AWRM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Global Fascism #179159
11/14/2022 07:36 AM
11/14/2022 07:36 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Online content OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Online Content OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
WEF’s Stakeholder Capitalism Is Just Global Fascism By Another Name,

by Brandon Smith
SurvivalBlog Contributor November 13, 2022

The concept of “fascism” was originally entered into the Encyclopedia Italiana by Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile, who stated that “Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” Benito Mussolini would later take credit for the quote as if he had written it himself, but it’s important to note because it outlines the primary purpose of the ideology rather than simply throwing the label around at people we don’t like as a dishonest means to undermine their legitimacy.

Despite the fact that leftists today often attack conservatives as “fascists” because of our desire to protect national boundaries and western heritage, the truth is that all fascism is deeply rooted in leftist philosophies and thinkers.

Mussolini was a long time socialist, a member of the party who greatly admired Karl Marx. He deviated from the socialists over their desire to remain neutral during WWI, and went on to champion a combination of socialism and nationalism, what we now know as fascism. Adolph Hitler was also a socialist and admirer of Karl Marx, much like Mussolini. It is actually hard to find where Marx, the communists and the fascists actually differ from each other – A deeper sense of nationalism seems to be one of the few points of contention.

Though Marx saw the existence of nation states as temporary to the proletariat and to the ruling class, he noted that the industrialists were erasing national boundaries anyway. Marx argues in the Communist Manifesto with some optimism:

“National differences and antagonisms between peoples are already tending to disappear more and more, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, the growth of free trade and a world market, and the increasing uniformity of industrial processes and of corresponding conditions of life.”

Marx saw the development of corporate power as useful and the next necessary step towards socialism, noting that joint-stock companies (corporations) and the credit system are:

“The abolition of the capitalist mode of production within the capitalist mode of production itself.”

In other words, corporations are viewed as a tool for the eventual transition to a socialist “Utopia” and the death of free markets. Once again, we see there is very little difference in motive between the political left and the fascists. The natural progression of every form of Marxism, communism, socialism, fascism etc. all ultimately lead to a kind of globalist ideology and erasure of cultural separation. The methods might differ slightly but the end result is the same. Some think this is a good thing, but it is actually quite poisonous.

Globalism requires an overarching social dynamic, a single hive mind, otherwise it cannot survive. If people have the ability to choose or create better options (or different options) for living then globalism loses significance. The existence of choice has to be erased. This is a behavior that the political left has fully embraced and they are more than happy to work hand-in-hand with corporate oligarchs to make their ideal system a reality. Long gone are the days of the anti-corporate progressive – They LOVE corporate dominance, but only if those companies promote and enforce leftist models for society.

Mussolini’s fascism is at the root of the very corporate governance that leftists applaud and lust after today. They have far more in common with fascists than they realize.

The new fascism is a re-branded philosophy best represented by something called “Stakeholder Capitalism.” It is a term often used by globalists at the World Economic Forum and the head of the WEF, Klaus Schwab. The media friendly definition of Stakeholder Capitalism 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.

But who are “all stakeholders” in the opinion of the WEF?

Well, according to Klaus Schwab they are all of human civilization, now and in the future. In other words, the goal of SHC is for corporate leaders and globalist bureaucracy to take responsibility for the entire world, not just their own employees, shareholders and profits. And such leaders would not be acting as individuals, they would be acting as a collective. In other words, SHC requires all major corporations to act as a single unit with a single purpose and a unified collectivist ideology – An ideological monopoly.

A One-Minute WEF Video: Stakeholder Capitalism – Benioff – It works.

As Klaus Schwab states:

“The most important characteristic of the stakeholder model today is that the stakes of our system are now more clearly global. Economies, societies, and the environment are more closely linked to each other now than 50 years ago. The model we present here is therefore fundamentally global in nature, and the two primary stakeholders are as well.

…What was once seen as externalities in national economic policy making and individual corporate decision making will now need to be incorporated or internalized in the operations of every government, company, community, and individual. The planet is thus the center of the global economic system, and its health should be optimized in the decisions made by all other stakeholders.”

The SHC concept is deceptive on its very face because it pretends as if corporations will be held accountable by the public within some form of “business democracy,” as if the public will have a vote on what the corporations do. In reality, it will be corporations telling the public what is acceptable to think and do and corporations in conjunction with governments using their power to punish people who do not agree.

The great magic trick is that these same unified corporations use the shield of “private property” and business rights as a means to control society without repercussions. After all, a primary principle of conservatism and the US constitution is private property rights. So, stepping in to disrupt corporate governance would be violating one of our own beloved ideals. It sounds like a Catch-22, but it’s really not.

As mentioned above, corporations are at their very core a socialist concept: They are created through government charter, handed legal personhood and given special protections from government. They are not free market entities, and Adam Smith, the originator of most free market ideals, stood against corporations as destructive and prone to monopoly.

As long as they receive protections from government including monetary stimulus and bailouts, corporations should not enjoy the same private property protections as regular businesses do. They are parasitic creations, alien to the natural business world. In a freedom-based society they would be dismantled to prevent authoritarian outcomes.

Stakeholder Capitalism is also an incredibly arrogant premise because it assumes that corporate leaders have the wisdom or objective intelligence to expand their role beyond business and into social and political spheres. This has already happened in many respects with much chaos created, but open corporate governance is the end game and it is anything but objective or benevolent.

What are some examples of this kind of corporate/political governance (fascism) in action?

How about Big Tech social media censorship leaning heavily against conservatives and liberty activists? How about evidence of collusion between Big Tech companies and government, such as the Biden Administration and the DHS working closely with Twitter and Facebook to actively remove voices and viewpoints they don’t like? How about corporate leaders colluding to destroy conservative based social media competitors like Parler?

How about ESG loans funded by corporate backers such as Blackrock or globalist non-profits like the Rockefeller Foundation?

If all corporate lenders applied ESG to their loan practices, all individuals and businesses would have to adopt leftist social ideologies and dubious environmental claims in order to have access to credit. ESG is a monetary incentive created by corporate elites to keep all other businesses in line. If it continues, ESG could wipe out political opposition to globalism in the span of a single generation.

And, what about the Council For Inclusive Capitalism? This is the most blatant expression of open global fascism I have ever seen, with money elites and politicians working in concert with the UN and even religious leaders like Pope Francis. Their goal is to institute a single centralized world governing platform built around the same agendas outlined in ESG and SHC, making corporations members of a new global council which they refer to as “The Guardians.” They aren’t even trying to hide the conspiracy anymore, it’s right out in the open.

Klaus Schwab takes special care to mention often that global crisis events are the “opportunity” that is needed to push the public into the arms of Stakeholder Capitalism through a nexus point called “The Great Reset.” Meaning, he thinks that widespread fear and desperation must exist (or be engineered) to perpetuate the SHC framework quickly.

Obviously, the globalists are on a shrinking timeline, though it’s hard to say why. They are tearing off the mask faster in the past two years than they have in the previous decade. More than likely they understand to some degree that if they go too slow the public will have time to mount a defense against them.

They will conjure all kinds of distractions and scapegoats to prevent liberty-minded people from hitting them back. They’ll aim us at Russia, they’ll aim us at China, they’ll aim us at useful idiots among the leftists. They’ll aim Russia, China and the leftists at us. They will try to send us to war, they will call us insurrectionists, they will call us terrorists, they will say we started the whole collapse and that we are to blame for the world’s ills. None of this matters. What matters is that the globalists at the top pay the price for the harm they cause.

When the head of the snake is removed, only then can we sort out who is to blame; who were the heroes, who were the villains, and who were the idiots. Only then can we rebuild with true freedom in mind.


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Global Fascism [Re: ConSigCor] #179160
11/14/2022 07:41 AM
11/14/2022 07:41 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Online content OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Online Content OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,340
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ESG: The Merger of State and Corporate Power
Corporations and government form alliance for environmental, social activism

By Kevin Stocklin
November 13, 2022 Updated: November 13, 2022


In 2022, in the midst of a recession, record inflation, and a tumbling stock market, a corporate ideology known by the acronym ESG emerged from obscurity to become a headline topic. It has been called everything from a risk-management tool and a movement for a cleaner, more just world, to a “con,” a “fraud,” and even—in an Elon Musk tweet—“the devil incarnate.”

The term itself is opaque; ESG brings environmental, social, and governance causes together under one umbrella. The environmental component includes things like transitioning from fossil fuels to wind and solar energy, and from gasoline-powered cars to electric vehicles.

The social component includes racial and gender equity, diversity training for employees, economic equity, and gun control. The governance component focus on how companies are run and includes racial and gender quotas for corporate boards, management, and staff, and—in the case of Exxon—putting green energy advocates on the board.
The Origins of ESG Ideology

The ESG movement is a derivative of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). There are 17 SDGs in all, ranging from “no poverty, zero hunger, and good health” to “responsible consumption and production” and “peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development.”

In 2019, the World Economic Forum (WEF), an annual gathering of the world’s most powerful political and corporate leaders in Davos, Switzerland, signed a strategic partnership with the U.N. to advance the SDGs throughout the corporate sector. Led by founder and chairman, Klaus Schwab, the WEF issued the “Davos Manifesto 2020: The Universal Purpose of a Company in the Fourth Industrial Revolution.”

The manifesto declared that “a company is more than an economic unit generating wealth. It fulfills human and societal aspirations as part of the broader social system.”

During the annual meeting, Schwab told the gathered corporate executives and world leaders, “Let’s be clear, the future is not just happening; the future is built by us, by a powerful community here in this room. We have the means to improve the status of the world.”

In a CNBC interview in 2020, Bank of America CEO and WEF International Business Council Chairman Brian Moynihan said, “To solve these huge problems that the world faces—this is U.N. week and the SDGs are the statement to the world of what we’d like to make progress on—you have to bring capitalism to the task.”

On Nov. 4, 100 executives from the Alliance of CEO Climate Leaders issued a joint letter to attendees of the U.N. Climate Change Conference (COP27), stating, “We are ready to work side-by-side with governments to deliver bold climate action.”

“Accelerating the transition to net zero requires significant collaboration and shared responsibility between the private and public sectors.”

Signatories of the letter included Coca-Cola, Dell, Hewlett Packard, Microsoft, Nestle, PepsiCo, Siemens, Sysco, and Unilever.

Speaking at the COP27 conference, former Vice President Al Gore concurred, saying, “We need 4.5 trillion dollars per year to make this transition, and that can only come by unlocking access to private capital.”

Author and political analyst Michael Rectenwald told The Epoch Times, “This is a massive campaign that has already metastasized to almost all of the corporate world. The tentacles of the WEF extend to almost every sector of society.”

More than 500 of the world’s largest corporations have signed pledges to support ESG goals across industries including banking, insurance, asset management, tech, media, energy, manufacturing, and transportation. These pledges are signed as part of membership in international clubs like Climate Action 100+, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, the Net Zero Banking Alliance, and the Net Zero Asset Managers Alliance. There’s no segment of the American economy that’s outside the reach of this movement.

From its origins in U.N. think tanks and WEF conference rooms, ESG is then passed down to the corporate world via Wall Street, marketed as an investment strategy for companies to follow, voluntarily or involuntarily.

BlackRock’s head of sustainable investing research Carole Crozat explained to investors that “while measuring the alignment of investments to the U.N. SDGs is a complex and evolving task, we believe that their integration in investment decisions can help secure long-term financial performance.”

“Redirecting capital toward U.N. SDGs could offer $12 trillion of market opportunities linked to our long-term social and environmental well-being,” Crozat said.
ESG in Practice

In principle, ESG means that companies look beyond making profits and consider higher political and moral issues like the welfare of the planet; in practice, it means that corporations become political agents for left-wing causes. This concept is also called “stakeholder capitalism,” which has been endorsed by CEOs across the corporate world.

Speaking for Bank of America, Moynihan said, “Our research shows that companies that do well on ESG end up doing better … It defines capitalism the way that people want to define it, which is stakeholder capitalism and solving the big problems of the world.”

Stakeholder capitalism means that, instead of answering exclusively to shareholders, CEOs will focus on employees, the environment, and society at large. As head of the Business Roundtable, a club of America’s largest corporations, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon applauded the organization’s announcement in 2019 that corporate executives would henceforth follow stakeholder ideology, stating that the American dream was “fraying” and that “these modernized principles reflect the business community’s unwavering commitment to continue to push for an economy that serves all Americans.”

In accordance with ESG principles, stakeholder-oriented banks like JPMorgan Chase refused to lend to oil drilling companies in Alaska. Delta Airlines, Coca Cola, and Major League Baseball fought against voter ID laws in Georgia that they claimed were racist.

The world’s largest food companies such as Nestle, Danone, Kellogg’s, General Mills, and Unilever encourage—and sometimes pressure—the hundreds of thousands of farmers who supply them to take up a U.N.-approved method of farming called “regenerative agriculture.”

As part of the U.N. and ESG goals to reduce shootings, banks like Citibank restricted lending to the firearms industry. Credit card companies Visa, Mastercard, and American Express began tracking purchases from gun shops.

Amalgamated Bank President Priscilla Sims Brown stated in an interview with CBS that “where there may be gun sales that are intended for black markets or we see patterns of gun purchases made in multiple gun shops … we can provide that information to authorities to investigate.” PayPal went a step further and refused to allow its payment services to be used to buy guns or ammunition.


Following ESG social criteria, Disney fought to repeal a Florida law that bans teaching of sexual topics to schoolchildren in Kindergarten through third grade, which Disney said was a human rights violation. Disney executives also announced during a staff meeting they were “adding queerness” and “advancing a not-so-secret gay agenda” in the children’s shows they produce.

Corporations across the board began implementing diversity, equity and inclusion training for employees, with Coca Cola urging employees to “be less white,” and asset manager Vanguard instructing its white male employees to accept “uncomfortable” criticism about their racist biases toward minorities. United Airlines set racial and gender quotas for hiring new pilots, and Bank of America announced that it would provide no-downpayment mortgages for minorities who want to buy a house.

The WEF, Bank of America, Disney, Coca-Cola, and PayPal didn’t respond to requests for comment.
A Money Machine That Spans the Globe

ESG isn’t just an ideology; it’s also an industry. ESG investment funds and other assets have rapidly grown over the past decade to reach a current $55 trillion dollars worldwide. ESG assets are projected to grow to $100 trillion by 2025.

To put this in perspective, the entire United States GDP is about $21 trillion today. The ESG industry is enormous and pervasive; it’s lucrative; and it has created a broad network of vested interests—consultants, rating agencies, accountants, investment managers, and proxy agents—to bring agnostics into the fold. Often, the companies that impose ESG ratings on companies, countries, and even American states, also provide paid consulting services to help them improve their ratings.

The main drivers of the ESG movement are Wall Street banks and investment funds, which control the capital for the world economy. The three largest asset managers, BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, together control more than $20 trillion in assets under management. Because they manage index funds, they own shares in most corporations that are included in market indexes like the S&P 500.

“If you just look at BlackRock by itself, it’s the first, second or third largest shareholder in 80 percent of the companies in the S&P 500,” former CEO of CKE Restaurants Andrew Puzder told The Epoch Times. “They use that tremendous voting power, not only to advance this economic leftist agenda, but to put it above their obligation to generate returns for their investors.”

BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Will Hild, Executive Director of Consumers’ Research, told The Epoch Times that “the way that these fund managers use ESG to push progressive politics is multifaceted. The first and probably the most public way is they get to vote the shares that they’re managing.”

“The more quiet, sort of less public way is that they have what they call engagement meetings with corporate leadership on these issues,” Hild said. “And when they show up, they don’t say: hey, we’re just representing ourselves, they say we represent ownership of 7.5-20 percent of your publicly traded shares. BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard together would be the largest shareholder in 90 percent of the S&P 500.”

Speaking at a New York Times conference in 2017, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink appeared to underscore this point, stating: “Behaviors are going to have to change and this is one thing we’re asking companies. You have to force behaviors and here at BlackRock we are forcing behaviors.” Fink writes an annual letter to CEOs, setting priorities for the coming year.

“If you read his annual letter to CEOs, Larry Fink actually thinks he needs to tell the world’s CEOs every year what BlackRock thinks,” Puzder said. “He doesn’t have to go to every shareholder meeting, he just tells them what to do in a letter. And the letter the year before last said we need to get to net zero carbon emissions by 2050, which will require a transformation of the entire economy.”

Despite its rhetoric to the contrary and its membership in various global ESG organizations, BlackRock has vehemently denied that it uses its influence to push a political agenda. Responding to a letter (pdf) from 19 state attorneys general who charged that “BlackRock used citizens’ assets to pressure companies to comply with international agreements such as the Paris Agreement that force the phase-out of fossil fuels,” BlackRock countered (pdf) that its funds were highly rated from a performance perspective and that “our participation in these initiatives is entirely consistent with our fiduciary obligations.”

Other financial institutions that have pledged support for the ESG movement include Bank of America, Citibank, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, HSBC, Deutsche Bank, and UBS. And in pledging fealty to ESG goals, corporations are not only aligned with each other, but with governments, as well.

“It’s now becoming increasingly difficult to tell where the private sector ends and the government begins,” Alex Newman, CEO of Liberty Sentinel Media, told The Epoch Times. “We’re seeing a merger of the two.”

JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley also didn’t respond to requests for comment.

“In my experience, large Wall Street banks are not charitable institutions,” Vivek Ramaswamy, entrepreneur and founder of Strive Asset Management, told The Epoch Times. “You look at which firms are rewarded with government packages, like who gets the COVID-19 stimulus packages; a lot of that flowed through BlackRock.”

Tom Jones, president of the American Accountability Foundation, told The Epoch Times: “What we’re seeing is a new revolving door in Washington. We’re seeing liberal activists, whether they’re in the administration or on Capitol Hill, instead of leaving those positions and going to K Street to become lobbyists in Washington, what we’re seeing now is they’re going to Wall Street. And they’re using the enormous influence that these Wall Street firms have to really drive policy at the state and local level in a way they haven’t done before.”

Brian Deese, for example, who’s the current National Economic Council director, was global head of sustainable investing at BlackRock, Hild noted.

“And you have Tom Donilon, who’s now been put in charge of a significant portion of our foreign policy, vis a vis China. And again, he comes right out of BlackRock and it’s going down the line.

“The Biden administration has been heavily staffed by BlackRock alums, and in some cases, it’s even scary some of the issues that they handled when they were at BlackRock. Tom Donilon, for example, recommended to clients while he was there that they tripled their exposure to China, and now he’s in charge of a portion of the Biden administration’s foreign policy vis a vis China.”
A Democratic Deficit

What’s most striking about ESG is how, in joining corporations with government under a common cause, it has created a new power structure that often supersedes national laws and overrides the Constitution. Working in collaboration with government agencies, corporations have engaged in enforcement, censorship, and warrantless surveillance, often doing what the government is legally prohibited from doing.

Some believe that this public-private alliance, which overrides democratic institutions, is necessary because the crises humanity are facing—including climate change and racism—are so dire.

“The climate crisis is about human security, economic security, environmental security, national security and the very life of the planet,” President Joe Biden said in his speech at the U.N. COP27 summit on Nov. 11.

Calling for a “sustainability revolution” at the COP27 conference, former Vice President Al Gore condemned “the culture of death that surrounds our addiction to fossil fuels by digging up dead life forms and burning them recklessly in ways that create more death.”

But others are wary about this concentration of power and authority in so few hands, and the public’s loss of a voice or vote in such major decisions about the future.

“How you address racial inequity or global climate change, these are important enough questions that we should resolve them through free speech and debate in the public square by putting people into public office who are accountable to the American electorate. Companies are not accountable, BlackRock is not accountable, Larry Fink is not accountable,” Ramaswamy said.

“This is the heart of the question that was an issue in 1776, where we said for better or worse, citizens decide how to settle these common political questions through the political process where everyone’s voice and vote counts equally.”

New York University Finance Professor Aswath Damodaran told the Prague Finance Institute in November 2021: “Do you really want Larry Fink and Jamie Dimon deciding what’s good or bad for the world? You’ve outsourced what should be your responsibility as a voter, as a citizen, to CEOs of companies. Nothing good has ever come of doing that.”


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861

.
©>
©All information posted on this site is the private property of the individual author and AWRM.net and may not be reproduced without permission. © 2001-2020 AWRM.net All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.1.1