The New Authoritarian Agenda Revealed (Globalism Rebranded)
From Brandon Smith
In July of last year as the hype surrounding the Covid pandemic was finally dying out, I came across a video promoting a barely publicized project called the “Council for Inclusive Capitalism.” The group, headed by Lynn Forester de Rothschild, is the culmination of decades of various globalist agendas combined to represent the ultimate proof of conspiracy.
Remember when people used to say that global governance by elitists was a paranoid fantasy?
Well, now it's openly admitted reality.
BGG - Transcript
We are answering Pope Francis’ challenge to create more inclusive economies that spread the benefit of capitalism more equitably and allow individuals to realize their full potential. A majority of people around the world say that they think their families will be worse off in five years. That’s a scenario that we simply can’t accept.
Too much wealth has accreted to too few people. If you make money, what’s the point if you’re not prepared to share it? If the people who help make that wealth for you can’t live with dignity? It’s inclusive capitalism, though, and we have to recognize that starting from where we are to where we need to get to, we need to bring everyone along and there will be adjustments that come with that. We do need the private sectors, ingenuity, capital, technology, people, everything, their passion to come to the party.
We want to operate in a sustainable way where incentives are aligned across generations, not just across quarters, and the main actors take a long-term perspective. Aligning our innovation with the U.N.’s sustainable development goals and the priorities of inclusive capitalism is both a business and sustainability imperative. Two reasons I think why I’d say concrete commitments to inclusive capitalism matter.
I mean, the first, and not to be underestimated, really important, is they can inspire other people. The second thing that I would say around concrete public commitments is they can help build trust. Leaders in the business community can be a unifying force.
They can be a source of opportunity. They can be a source of understanding. So we as business leaders can step up and solve many of these economic problems.
I think business plays a very important role in resolving these challenges. I think businesses have to become part of the solution through leadership by example and through leadership by incentives. We are stewards of this earth.
It’s our duty to keep it clean and to keep it decent for future generations. I’m wanting to embark on this journey to provide the guidance and the assistance of the churches on social thought and whatever other consideration might be necessary, whether ethical or just social guidance, so that this group that has taken up such a noble task of making capitalism work for the good of humanity achieve its goal and land on target. So this is our vision.
This is our purpose. Look, the fact that different religions need to come together on all matters is just the crying need of the times in our world. Faith cannot be used to pull us apart.
Faith is meant to bring us together. And the fact that I’m a Sikh and somebody else is a different religion to me doesn’t matter. Our work is indeed about social justice, which is rooted in the gospel.
The idea that every person deserves to live in a just society. Capitalism is at the heart of innovation that creates higher standard of living. And we know that it’s been working, yet we also know we can do a lot better.
We need a new system focused on the well-being of people. It’s a big challenge, but if it is done right, the benefits will be immense. It’s not just an asset owner.
It’s not just an asset manager. It’s not just a CEO. It’s not just these boards of directors.
We have to work collectively over the long term. What I think capitalism has to stand for, to be inclusive capitalism, how we help everybody have equal access to the opportunity, have the economic mobility. The Council is a terrific body in which we can assemble a critical mass of companies to join and commit to concrete actions that not only affect and improve the communities in which we live, but affect the world community of which we’re all a part of.
We believe we need more than a thousand organizations on board. And only with this very purposeful collective action, we will see the systemic change across markets that will make capitalism truly inclusive. We invite all businesses, large and small, and individuals to join us as stewards for inclusive capitalism by going to our website, agreeing the principles, and making your own commitments to inclusive capitalism.
Please join us. Thank you.
The CIC is intimately tied to institutions like the World Economic Forum (WEF), the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), but it is primarily an attempt to link all these organizations more closely to the corporate world in an open display of cooperation.¹ The group pushes the spread of what they call “Stakeholder Capitalism.” This is the notion that international corporations are obligated to engage in social engineering. That’s another way of saying that corporations are required to manipulate citizens and governments with economic punishments and rewards.
We witnessed this agenda in action during the Covid lockdowns and the rush to enforce vaccine passports. These efforts would not have been possible without the cooperation of major corporate chains working hand-in-hand with national governments. Luckily, the strategy failed as local governments and the public fought back.
We have also seen stakeholder capitalism on display in the push for Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) guidelines among major companies. Most readers are probably familiar with ESG at this point, but keep in mind, the public was oblivious to the terminology until the past 2 years. Globalists have been developing ESG rules since 2005.² As Klaus Schwab of the WEF notes in his book Stakeholder Capitalism:
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 carrot and the stick
ESG was intended to be the tool that globalists and governments would use to force companies into the stakeholder capitalism model. It is a kind of social credit system, but for companies. The higher a company's ESG score, the more access to capital and lending they would have (easy money).
Modern ESG started out in 2005, initially focused on climate controls – influencing corporations to participate in the carbon credit marketplace or face additional taxation.
But, by 2016 it became something else. ESG widely adopted woke politics including Critical Race Theory, feminism, trans ideology, various elements of Marxism, etc.
This was the modern ESG that all of us are aware of today. It was an attempt to incentivize the business world to bombard the populace with woke messaging 24/7, and it worked, for a little while anyway.
The exposure of ESG is perhaps one of the greatest triumphs of the alternative media. It was proof that the “woke-ification” of our economy and society was not the result of some grassroots activist movement or the natural evolution of civilization. No, everything woke was a product, forced into existence by corporate and globalist interests.
It is with some disappointment I'm sure that Lynn Forester de Rothschild admitted the defeat of ESG at the B20 Summit in India recently. Though, as is usually the case, Rothschild admits that the goal will be to replace the term “ESG” with something else that the public is not as privy to while continuing to institute social credit scoring for companies as a means to dominate them.
BGG - Transcript
I think it goes some way in mitigating the backlash that ESG has suffered from over the last year or so, you know, especially when Larry Fink says ESG has been weaponized. And I’m sure that’s an area of concern for you, because we were just about gathering momentum on the issue of inclusive capitalism, and suddenly financiers and banks and investors all over the world thought that it was going too far. How do you see that backlash play out? So, I believe that ESG as a term should be put into the dustbin.
Okay. I don’t think we should try to defend ESG as a term, because it’s been sullied by, it’s been productized by too many people. There’s too much greenwashing around it.
There’s too much virtue singling. And people just think if they hang up an ESG shingle, that they are a virtuous company. And I would throw that in the dustbin.
And what I would do is I would go back to a narrative for the public about, let’s look at what great companies in history did to become great. Whether it was AT&T or here in India, ITC, two and a half decades ago, they looked at how are we treating our people? How are we treating the planet? And so I would say that what we should do is we should say that business at its best has always been in the business of providing the best products to their consumers. Built and designed by people who loved the product, who loved the company, who were fairly compensated, and businesses that lived in communities where they, the business, was an integral part of that community.
And doing all of those things creates more valuable companies. It’s been shown over and over again. So I would lose ESG, but I would really bear down on what are companies doing to profitably solve the problems of people and planet.
And I would do that as an investor. I would do that as an employee. I would do that as a board member.
I would do that as a journalist. Companies that are profiting while at the same time ruining people’s lives or ruining the planet, those are not long-term keepers. Those are the companies that should fall off down by the wayside.
We should elevate. We sometimes at the Council for Inclusive Capitalism call it a race to the top. We should invest in and work for companies that are taking care of people and planet.
That’s the way I would answer that. But something will replace ESG, right? Because all of this needs to be measurable, describable, and tangible for investors to find a way to invest in. So if you dustbin ESG for all the bad will that it has earned over the last couple of years, something else will take its place.
Is there a concept or an idea that you think could improve or actually deliver what ESG was meant to but didn’t? I think it’s vital that we deliver what ESG was meant to deliver. And ESG as a term was created almost by accident by the United Nations in a speech in 2005. And then it took on this huge life of its own and sullied itself in the process.
So I think that ESG will be replaced by responsible business. What kind of businesses do we want to invest in? What kind of businesses do we want to work for? And it will take the heat off of this ridiculous political rhetoric that people are weaponizing businesses that do the right thing for all of its constituents. So I’m happy to get rid of ESG and let that battle be fought by people who are anachronistic and not even relevant anymore.
It is typical for globalists to re-brand their projects whenever they get exposed. It’s merely a way to throw the public off the scent. However, I don't think this tactic is going to work anymore. Researchers are locked on to the ESG dynamic and changing the name will not help the establishment avoid scrutiny.
Globalists go on the defensive
I want to point out here that there has been a dramatic shift in globalist circles towards a defensive posture, rather than the offensive posture they held a couple years ago. Apparently, something went very wrong for them during Covid. They were brazen with their rhetoric not long ago, basically admitting their intentions to establish a global authoritarian system. Now they are sheepish and much more careful in the things they say.
To this end, most of the honest discussion on globalism is no longer found in the statements of the WEF or the halls of the Davos forums. Rather, the true agenda is discussed at less prominent climate change events such as B20 in India or the Summit for a New Global Financing Pact in Paris which I covered in July. These are the events where globalists now feel increasingly free to talk about what they really want.
Another admission by Rothschild at B20 should be noted as she suggests that Biden's “Inflation Reduction Act” is one of the best representations of incentivizing climate controls.
This just confirms what we already suspected; the Inflation Reduction Act had nothing to do with inflation. Rather, it was a way to divert taxpayer funds into government subsidies for carbon taxation and green tech. Taking money out of your pocket and handing it over to corporations who toe the ESG line.
The CIC wants to dictate global mandates that force companies to adopt ESG-like policies using trillions of dollars in climate funds ($7 trillion per year, to be exact).
BGG - Transcript
Welcome back, you are watching our continuing coverage here from the B20 Summit in New Delhi. Joining me now is someone who had one of the most provocative panels this morning, Lyn Rothschild was moderating the panel on climate finance, of course, been on the board of The Economist, Estee Lauder and been a long-term investor in India. Lyn, what an absolute pleasure to have you join us here on CNBC TV.
It’s great to have you back. I love being back in India. It’s such a pleasure.
It’s wonderful. You know, Lyn, let me start by asking you about that panel that you moderated this morning. As I pointed out, it was provocative because it addressed the real issues at this point in time.
But as you walk away from this summit today, do you walk away feeling more confident of being able to address the issue of climate finance and climate change? And do you believe that there is not just will, but now mobilization of capital and enough capital to be able to address this? I do believe that there is enough capital in the world to address the climate challenge. It’s a huge number. By 2050, we have to be spending $7.5 trillion a year in order to solve the problem.
Between 2011 and 2020, in total, between public and private finance, we spent $4.8 trillion. So our ramp-up has got to be enormous. You say the panel was provocative today, which I appreciate, because it keeps me more interested in things.
But I think the reason that you’re thinking that is because we didn’t deal in platitudes. We didn’t just say the money is there and that’s the end of it. Because the truth is that we desperately need good government policy to turbocharge the private markets.
And that’s what I try to draw out from the members of the finance industry and also the members of the hard-to-abate oil and gas and steel industry, all of whom are part of the program to make the transition to clean energy. But we can’t just snap our fingers and it will be done. And money is just not going to follow if there’s not a decent return.
So government subsidies, government regulations, government acceptance of risk at the first level, those are all things that need to be done in a very concrete fashion in order to unleash the amazing power of the capital markets. So I believe the money is there, but it’s got to be based on a very important public-private partnership. And the B20 India group that has worked for the last year to put this session together and then to take recommendations from the business community to the G20 leaders who will be here, I think has been exemplary.
The level of engagement from the leaders of the B20 India is really something I’ve never seen in any other B20. So kudos to India, kudos to the B20 India group for what they’ve done to really give the ideas that the G20 needs to listen to. Now we just need to get the ear of the G20 leaders and I think we’ll be fine.
Well, we look forward to that and it’s great to hear that the recommendations that have been put together here by the various task forces that have been working on the B20 India summit have resulted in some material recommendations. But you talked about turbocharging the program to ensure that we do make this transition and we make this transition in the right way. If I would ask you to prioritize, and you talked about public-private partnership, let’s start with public.
What would you like to be prioritized at this point in time? What should the G20 leaders take away from the recommendations? Well, on the question of financing climate, because again to the great credit of the B20 India group, they dealt not only with climate but also with social issues and with ESG issues. So if we take the climate lane, I think what governments need to do is frankly, governments should look at the United States Inflation Reduction Act. That is essentially $482 billion of government subsidies in order to make clean technologies affordable for the consumer and financeable for the capital markets.
That $482 billion, we believe, will turbocharge, to stay with that metaphor, for $2-4 trillion of investment over time. So our hundreds of billions will turn into trillions of investment. Now, every country can do something along those kinds of lines, like subsidizing building the electric grid, subsidizing carbon capture, subsidizing cleaning up methane.
So there are direct subsidies that I think governments should provide. Also, I think that governments should work with the multi-national development agencies to put into place debt instruments where governments take the first risk in some of these investments in clean technologies. Because right now the price point is not at the place where investors can make a reasonable return.
And until that’s the case, then we’re not going to have the level of investment that we need. And too often, I think, in the climate, environmental world, there’s a lack of acceptance that that’s the reality. But we can’t unleash the markets unless we have proven the business case.
We see that over and over again. So to the extent that government can partner with the private sector to make the private sector’s business… More viable. More viable, exactly.
We’ve got to profitably solve the problems of people and climate. So if a large part of the role that the government can play is to subsidize some of these new technologies and create the enabling regulatory architecture to ensure that we can move forward with some of these technologies, what’s the role and the relevance then of the private sector in being able to execute at scale and take some of these decisions forward commercially? So that’s a very good question. Because the private sector has obligations, number one, to be transparent so that government understands the work that’s being done and the goals that are being achieved.
If government subsidizes the private sector to decarbon part of its operations while taking care of their employees in a decent way, then it’s incumbent upon the private sector to be transparent about how it is reaching those goals. And we talked a lot in our report about how those goals should not just be a static, here is my greenhouse gas emission level. We might want to deal with those companies that have very high greenhouse gas emissions now, but government should support them in bringing that curve down.
And if the direction of greenhouse gas is down and the velocity that they’re doing it is fast, then that is something that deserves government support. Government should not only subsidize industries that are, we’re a wind farm, we’re a solar field. Yes, those are green, but they won’t give people the energy that they need or the steel that they need.
So we need to be realistic about where we are today and how we’re going to get to net zero, as we say. So not just investing in future technologies, but also ensuring that the current and existing technologies and industries, whether it’s oil and gas or cement and steel, etc., also make that transition to being cleaner and greener. So supporting them as well, I would imagine.
But I want to talk to you about India, Lin, and you’ve of course been a long-term investor and friend of India. And I think the last time that I saw you was when you announced that partnership with the Bharti Group. So how has India changed for you? What’s the view on India? You look way too young to remember that.
I don’t know how you remember that. I feel it was a different epoch of my life. But that was a great experience.
It was a great experience to invest in India. And being here this week reminds me of how much I miss coming here, except for the jet lag. That is a problem.
If I could do without the jet lag, it would be wonderful. This is a wonderful country. And as the world’s largest democracy, you have so much to show the world.
The Indian diaspora, both in the United States and the United Kingdom where I live, is really obviously just demonstrating the amazing ability of Indians. But the nation also has an incredible role to play. And I really look forward to this G20.
I think that it could be a pivotal time to bring so many disparate cultures and political environments to work together. It would be great. You’ve been a very vocal proponent of the need to change the way that capitalism has operated and the need for much more inclusive capitalism.
And that seems to be the running theme here at the G20. And that’s part of the prioritization of recommendations that India is putting forward as well on the need for much more inclusive growth. On that front, do you feel optimistic? Do you feel that we’ve moved the needle in the positive direction? Or do you feel that we’ve sort of stepped back? You know, I must give credit where credit is due.
The first time that I heard the term inclusive growth was in 2004 in India. I visited here with a group from the Asia Society and heard the political leadership speaking to the largest industrialists in the country and telling them that it was their obligation to grow, but to grow in an inclusive way so that all of society could come around. And I had never thought about economic growth in that way.
And for me, that was in the back of my head until the great financial crisis. And then when the great financial crisis hit, and as Warren Buffett said, you know, the tide went out and suddenly we saw all the rich people. And they were rich, but so much of society had been left behind.
And that’s when I became passionate and devoted to we’ve got to grow our economies. We’ve got to accept that capitalism is the greatest engine for poverty reduction. But only if we as investors and we as chief executives and management run our companies for the benefit of all.
So we have to be profitably solving the problems of people on the planet. That’s our role as business leaders. So do you think within the investment community, I mean, you know, we’ve seen many ways of being able to address this.
People are now looking at the triple bottom line. And that’s been the trend for the last several years. We’ve now got consulting companies coming up with common metrics to be able to judge companies on ESG.
How has that changed the way that investors are putting money into companies and evaluating those investments? So your question is right. Have we moved to the needle? And if we go back and we think of 2009, we’ve moved a long way. We are inching toward ways to measure climate action and also action on on workers, which we must remember.
So we’re moving in the right direction, but we still haven’t reached the virtuous cycle where money chases those companies that are doing the best things regarding the planet and regarding their people. So I think we’re inching toward that. Sadly, in America, we have a blowback against these things, which I don’t sense you have here.
But there’s a blowback where the issue of taking care of the planet or taking care of your workers or taking care of your communities is somehow seen as a political action instead of as a true value creator for the best companies, which is why it should be done. You’re lucky to not have the blowback here that we have in America. I’ll end by asking you about technology, because that’s the other big theme that people here are focusing on in a led world.
What is it going to mean for business? What is it what is it going to mean for the average citizen across the world? How do you look at the changes, the disruption as well as the opportunities that technology is currently throwing up? First of all, trying to stop technology is like trying to stop the wind. So it’s not going to happen. We’re not going to stop it.
And naturally, I’m an optimist. So I believe that it’s correct for government to look at guardrails and probably to be as simple, maybe not light touch, but as simple as possible in terms of protecting the privacy of people, protecting information for people, protecting jobs. Government should be involved, but I’m an optimist that technology and innovation is all for the good.
Well, Lynn, it’s been an absolute pleasure to see you once again, and we look forward to seeing you back in India. Thank you very much for joining us here on CNBC TV 18. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your time. We will take a break. The conversations will continue.
We’re right back with you back in a minute.
Think of it this way:
- Any company that “volunteers” to use less efficient green tech and to promote climate ideology gets access to government funds – they get rewarded.
- Any company that refuses to go along with the plan will ultimately face heavy taxation while trying to compete with their subsidized peers – they are forced out of business.
Sound familiar? It’s not your imagination…
This is, essentially, the early stages of a global communist/collectivist economic regime.
“Inclusive capitalism” is a hoax
And here we get to the crux of the issue.
There is no “inclusive capitalism.”
There is no “stakeholder capitalism.”
There is no “ESG.”
Climate change is not an existential threat.
Covid was never as severe as they wanted you to think.
What do these things have in common? All of these issues represent smoke and mirrors, a way to distract the populace from the root intent to create total centralization in the hands of a select few elites. The prize for them is to convince the public to embrace economic micromanagement. This is what ESG was all about. This is what Inclusive Capitalism is all about.
The globalists want to hand-pick winners and losers. Worse still, they want to use your money to reward the faithful and punish the skeptical. Their goal is to build a global economic panopticon, an unescapable prison where every transaction is monitored, evaluated, authorized or denied and (of course) recorded.
A central bank digital currency (CDBC) is a crucial milestone in their progress toward this goal. Just imagine how much easier this will be when the 100 or so largest, most influential corporations in the world are on-board and enthusiastic about such a development…
I wrote about this not long ago:
All privacy in trade will be gone, except for those people engaging in barter, black markets and commodity-based transactions. This is one of the main reasons global central banks have persistently killed the idea of intrinsically-sound money, like physical gold and silver, for the last 50 years. Remember, barter and black markets are more or less by definition off the books. Untaxed, unregulated and untrackable.
But don’t be misled – this is much more than an issue of privacy.
Implementation of CBDCs would also mean that ownership of money and the ability to transact, to participate in the economy, will become privileges, not rights.
In communist China, use of digital payments is tied to a social credit system. Want access to your checking and savings accounts? Better not say anything critical of the Party, or you could be reported by a neighbor (or a stranger) using the tattletale function on their smartphone. Digital money can disappear in seconds. Want your money back? Prove that you are “loyal” to the Party. There are many subtle levels between “upstanding citizen” and “outlaw,” though, and the CCP adjust their citizens’ financial statuses constantly. Bad social credit might mean taxis won’t even stop for you. That you’re prevented from purchasing from upscale shops. (Insufficiently healthy? Your e-yuan won’t even let you buy junk food at 7-11. Seriously!) The citizen is guilty until proven innocent.
Once the economy is locked into an ideological prison and access to private trade can be denied by a handful of bureaucrats working with corporations, the establishment then has the means to dictate all of society.
Our behaviors, our beliefs, our principles, our morals.
For if the government has the power to determine whether you and your family eat or starve, they have the power to compel you to do anything.
This is why owning untraceable, intrinsically valuable physical precious metals is crucial to your own personal liberty. Today, now, while you still can, diversify your savings with an alternative form of money that will always be accepted, without question, anywhere in the world.
There’s a reason the globalists hate gold and silver. They’re virtually the only financial assets you can own that are “off the books.” Just as untrackable as cash (they hate cash, too, but not as much) and, better yet, uninflatable, unhackable and free from central bank meddling.
Fight the globalist agenda every step of the way. And make sure that, no matter what, you and your loved ones can endure their tyranny without compromising your beliefs.
Brandon Smith has been an alternative economic and geopolitical analyst since 2006 and is the founder of Alt-Market.com.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Birch Gold Group.
BGG - About the Author
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Birch Gold Group.
BGG - About the Reviewer
Sources
- “Strengthening UN–IFI Collaboration.” NYU Center on International Cooperation. https://cic.nyu.edu/program/promoting-and-defending-multilateralism/strengthening-un-ifi-collaboration/
- “Environmental, Social, and Governance Investing: A Primer for Central Banks & Reserve Managers.” The World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/677271630474233931/pdf/Environmental-Social-and-Governance-Investing-A-Primer-for-Central-Banks-Reserve-Managers.pdf
BGG - CTA Option 2
