Enemies of the People: Klaus Schwab

'I've Really Put You Through a Lot, Haven't I?'

Everybody's favorite Bond villain, Klaus Schwab, is back, taking his carbon footprint on the Road To Bali to advocate once more for a fascist takeover of the world, let by a combination of oligarchs and their puppets in "democratic" governments. All that's missing is the scar and the pussycat.

Klaus Schwab kicked off this year’s B-20 meeting in Indonesia Monday by calling for a wholesale “restructuring” of the world’s economic, political, social, and ecological systems. During his call for a global overhaul, Schwab – a German economist who serves as chairman of the World Economic Forum – said the restructuring will not only take “several years” to accomplish, but will likely include suffering for ordinary people. 

“If you look at all the challenges, we can speak about a multi-crisis, an economic, political, social, ecological and institutional crisis. But actually, what we have to confront is a deep systemic — and structural — restructuring of our world. And this will take some time. And the world will look differently after we have gone through this transition process,” he said.

How much more of this monster does the world need to see before the alarm bells go off? Even scarier is this thought: maybe this is what everybody really wants. If you're not one of them, fight back with this.

Diary of an Acclimatised Beauty: Hailing

London is filled with Americans. Nearly everywhere I turn I hear them as they shuttle between Harrods and Fortnum’s. I think they booked when the pound was down but frankly it’s nice to hear chatter that doesn’t involve a litany of complaints about the royal family when we are all clearly counting on King Charles to be the green-king he is poised to be. They do, however, ask about the future of Harry and Andrew—as if we know more than they can read in their papers. But the main thing I am noticing… they are taking up all the ride-hailing cars (Uber and Lyft). My wait time has increased exponentially, which has me grumbling on occasion.

‘Take my car!’ Daddy’s voice boomed from his study when he heard me complaining to my app, ‘You seem to think it’s a Zipcar anyway’, he muttered in half voice.

It’s not that often that I take his car! But of course he’s frustrated with me as I have a car, (and a house and a charging station) all set up in California but I just don’t feel like being there at the moment. Too scary, too depressing. So I called back, ‘Uber is an electric fleet, Daddy!’ Which elicited no response. Hmm.

Waiting for me back home in L.A.

I went outside to wait for my ride which wasn’t an electric one by the way. I looked up to see Daddy waving from his front-facing window. The car also wasn’t cool per my app settings either. Or quiet. In fact he had the windows open and some music playing. And he was on the phone. Then some small chat about where to take me (he wasn’t quite sure) and so he pulled over while three electric black cabs zoomed past.

I sorted the driver out, asked him to pull up the windows and sank back into my seat to research further. Seems one third of all London taxis are now electric, to only 13 percent of Uber’s fleet. More than double. Ugh! As I kept scrolling it became clear that asking to close the windows didn’t also clue the driver in to turning on the AC. Much in the same way that taking a job as a driver didn’t clue him in to the use of deodorant, so I quickly asked him to re-open the windows with me taking responsibility and apologising—so very British of me.

My destination was one of those labyrinthine sections of London which requires knowing where it is in order to reach it by car. I got dropped off where it clearly wasn’t.  With ankle straps cutting in on both of my legs and a permanent scuff on my new Mach & Mach heels I wasn’t in the best of moods for anyone’s art showing.

‘Looks like you need a drink’ the gallery girl said, and led me over to a group already sipping on champagne. ‘You missed the artist’ I was told by a gentleman who looked as though he had raided Gianni Agnelli’s closet.

‘Oh…well my driver…’ I said.

‘Driver? Sack him’, the gentleman said.

‘Well, he’s not exactly my… I mean, I took an Uber’, I said. 

‘Uber? WHY?’ he shot back.

‘Why?? Because I was hoping to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions and…’ 

‘My dear… they are the mob! They pushed in, breaking every rule and once they got a market share—well THEN they said the people need us, and we have to stay’.

Waves of the future?

I hadn’t been prepared to defend Uber as 'not the mob'.  Environmental arguments I could make… this was something else. I made my way to the other end of the gallery and when I saw people slipping out for dinner I did the same.

I walked a couple of blocks to where I thought an Uber could find me but two drivers cancelled so I gave up and walked to Cecconi’s. It was mobbed. Not unlike their restaurant in West Hollywood but of course there, they knew me. I put on my best California accent but it was lost on the Italian hostess. Finally I just explained that I didn’t have a reservation, that I was a regular in West Hollywood, where we don’t walk except when hiking and certainly not in braided silver sandals, and would she please let me order a plate of pasta at the bar. She did, and I rewarded her with a Hollywood-style tip.

I was tired when finally I returned home and I didn’t have time to read so many conflicting facts so I asked Daddy to help me make the case for carbon pricing. ‘The conflict is that you are trying to make an argument for the wrong side’, he said.

'My SIDE is the environment, as you very well know, and therefore I have to be in favour of carbon pricing’. 

‘I see’, he said, ‘And there may be a time you can do that but at the moment… decarbonisation is a costly goal. And one nobody wants to pay for’.

‘I thought of that’, I said, ‘so instead of high visibility projects, we subsidise private sector, grant concessions, offer tax rebates… it’s a win-win'.

‘Uh, no Jennifer, it’s a lose-lose. You offer spreading the pain so that everyone pays. You can impose whatever you wish but the public still pays a price—whether in higher taxes, lower amenities, or a degraded environment, which is what you have now—congestion fees, higher fares, lesser service, and roads clogged up with ride-hails’.

‘It sounds bad—but then we just need more regulation.’

‘You HAD regulation—you had regulated black cabs, but then Uber bucked regulations, and now you have a choice of something that is not more affordable, or safer, or greener. And once they put the black cabs out of business do you imagine they will work cheaper out of the goodness of their hearts?’

‘So what now?’ I asked.

‘Well China has a plan. They are regulating their ride-hail services by taking over their apps… they erase out-of-favor companies from their maps, they lock dissidents from their cars, they control all routes… And voila! It’s a green choice!’

'Daddy!’

‘No matter… your plan is to tax people for not using mass transit, correct? So you’ll end up subsidising something that no one uses. Kind of like the bike lanes we have now.’

All this, plus Covid-free!

I was defeated. I knew the bike lanes were leading to more congestion and more pollution. And ride-hailing was proving to be worse for the environment than driving one’s own car. I opened my laptop to see if the cabbies union had an argument. Nada. Why was this?  Seems their union argued against them… claiming ‘drivers matter’ (as in all drivers matter) which meant a larger pool of members, more power in numbers, and as for the mob comment… they really had muscled in. I was nowhere.

I emerged from my pensive funk when I heard my father putting ice in the drinks trolley. ‘G&T?’ he asked.

‘Yes, please, and question… what to do? I’ve got nothing’.

‘Actually you’ve got another Greenpeace—'

‘—whom I abandoned because they were doing more harm than good'.

‘Precisely’. 

The penny dropped. 'So the black cab is my cause?’

‘Well', he said, raising a glass, 'there’s always organised crime’.

AGAINST THE GREAT RESET: 'Then Fall, Davos'

Published today by Bombardier Books in conjunction with Simon and Schusterthe-Pipeline.org is proud to present Against the Great Reset: 18 Theses Contra the New World Order. Edited by Michael Walsh, our distinguished contributors are drawn from across the Anglosphere, and include Victor Davis Hanson, Douglas Murray, Roger Kimball, the late Angelo M. Codevilla, James Poulos, Conrad Black, Michael Anton, David P. Goldman, Janice Fiamengo, John Tierney, Harry Stein, Salvatore Babones, Martin Hutchinson, Alberto Mingardi, Jeremy Black, Richard Fernandez, and Michael Walsh.

What is the Great Reset and why should we care? What are its aspirations, prescriptions, and proscriptions, and how will it prospectively affect us? Why is the Swiss-based World Economic Forum (WEF) under Klaus Schwab advocating a complete “re-imagining” of the Western world’s social, economic, and moral structures? And why now? What are its aspirations, prescriptions, and proscriptions, and how will it prospectively affect us?

Weighty historical issues are often best debated promptly, when something can yet be done about them; in the meantime, historians of the future can at least understand the issues as the participants themselves saw and experienced them. Whether the formerly free world of the Western democracies will succumb to the paternalistic totalitarianism of the oligarchical Resetters remains to be seen. But this is our attempt to stop it.

Please join us in our crusade.

Against the Great Reset

On sale today. Please order at the links above.

With governments around the world still refusing to entirely let go of some Covid-19 restrictions on liberty, we herewith present an excerpt from "The Shape of Things to Come: the Tyranny of Covid-19" by John Tierney:

The Great Resetters have got one thing right in their manifesto at the World Economic Forum: the Covid-19 pandemic has indeed provided a “unique window of opportunity,” although not the kind of window they have in mind. They mean it’s a chance to “build a new social contract,” entrusting the governance of society to globalists and technocrats blessed with “vision and vast expertise”—i.e., themselves. But before we sign away our future to them, we should consider what they’ve done, and the pandemic offers us a unique window into the world they wish to create.

They have used Covid to conduct a trial run of the Great Reset. It has been the most radical public health experiment in history, conducted on the entire population by scientists and bureaucrats granted unprecedented authority to deploy their “vast expertise.” At the start of the pandemic, even Dr. Anthony Fauci doubted that Americans would submit to a lockdown like China’s. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s long-standing plan for dealing with a pandemic didn’t recommend mask mandates, school closures or any shutdown of businesses. But the plan was cast aside by leaders who claimed the power to close anything for as long as they deemed fit.

Their new social contract banned or restricted commerce, education, recreation, travel, dining, and meetings—even family gatherings for weddings, holidays, and funerals. The CDC became the national landlord by forbidding any tenants from being evicted. The Four Freedoms famously declared by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1941 were suspended. Freedom of speech was limited on social media platforms—today’s public square—by censoring those who questioned the opinions of Fauci and his colleagues. Freedom of worship was restricted to Zoom. There was no freedom from want for those who lost their jobs and businesses, and no freedom from fear for anyone who heeded the daily doomsday pronouncements from public officials.

Americans and people throughout the world were frightened into surrendering their basic liberties, and what did they get in return? Worse than nothing. There has never been convincing evidence that lockdowns reduced Covid mortality anywhere except possibly on a few islands and in other isolated spots that sealed their borders. The places that eschewed lockdowns and mask mandates, like Florida and Sweden, did better than their locked-down peers in preventing Covid deaths over the course of the pandemic. Meanwhile, there is no doubt that the lockdowns have caused large numbers of excess deaths from other causes and will likely prove more deadly than the coronavirus because of the long-term medical, social, and economic consequences.

One in three people worldwide lost a job or a business during the lockdowns, and half saw their earnings decline. Children, never at serious risk from the virus, in many places lost a year or more of school—and of normal childhood as they were confined to home or forced to stare at one another behind masks. Worldwide, the rate of hunger rose dramatically as the economic fallout of the West’s lockdowns pushed more than one hundred million people in developing countries into extreme poverty.

The one great technocratic triumph—the rapid development of Covid vaccines—was achieved by the private sector in America, the nation ritually denounced by progressives for not shackling its pharmaceutical industry with price controls (like the ones that drove the industry’s most productive researchers from Europe to America). The vaccines were subsidized by taxpayers, but they did not require rewriting the social contract. It’s clear in retrospect that there was
no need during the pandemic for any sort of reset, great or otherwise, and that the extraordinary powers granted to bureaucrats and politicians produced an unparalleled public-policy disaster. Except during wartime and possibly the Great Depression, when else has the ruling class in America inflicted so much needless suffering on the entire populace?

Schwab: "you will own nothing and be happy."

Yet the response to Covid is now being hailed as a model for dealing with climate change and the rest of the Great Resetters’ agenda. Their chutzpah would be laughable if it weren’t for their success in persuading so many people—a majority in surveys—that their mandates have been necessary and effective. If they continue to hide their mistakes from the public, they will exploit that window of opportunity to seize more power. We all need to see clearly what went wrong in their trial run—and why the Great Reset would be still worse.

The Great Reset is being sold as a bold innovation, a novel strategy employing a grab bag of emerging technologies called the Fourth Industrial Revolution. But it’s not new. Strip away the Davos jargon, and the Great Reset is Plato’s dream of a philosopher king society. Intellectuals have always yearned for a world run by intellectuals, and politicians have always found reasons to give themselves more power.

The pandemic panic was the worst example yet of a phenomenon I call the Crisis Crisis: the endless series of alarms fomented by a codependency of politicians, technocrats, activists, and journalists. This crisis industry is a long-standing problem—the ruling and chattering classes have always exploited crises, real or imagined—that has worsened exponentially with cable news and the web. These fearmongers don’t need to worry about accuracy—or the damage when the panic leads to a cure that’s typically worse than the disease. By the time they’re proven wrong, their false alarms will be forgotten, and journalists will be seeking their wisdom on a new crisis... the tyranny of Covid should be a lesson in what not to do and whom not to trust.

The Deadly Threat of 'ESG'

In recent months there has been growing awareness about the detrimental nature of the environmental, social and governance construct known as ESG. Using the pretense of social diversity and environmental protection allegedly needed to repair damage caused by capitalism, ESG represents an expanding threat to many industries, to the larger corporate culture and increasingly, to America itself.

The ESG construct creates competing frameworks, reporting systems, and scoring systems for environmental and social reporting—but without quantifiable economic measurements or metrics. While presently focused on publicly traded companies, ESG is being used to evaluate private companies and eventually even individuals, thus creating a social credit score not unlike what Communist China uses to oppress its citizens.

While the origins of ESG reach back over two decades, with the initial funding by the World Economic Forum (WEF) of the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), the network that grew from that initial effort consists predominantly of governments, non-profit organizations, and large publicly traded companies and their capital and banking partners. Together they have created a validation feedback loop that promotes political and social change using the capital markets—other peoples’ money—to re-direct investment capital toward companies that align with the political and social worldview of ESG activist profiteers.

Guess who?

Though touted as a non-political effort, but sounding conspicuously ideological, the progenitors of ESG assert,“ without the intervention of non-market entities such as the state, international organizations and social forces, capitalism as an economic system simply will not safeguard our planet."

While the legality of re-directing investor capital to achieve political and social outcomes has yet to be adjudicated, there is no question that banking and asset management firms intend to force political change.

In 2017, BlackRock CEO, Larry Fink, said he intended to change the direction of corporate America. “At Blackrock we are forcing behaviors,” he said of the company’s ESG scoring approach. “You have to force behavior, and if you don’t force behavior whether it’s gender or race or any way you want to say the composition of your team, you’re going to be impacted.”

By incentivizing companies with the prospect of higher management and consulting fees, and the ability to direct the capital toward companies in their portfolios that reflect their politicized world view, investor "best interest" is sacrificed. Best interest, a legal obligation, has never been part of the calculus of the ESG gangsters. Knowing that markets and democratic institutions would never offer them a path to their vision of the world, they need other peoples’ capital to force the creation of their dark, unfree world.

While profit-making would still not make ESG social scoring any more acceptable, the current capital re-orientation efforts have been unequivocally disastrous for investors. In June, BlackRock posted a stunning $1.7 trillion loss of investor capital, the largest loss ever for a single firm in a six-month period. Helping BlackRock achieve these disastrous outcomes was Unilever, run by Alan Jope. The consumer-goods giant put its sustainability plan to a shareholder vote where it passed with 99.6 percent shareholder support. Let’s hear it for groupthink!

At the time Jope said he credited BlackRock with leading the support and described the investment firm as "one of the finest commentators on sustainability and what companies should be doing.” Not surprisingly Jope was recently fired. Investors don’t agree with BlackRock’s Fink, Jope or the WEF. Jope’s tenure began in 2019 and he immediately began parroting the WEF’s stakeholder capitalism spiel and espoused the same ESG mandates promoted by BlackRock.

Jope-a-dope.

Through this alignment of overly interested global actors and self-interested financial services actors, the ESG construct has been able to get a footing in the boardrooms of publicly traded companies. But needing to create the perception of upholding fiduciary obligations, "stakeholder capitalism" has become the philosophical underpinning ESG. By expanding and conflating shareholders (investors) with stakeholders (everyone else), the activist class believes it can perpetrate an anti capitalist slight-of-hand: changing a free society into a centrally planned and controlled society.

According to WEF Founder, Klaus Schwab, "stakeholder capitalism" is a system in which private corporations are moral trustees of society and work for the benefit of everyone. Stakeholder capitalism is celebrated by BlackRock to Bank of America and from the WEF to Wall Street. Certainly not groups one thinks of as “working for the benefit of everyone.” Toward their centrally planned end, Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan said, "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 the International Business Council.”

Unconcerned about the rights of investors, and feeling triumphant over publicly traded companies, ESG activists are now more assertively turning their sights toward private equity and even individuals. While many of the largest private equity firms have already willingly begun to report their ESG data, many still do not. According to CDP’s strategy document:

Accelerating the Rate of Change: 2021-2025… businesses, including private companies, need to overhaul their operations and ensure they will remain viable within environmental boundaries. Governments must set the example and provide the regulatory environment that supports and encourages responsible corporate action.

The message is clear: do what you’re told or you will not be permitted to participate in their centrally planned society. From publicly traded companies to private companies, the activists class intends to control everyone, including individuals.

Those efforts are already beginning. Bans on natural gas-powered stoves and heating systems in California and Washington State for new construction are already in place. But even closer to home are the new generation of appliances. Some features are only available through an app the owner must upload on their phone. No app, no access to those feature. More creepy still are pregnancy tests. Traditional indicators like +/- or single versus double bars have announced to women for years of the impending arrival of a crumb cruncher. In the new world of social scoring, however, those tests now offer a “result reader” that is available through an uploaded app on her phone. Slowly changing the behavior of consumers will allow these societal score-keepers to more easily track an individual’s carbon footprint.

Many legal challenges loom against ESG advocates and the firms that do their bidding. As in previous conflicts throughout history, victory isn't won simply by the efforts of businesses, but rather by individuals willing to defend the lines of liberty and personal autonomy.

THE COLUMN: DEI, Monster, DIE

Who would have thought that the essence of our modern cold (so far) civil war would not be capturing the radio stations and newspaper offices to proclaim the revolution but rather the acronyms, abbreviations, and contractions—the language itself? During the Eisenhower administration, the newly coined term "bafflegab" was often employed by the pro-Democrat media to describe Ike's often circumlocutory way of speaking. They thought Eisenhower, the victorious Supreme Allied Commander in World War II, was "stupid," especially as compared with their poorly shod wonderboy, Adlai Stevenson, whom Ike beat twice. Little did they know that Eisenhower was deliberately obfuscatory, to keep his real intentions and meanings private.

Milton A. Smith, assistant general counsel for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the inventor of the word, defined it as: “multiloquence characterized by consummate interfusion of circumlocution or periphrasis, inscrutability, and other familiar manifestations of abstruse expatiation commonly utilized for promulgations implementing Procrustean determinations by governmental bodies.” Today we recognize it as the lingua franca of the bureaucrat-educator class, especially those involved in mid-levels of government and those studying for their master's degree in education. A casual glance at the academic writings of Michelle Obama and "doctor" Jill Biden will immediately grasp its essence.

Ah, but such sesquipedalianism and deliberate obfuscation is rapidly going out of fashion, mostly because the TikTok generation can barely speak English, much less comprehend words with Latin roots. Among the young, Ebonics has combined with elision to create a whole new cant, slang, patois and vernacular designed to be understood solely by its adherents and meant to mask its real meaning. But rather than use long, real words, they now create new ones by means of contractions , abbreviations, acronyms, or simple neologisms. If, for example, you don't know what "Yeet the Teet" means, you could look it up. Indeed "transgenderism" will open a whole new linguistic world for you.

Acronyms, of course, date far back—think of Gerald Ford's WIN campaign, "whip inflation now"—but one of the most recent, and insidious, is DEI, which stands for "diversity, equity, and inclusion," the latest totalitarian assault on professional standards. For a time it stood for "diversity, inclusion, and equity" until one of the few non-illiterates on the Left realized that its acronym spelled out DIE," which after all is what they really want us to do. (It reminds me of the scene in Dr. Strangelove, in which Gen. Turgidson wonders what kind of name that is, and gets this response: " He changed it when he became a citizen. Used to be Merkwürdigliebe." To which Turgidson, played by George C. Scott, replies: "a Kraut by any other name, huh?")

Maybe they should have gone with IED, for improvised explosive device, which is really what the whole thing is: a Strangelovian domestic terrorism bomb, which we've learned to stop worrying about and instead love. In any case, here's what they want:

Diversity is the presence of differences that may include race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, nationality, socioeconomic status, language, (dis)ability, age, religious commitment, or political perspective.  Populations that have been-and remain- underrepresented among practitioners in the field and marginalized in the broader society.

Equity is promoting justice, impartiality and fairness within the procedures, processes, and distribution of resources by institutions or systems.  Tackling equity issues requires an understanding of the root causes of outcome disparities within our society.

Inclusion is an outcome to ensure those that are diverse actually feel and/or are welcomed.  Inclusion outcomes are met when you, your institution, and your program are truly inviting to all.  To the degree to which diverse individuals are able to participate fully in the decision-making processes and development opportunities within an organization or group.

I've bold-faced the bald-faced cultural Marxist argot of their terms so you might see through the benign mask of caring and sharing and see the nasty monster's puss beneath it. You will notice that exactly none of these things contributes anything to the advancement of the enterprise; they're simply more Marxist revanchism for the Lost Cause of their beloved Soviet Union, which died of incompetence in 1991, and for which they have never forgiven the Russians.

One aspect of the horror show is, of course, the oligarchic World Economic Forum and its Great Reset, headed up by Klaus Schwab, who in fact is a kraut by actual name. Another is the ascendant, now-institutional Left, which has captured the high ground of the U.S. government, higher education, Protestantism and Reform Judaism, much of mainstream Roman Catholicism, and a good deal of corporate America, which should know better.

Recently, Jonathan Haidt, a professor of psychology at New York University, announced that he is resigning from the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, thanks to a new DEI prescription that anyone presenting professional research must push "equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals," the word "anti-racism" having become the new, pro-active version of simple "diversity," seeking to replace one form of "discrimination" with another. "I believe that the conflict between truth and social justice is likely to become unmanageable," he said.

As Newspeak has grown in reach, it's become obvious to those who would wish this country ill disguise their harmful intentions with the language of therapeutic Christianity (strange bedfellows indeed). The diabolical Saul Alinsky made this clear with Rule No. 4 from Rules for Radicals: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” As Alinsky famously noted: "You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

If, say, a faith preaches "thou shalt not kill" then pester it with questions about war and capital punishment. If the religion preaches equality, they turn it into "equity." If its adherents have fostered a culture of professional excellence, challenge it with "inclusion" regardless of intelligence, skill, or aptitude. And when a business or institution claims to want diversity of thought, accuse them of racism; you really can kill them with this. DEI thus becomes the perfect Marxist weapon against the past, against custom, against family, against societal homogeneity, and against cultural self-defense. In this way does Critical Theory attack the very foundations of Western civilization.

The neo-Marxists' favorite weaponized word, however, is "tolerance." Alinsky-like, the Left has perverted this word from its original meaning, "endurance, the ability to bear pain or adversity; patience, fortitude," and has now come to mean "welcoming diversity, inclusion, and equity"—or else. That is to say, a word that means "acceptance" only in its most dire, involuntary sense, is currently transmogrifying into celebrating vibrant differences until your cooperation and acquiescence is no longer needed in the fundamental transformation of your society. Like the radioactive meteorite  on the Witley estate in the 1965 Boris Karloff film (based on H.P. Lovecraft's story, The Color Out of Space), their assault on the language poisons everything with which it comes into contact, eventually causing the grotesquely disfigured host to burst into flames and burn down the entire house.

So DEI, monster, die: this means you. There's nothing baffling about this gab, and they're not kidding when they say DEI, even if they spell it wrong.

Abundant Coral on the Great Barrier Reef? Sound the Alarm!

Despite assuring us in his 2009 inauguration speech that “this was the moment when the rise of oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal,” President Obama expressed concern about the health of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) when visiting Australia in November 2014. Later, in May 2015, he sat down for a televised meeting at the White House with British naturalist and climate scaremonger David Attenborough. They shared each other’s mutual concern.

How then can it possibly be? Coral cover on the Reef has hit a new record measured over two-thirds of its 2,300 km length, according to the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS). And, incidentally, remains at a relatively high level over the other (southern) third. What to say to spare Barack’s and Sir David’s blushes? Phew! Bullet dodged for the zillionth time. Relief all round? Well, not quite all round.

“We are in uncharted territory and still trying to understand what this means,” whined AIMS program leader Mike Emslie. The institute's CEO, Dr Paul Hardisty, knew what to do. Focus on the part of the Reef that had fallen short of a record. “A third of the gain in the coral cover recorded in the south in 2020/21 was lost last year due to ongoing crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks,” he said. And, risibly, with no sense of the ridiculous, added: “This shows how vulnerable the Reef is to continued acute and severe disturbances that are occurring more often, and are longer-lasting.”

Come on is, the water's fine.

A healthy GBR does not spell success? Not if you want to continue to attract multi-millions of government research dollars it doesn’t. And not if you want to use the state of the Reef to further the apocalyptic climate-change agenda. Never mind, Emslie and Hardisty can look forward to better days ahead. The coral cover is almost bound to decline next year from its record level and their tendentious dire warnings can resume unhindered by an ill-behaved Reef. Though, to be clear, the actual state of the Reef is incidental to its perpetual imminent demise.

"Climate change" is not about physics or facts. Never has been. It’s about politics. The GBR will always be on the brink of destruction. Equally, on a broader canvass, climate change is a gift designed to be forever giving. No one would seriously support renewable energy in its prevailing forms if they really wanted to reduce CO2 emissions. No one who was serious would preach about Australia’s miniscule emissions while studiously ignoring the clear intent of China and India to expand their economies on the back of fossil-fuels.

I looked it up. The world’s oldest operating wind turbine (assuming it’s still whirling as we speak) was commissioned in Denmark in 1978. Forty-four years and 837GW of wind capacity later, CO2 yearly emissions continue to climb. Not a success, I’d venture to say. But, to reiterate, that depends upon what's meant by success.

The elite among climate-obsessed people don’t want success. They want failure. That’s success to them. And seeing CO2 emissions plummeting would be a much bigger and evident failure than a healthy GBR. It would be the very last thing they would want. They want our world to be in a constant state of trepidation. Starting with young school children, they want populations fearful that great floods and inundations, extreme forest fires, unparalleled droughts and cyclones, and millions of climate refugees, are always just around the corner; unless we mend our ways. And, naturally, unless we give them more power to help us mend our ways.

Give us more money or the penguins get it.

Keep populations scared and there's no end of so-called improvements, not to mention sacrifices, that can be foisted on them. That's the point. To build back better. To reset. Reset how? The big boys have the answer. Here’s Deloitte, in May 2022, as part of a self-serving report ("The turning point") on the end of the world as we know it unless we embrace de-carbonisation and, needless to say, Deloitte.

A coordinated transition [to a decarbonised future] would require governments, along with the financial services and technology sectors, to catalyze, facilitate, and accelerate progress; foster information flows across systems; and align individual incentives with collective goals.

Collectivism is given a whole new guise. Not so much workers of the world unite, but governments and Fortune 500 companies unite. And, verbiage aside, notice the unity among the big boys, best exemplified in the Davos Manifesto (latest 2020 version).

A company is more than an economic unit generating wealth. It fulfills human and societal aspirations as part of the broader social system... Corporate global citizenship requires a company to harness its core competencies, its entrepreneurship, skills and relevant resources in collaborative efforts with other companies and stakeholders to improve the state of the world.

Company men (and women) working collaboratively with their rivals? Mark Antony’s aside seems apropos. “Mischief, thou art afoot.” Compare past giants of industry, striving for ascendancy over their rivals. Seeking profits aplenty. Samuel Johnson provides an instructive perspective. “There are few ways in which a man can be more innocently employed than in getting money.”

We're all right, mate.

Allowing governments and companies in some collaborative global order to oversee an ‘improvement’ in the state of the world betrays a pitiable knowledge of human nature. The thing about free-market capitalism is that it produces prosperity while allowing the worst excesses of human nature to find expression in unseemly piles of money.

The alternative, collectivist system, in whatever guise it presents itself, produces relative poverty while allowing the worst excesses of human nature to find expression in despotism. In the persecution and cancellation of political opponents. In unequal justice. Already evident, you might say, in the United States. It is, but the surface has been only scratched. There is much more unequal justice to be divvied out in the new world order.

Stretch a point. Assume Deloitte and the World Economic Forum and their corporate and elite fellow travelers have benign intentions in seeking to improve the world. Then they’re naïve fools. It’s as simple as that. If, on the other hand, they are out to lord it over lesser beings, which seems more likely, then they’re sinister scoundrels. Whichever it is, unresolved apocalyptic climate change is their ticket to power. A dream come true, ever rising CO2.

The Malign Genesis of ESG—Part 2

With BlackRock’s recent acknowledgement that it lost $1.7 trillion of investors’ capital in the first six months of 2022, the truth about the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) construct—the inherent cultural Marxism of the name really tells you everything you need to know—has been splayed open, revealing what could only be described as a contrived correlation between investment risk and environmental risk.

Rather than criteria intended to mitigate investment risk, as has been repeatedly asserted by BlackRock CEO, Larry Fink, the ESG construct is actually an effort to develop a financial system that re-orients capital flows toward political and social ends which include government regulation, communal property rights, and social scoring. It is an organized effort to wrest control of private property from the hands of owners and transfer it to a global nomenklatura under the guise of "protecting" the environment and repairing the "damage" done by capitalism. 

As described here yesterday, these activists use layered non-profit organizations, foundations, and non-governmental organizations (NGO's), to undermine business culture, interfere with free markets, and circumvent democratic institutions. Using reliably self-interested and feckless financial and banking sector partners, companies like BlackRock and State Street Capital have abandoned their fiduciary obligations in exchange for higher management and consulting fees and greater leverage to direct capital toward investments that buttress their worldview.

Gimme, gimme, gimme.

As self-ascribed arbiters of permissible corporate and social values, these ostensibly independent financial sector experts act more like cultish evangelizers than disinterested asset managers. They seek to codify political views into boardrooms and across industries using other peoples’ capital—leveraging it to change behavior and directing it toward investments that align with their values. In  more enlightened decades such a scheme may have been considered coercion or collusion. But in the 2020s, financial leaders fancy it sophisticated enlightenment.

The first and most critical threshold these central planners established was to expand and conflate shareholders (investors) with stakeholders (non-owners, communities and entities outside the company). They began by expanding the understanding of shareholders to include these “stakeholders” that necessarily underpin stakeholder capitalism. It is a system, according to World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab, in which private corporations are (imaginary) trustees of society and work for the benefit of everyone. Codifying this concept has been successful inasmuch as stakeholder capitalism has been integrated into the MBA programs of every major business school in the U.S. and around the world starting nearly three decades ago. Those students are the C-Suite leaders of today. They have become the reflexive mouthpieces of the ESG/Industrial Complex, promulgating a construct the genesis of which they are ignorant—and the impact of which they do not understand.

Once non-owners, communities, and supply chains are given standing through stakeholder capitalism, the follow-on concept of “natural capital” can more easily be integrated into the corporate psyche. As articulated in the Carbon Disclosure Project’s (CDP) most recent report, “Accelerating the Rate of Change: 2021-2025,” these stakeholder advocates assert that the most pressing objective to ensure the culmination of decades of work is to codify the concept of natural capital as having parity with financial capital.

Under the ESG construct, "natural capital" refers to the entire planet's stocks of water, land, air, and renewable and non-renewable resources such as plant and animal species, forests, and minerals. Already protected by the current statutory and regulatory framework that includes the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Air Act—among the tens of thousands of pages of administrative rules and regulations enacted under the authority of these and other statutes—"natural capital" is intended to be the agent of change, not the point of the change. This newly sought parity represents a radical and game-changing extension of commonly understood financial capital. Successfully equating "natural capital" with financial capital would entrench stakeholder capitalism into corporate boardrooms and irreparably harm the country and economy.

"Parity" would provide the necessary portal through which these ESG-activist entities could fully gain control of corporations. After achieving complete control over business, they seek to dictate how a company monetizes its properties, the manufacturing processes from which it derives revenue, and to whom the company sells its product or service. If natural capital is given parity to financial capital, there is no longer any private property. Under the stakeholder-inspired understanding of capitalism whereby property can be controlled by everyone, it is owned by no one.

Bend over, comrade. It's for the common good.

At scale, this scheme will impact individual corporations and entire industry sectors, including American oil and gas. Abundant and inexpensive energy is central to a thriving capitalist economy. The U.S. oil and gas industry consistently delivers low-impact, inexpensive, and abundant energy. With a commitment to efficient, rapid, and environmentally superior extraction technology, the industry has improved the well-being of people and communities around the world. ESG unequivocally threatens its future. 

Because America is the only country in the world in which oil and gas mineral rights are privately owned, the U.S. oil and gas sector is not only a symbolic Marxist-socialist enemy but also a highly strategic target of the ESG/Industrial Complex. The significance of this fact cannot be overstated. By seeking to gain control of the energy sector through the ESG moral bludgeon, government regulation and divestment become not merely political initiatives in an ideological struggle but rather a critical battle for the survival of the entire industry, and by extension the entire U.S. domestic economy. It is therefore imperative that the response to reject and unwind the ESG movement be led by those from the oil and gas industry, joined by the agricultural, mining and construction sectors, all of whom have foreknowledge about the comping economic and political impact of ESG and the requisite resources and expertise to exploit its weaknesses and mount an effective counterattack.

According to the non-profit CDP, formerly known as the Carbon Disclosure Project, the ESG/Great Reset cabal wants "governments to introduce ambitious legislation that drives market changes. We create space for this by running a reporting mechanism that incentivizes good behavior, catalyzes the creation of new standards and prepares the market for the change to come.” In case you're wondering on which side they're on, here's their mission statement:

CDP runs the global environmental disclosure system. Each year CDP supports thousands of companies, cities, states and regions to measure and manage their risks and opportunities on climate change, water security and deforestation. We do so at the request of their investors, purchasers and city stakeholders. Over the last two decades we have created a system that has resulted in unparalleled engagement on environmental issues worldwide.

In sum, ESG is a front in an ideological war with real political, economic, and social consequences. It is a front in a non-kinetic war, which instead of guns, bombs and missiles employs the weapon of ESG to control speech, dictate how one can use his property, re-direct capital flows, and expand the role of government. Their objective is to control every aspect of the economy and business and to reorder national governments and human society.

The generals on their side don’t come from the military. Rather, they come from government, central banks, and the financial sectors. Meanwhile, the domestic oil and gas industry must defend the side of liberty in all its forms. It should not merely rebuff these attackers and render the ESG/Industrial Complex impotent, It must continue to strive for excellence in its development and delivery of energy. Meanwhile, the American people must stand shoulder to shoulder with them and help lay the foundation on which future generations will flourish.

The Malign Genesis of ESG - Part I

In the weeks since the S&P 500 announced Tesla’s removal from its ESG Index while inviting Exxon to join, but leaving Chevron out, the incongruous nature of the environmental, social and governance (ESG) construct has never been more obvious. It reveals what some might consider proof of the fraud that ESG represents. But what exactly is ESG? Where did it come from? Understanding its genesis and purpose of ESG will clarify what it actually is, not what many purport it to be. 

Beginning in 2000, the World Economic Forum (WEF) embarked on an initiative that over two decades later can only be described as a Trojan-horse attack on free markets, private property, and democratic institutions. Founded in 1971 by German engineer and economist Klaus Schwab, the WEF describes its mission in part as, "improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic, and other leaders of society to shape global, regional, and industry agendas." Agenda-shaping it seems can be transformational, for good or bad, and quite lucrative.

Well-funded and well-organized, what has grown from that initial effort over two decades ago, is a sophisticated network of NGOs, foundations, and nonprofit entities working to achieve unprecedented ideologically inspired political, social, and financial change inside America and throughout the world, using the ESG construct.

Little green piggies everywhere you look.

With the promise of profit, this network engaged key asset management and banking partners, including giants like BlackRock, Vanguard, and Bank of America. Together these activist profiteers, best described as the ESG/Industrial Complex, are engaged in an extraordinary effort to fundamentally undermine and replace free markets while circumventing democratic institutions of governance and lawmaking. Seeking to force companies into behavior based on political ideology—often in defiance of the best interest of their investors—the ESG Industrial Complex represents a nefarious source of boardroom bullying and attacks on industries with which they politically disagree but whose assets they seek to control.

Using the pretense of social diversity and environmental protection needed to repair damage caused by capitalism, this network established the ESG construct. It represents a geometrically increasing impediment to many industries and the larger corporate culture. Though nebulous and ill-understood by both Wall Street and Main Street alike, it constitutes competing frameworks, reporting systems, and scoring systems for environmental and social reporting—but it lacks continuity and a quantifiable measurement. A meta-analysis of more than 1000 studies on ESG performance found that, “studies use different scores for different companies by different data providers.” These self-ascribed arbiters of politically appropriate values, behavior, and outcomes intend to identify, scrutinize, and then using ESG scores, punish public and private companies—and eventually individuals—who do not agree to live by the network’s validation feedback loop.

Objectives articulated by one of the data collection members of the ESG network include:

Though not yet widely adopted in much of corporate America, ESG has been aggressively embraced by most publicly traded companies and the financial and banking sectors. Ninety-eight percent of America’s top financial companies now disclose ESG scores, and 82 percent include the information in their financial reports as of the end of 2020. Acting as ESG advisors, these banking and asset-management firms have been able to realize premiums for management and advisory fees. For these firms, ESG represents a lucrative revenue-generating spigot and a clever mechanism by which to gain control of capital and at scale, private property. It offers them a mechanism by which to redirect and control capital and property in ways that align with their political worldview.

After decades of coordination and collaboration, the network not only has well-defined initiatives and objectives, but also defined timelines to what they call a “transitioned world.” Success for ESG necessarily harms entire swathes of society in a free market, democratic system. It is a model intended for government to manage the means of production by “transitioning” the world toward increased regulatory control, social scoring, and communal property rights using the pretense of carbon emission neutrality—a model underpinned by socialist and communist principles, including a communal stake in for-profit companies and the development of a new financial system that directs capital flows to never-defined “global goals.”

Schwab: A finger in every pie.

In its most recent report, “Accelerating the Rate of Change: 2021-2025”, the Carbon Disclosure Project, (CDP), one of the WEF-financed entities foundational to the development of the ESG construct, asserts: “all businesses—including private companies—need to overhaul their operations and ensure they will remain viable within environmental boundaries. Governments must set the example and provide the regulatory environment that supports and encourages responsible corporate action. Both businesses and governments alike must align their actions with equitable outcomes that alleviate unequal burdens created by climate change.”

These ESG collaborators are overt in articulating their intentions and objectives. In Part 2 tomorrow, I will reveal the keystone of the ESG construct and propose what must be done to render the movement impotent. I will consider stakeholder capitalism and the role economic capital holds in the fight ahead. I will explain why the domestic oil and gas sector is such a significant target by the ESG/Industrial Complex, and how controlling energy production is a necessary threshold for these activists to succeed. Finally, I will consider what Americans can do to stop this attack on our country and neutralize this threat to our way of life.

Against the Great Reset: 'The Great Reset, Feminist-Style'

Today the Pipeline presents the last of our excerpts from some of the essays contained in Against the Great Reset: 18 Theses Contra the New World Order, to be published on October 18 by Bombardier Books and distributed by Simon and Schuster, and available now for pre-order at the links.

Part IV: THE PERSONAL

Excerpt from "The Great Reset, Feminist-Style" by Janice Fiamengo

Introduction: Equity for Women

What would a Great Reset mean for women and girls—and the men who love them? In COVID-19: The Great Reset (2020), WEF founder Klaus Schwab and his coauthor Thierry Malleret do not address the status of women at length. But they do refer, on the very first page, to the search for social justice, stating that a positive consequence of Covid-19 has been its exposure of the “fault lines of the world” and its galvanization of the will to redress them.

By far the most destabilizing fault line in the western world is the one that feminism has opened between men and women. It is set to widen even further if Reset proponents have their way. In its institutional forms, feminism is a radical ideology alleging that women are oppressed in a patriarchal order created and maintained for male benefit through institutions such as the traditional family. Developed in the North American universities of the 1970s and 1980s, feminism’s assertions about male control of women have spread far into the wider society as feminist students graduated into careers in teaching, journalism, law, social work, public relations, and business. Though often claiming to seek equality between the sexes (itself a dubious, oft-unrealizable goal), feminists regularly call for special privileges for women and corresponding restrictions for men.

Feminism shares with the Schwabian Reset a utopian vision of a reimagined world in which the historically disempowered will be compensated and protected by enlightened leaders who will manage all aspects of our social, economic, and domestic lives. In this transformed world, a never-before-achievable righting of injustice will become possible as the enemies of fairness and of the common good—the selfish, the competitive, the predatory, and the retrograde—will be once and for all neutralized by government fiat.

Discussions of post-Covid she-covery (recovery with a female face) focused mainly on four feminist Reset blueprints: 1) liberating women from the unfair burdens of family life; 2) empowering women to close wage and employment gaps; 3) mandating leadership roles for women, especially in politics, business, and academia; and 4) advancing the sexual agenda of the #MeToo movement. All, as will be shown, are underpinned by profoundly antimale assumptions and contempt for established social and legal norms. Whether any of these blueprints will make women happier is a highly doubtful proposition: bitter and resentful women, rather than contented ones, are precisely what Reset discussions and policies are designed to create.

Background: Covid-19 and Inordinate Female Suffering

A canard about Covid-19 peddled by Schwab and Malleret was that the virus exposed and exacerbated social divides, hurting those who were already vulnerable. In reality, as the authors well know, it was not Covid itself, which in their estimation was not “a new existential threat,” so much as the draconian policies of governments and health officials, amplified by media-induced terror and compliance, that shaped social divides.

Government lockdowns and masking/distancing policies, often brutally and unequally enforced, created Covid winners and losers by determining which businesses could open, whether and how many family members could gather, and whether children could attend school or play together. Social elites working in government, media, academia, and the corporate world, their paycheques and lifestyles largely intact, demonized as “Covidiots” anyone who defied or even
questioned public health orders, sometimes encouraging readers to report those who broke any of the arcane rules (unless, of course, the rule-breakers were Black Lives Matter protesters, in which case even   e prime minister of Canada knelt with them in solidarity).

Against the Great Reset

On sale Oct. 18: pre-order now at the links above.

Along with daily counts of “cases,” hospitalizations, and deaths, the media offered a steady barrage of stories designed to highlight Covid heroes and Covid villains, channeling sympathy toward those deemed to be legitimately suffering or bravely assisting, and encouraging contempt for alleged conspiracy theorists or “Far Right” adherents (mainly white men) who posed a danger. Here, the familiar polarities of ideological feminism came into play: women were typically presented as the innocent victims of a male-dominated society’s injustices—that is, when they weren’t outstanding leaders keeping the virus at bay or valiant frontline nurses caring for the sick.

In the earliest days of Covid, medical data showed that men were more likely than women to die from the virus or to experience the most severe forms of illness, accounting for about 80 percent of acute care admissions and up to 70 percent of the dead. Yet even as these staggering reports hit the headlines, media accounts were busy framing the pandemic as a women’s issue.

By March 8, 2020, when the effects of the virus were being felt in Europe but had not yet hit North America, the emphasis on female suffering had already been established. The BBC World Service informed readers that “Across Asia, it is women who are being disproportionately affected.” A humanitarian advisor to the U.N., Maria Holtsberg, was quoted saying that “Crisis always exacerbates gender inequality.” According to the article, women were bearing the brunt of the pandemic not only as primary caregivers for their children, forced to stay home when schools closed (with no mention of the breadwinner husbands continuing their work and thus at presumably greater risk of infection) but also—and somewhat contradictorily—as the majority of workers on the “front lines.” The article detailed horrific working conditions of nurses in China and elsewhere in which nurses were forced to have their heads shaved and denied washroom breaks while working overtime. Women were also vulnerable, according to the article, as migrant workers with few rights, and in retail and informal sectors of the economy hard-hit by store closures.

The mantra that would be repeated in countless later articles was thus established: as stated by Mohammad Naciri, regional director of U.N. Women Asia, “Women are playing an indispensable role in the fight against the outbreak,” and must be at the forefront of all efforts to deal with it. Vulnerable male migrant workers, low-income shopkeepers, and men on other types of front lines—particularly long-haul truckers attempting to maintain supply chains even as much-needed rest stops, washrooms, and food outlets closed—were not mentioned. Essential service providers who were male— ambulance responders, restoration and clean-up crews, police officers, delivery drivers, all-night convenience store clerks, bus and train operators—were made invisible.

As the Covid situation worsened in Europe and spread to North America over the following weeks, the same ideas were amplified, with many commentators focusing on favored first-world feminist themes such as women’s greater emotional and caregiving burdens. Helen Lewis’s “The Coronavirus Is a Disaster for Feminism” declared that “Across the world, women’s independence will be a silent victim of the pandemic,” while Lucia Graves in “Women’s Domestic Burden Just Got Heavier with the Coronavirus” predicted that women’s unfair allocation of housework would be increased. Many commentators asserted that women and girls were, as always, doing the majority of caring for elderly or ill family members and, already economically more vulnerable than men, would see their earnings potential permanently impacted by layoffs.

Some of the claims were dramatic, others strikingly trivial. Heather Barr, the interim codirector of the Women’s Rights Division of Human Rights Watch, reported with somber emphasis that many now-unemployed women “faced losing their homes in countries from South Africa to the U.K.” and that even simply “maintaining access to water and utilities was a struggle for many, including in the United States.” Men, it seemed, never lost their homes or lacked the necessities of life (though men actually account for the vast majority of the homeless in western nations)...

For more from Against the Great Resetplease pre-order at the links above.