks are being analyzed and disclosed by companies now to inform an update to the 2010 guidance – and to inform our policymaking going forward.
Of course we already have an extensive public record demonstrating investor desire for the SEC to ensure better disclosure in this space.
But we must also make progress on standardized ESG disclosure more broadly... such as offering guidance on human capital disclosure to encourage the reporting of specific metrics like workforce diversity, and considering more specific guidance or rulemaking on board diversity. Another significant ESG issue that deserves attention is political spending disclosure. The SEC is currently prevented from finalizing a rule in this area, but political spending disclosure is inextricably linked to ESG issues. Consider for instance research showing that many companies that have made carbon neutral pledges, or otherwise state they support climate-friendly initiatives, have donated substantial sums to candidates with climate voting records inconsistent with such assertions. Consider also companies that made noteworthy pledges to alter their political spending practices in response to racial justice protests, and whether, without political spending disclosure requirements, investors can adequately test these claims, or would have held corporate managers accountable for those risks before they materialized. Political spending disclosure is key to any discussion of sustainability.
In addition, two weeks ago, we announced the formation of the first-ever Climate and ESG Task Force within the Division of Enforcement. The Task force will work to proactively detect climate and ESG-related misconduct, including identifying any material gaps or misstatements in issuers’ disclosure of climate risks under existing rules and analyzing disclosure and compliance issues relating to investment advisers’ and funds’ ESG strategies.
“This task force brings together a broad array of experience and expertise, which will allow us to better police the market, pursue misconduct, and protect investors.”
In addition, the Climate and ESG Task Force will evaluate and pursue tips, referrals, and whistleblower complaints on ESG-related issues, and provide expertise and insight to teams working on ESG-related matters across the Division.
It’s easy to see why these huge multi-national corporations are getting so woke. Their credit and well being depends on it. So I’m looking at this and I’m thinking who’s gonna suffer?
We’ve seen people losing their jobs due to twitter mobs. They’ll jump all over this. It’s decentralized tyranny intended to move us into a post-individualist reality in which we are all acting as cells of a global organism. They’re using a type of economic sanction strategy to get you to comply.
It’s reminiscent of Obama’s Operation Chokepoint – DOJ pressuring banks to cut off loans to gun dealers and manufacturers. We saw banks drop Trump, patreon drop Sargon and Lauren Southern, an investment firm dropped Curt Schilling, Beck and Alex Jones have had issues with credit card processors (Stripe) - all of these were for governance or social justice, so expect Gun manufacturers, religious institutions, 401k’s, seed companies, credit unions, and small businesses to feel the impact extremely hard. And once your score begins to be uploaded to your banking center will they drop you for not getting vaccine or having the passport, will your social media be looked at, google search, investments like Bitcoin, purchases like guns or from companies with low scores? What if you smoke or drink? You’re immunocompromised and a “laggard” in society. Why would your bank want to continue doing business with someone with a low score? How about car insurance? Home owner’s insurance? Mortgages? Car loans? Medical services? Where does it stop? If you refuse to adhere to the regulations and continue living your life on your terms as if it’s pre-Trump, pre-covid, pre-Paris climate agreement, and pre-boomer capitol tour how will you function in society with these standards mandated by the SEC following all of us around?
Now, I know we’re being told that these ESG scores are just there to help you decide which banks or investment firms are hedging against risk and fighting climate change and oppression, but if that’s the case why is the IMF discussing linking your google search history to your credit score?
the type of browser and hardware used to access the internet, the history of online searches and purchases.
So what you buy, where you buy it, whether you use a VPN, encrypted decentralized blockchain, brave, google or DuckDuckGo, your social media interactions (look no further than the social media platforms selling your information to the CIA), the news you read, the people you interact with, podcasts you listen to, websites you visit... the data that is available online is immense, and invaluable, and now we know why they’ve been making so much money selling your data.
In this paper, we develop a simple conceptual framework that distinguishes between two key dimensions of financial innovation, information (data collection and processing) and communication (relationships and distribution)2. We argue that both are key ingredients in the financial intermediation process, and allow banks to exert market power through informational and spatial capture. Both are affected by technological change. We identify the proliferation of hard information and the shift away from in-person interactions as long- standing developments. The existing literature offers useful insights that remain valid in an environment where those forces are accelerating.
We contrast the continuation of past trends with more novel developments, such as the rise of machine learning and artificial intelligence enabled by an abundance of (non-financial) data, and the dominance of digital platforms and smartphones. We argue that technological progress may lead to the vertical and horizontal disintegration of the traditional bank business model. Novel communication channels enable specialized providers to side-step banks’ distribution networks and offer financial services that do not require access to a balance sheet, for example in the areas of payments and wealth management. Moreover, digital platforms can interject themselves between banks and their customers, introducing another layer of intermediation that captures most rents. In the extreme, this would relegate banks to upstream providers of maturity transformation services.
In short they are attempting to combat the decentralized moneys and platforms that allow for peer to peer financial transactions outside the scope of central banking institutions; think cryptocurrency.