from Birch Gold Group:
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.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
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. 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. 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.
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.
