Meet the new boss (Part 1)

“Basically, the government leaders are bribed by business leaders to co-sign and fund imaginary threats that create policies that benefit connected businesses. Essentially, monopolies or oligopolies are formed where economic rents are extracted from unsuspecting populations. The connected business leaders gain access to insider knowledge on the policies coming and plan accordingly with government contracts coming their way first; then, they roll out their revenue schemes to the public. It’s fraud, the likes of which we have never seen. None of this would be possible without debt-based fiat money from central banks. I also suspect the intelligence agencies run enforcement for this group and blackmail those government employees without a conscience. They are either rewarded with plum jobs when they go to the private sector or with outright bribes.”

Edward Dowd, former Blackrock investment fund manager

In our many travels and interviews, one of the most frequent questions involves some variation of “who are the puppet masters” behind the harmonized propaganda, censorship, PsyWar, and COVID crisis mismanagement that has now emerged from the shadows into full view of anyone who will not avert their gaze.

How is it that so many demonstrably false and counterproductive narratives are not only globally promoted but, once they emerge, are rapidly transformed into globally accepted public policies without significant debate or scrutiny? Repeated global harmonization of bad policy decisions not only implies but requires centralization. Globally centralized decision-making indicates the existence of some cabal, organization, or group with sufficient power, wealth, and influence to unilaterally deploy not only a globally harmonized PsyWar campaign but to promptly propagate governance decisions across a wide range of what were previously believed to be independent, sovereign nation-states. Based on this repeated pattern of harmonized priorities, cited justifications, actions, and messaging, it appears that centralized, transnational world (or regional) governments already exist in a functional, operational sense. Under the Westphalian system of autonomous nation-states that guides current governance and international relations, how can that be?

The Westphalian system is named after the Peace of Westphalia, which was signed in 1648 and ended the Thirty Years’ War in Europe. This system enshrines the principle that each state has exclusive sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, excluding all external powers, and is a fundamental tenant of international law.

Key Principles of the Westphalian system:

1. Sovereignty: Each state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, meaning no external power can intervene in its internal affairs.

2. Territorial Integrity: States respect each other’s territorial integrity, meaning that no state can annex or occupy another state’s territory without its consent.

3. Non-Interference: States do not intervene in each other’s internal affairs, allowing each state to manage its own domestic issues independently.

4. Equality: All states, regardless of size, power, or wealth, are equal and have the same rights and responsibilities.

Obviously, many of these principles are functionally aspirational, and a wide variety of military and diplomatic “workarounds” have been devised since 1648. These workarounds enable nation-states or groups of aligned nation-states with more size, power, and wealth to exert influence or control over those with less. Various terms of political science have been devised to describe these workarounds. Such terms include colonialism, imperialism, alliances, soft power, and hegemony, among many others. However, all are based on the assumption that the autonomous nation-state represents the highest-ranking governing political structure. Functionally, this assumption is no longer valid.

Despite the partial success of these predictable efforts to circumvent the core principles, the Westphalian system has guided the structure of international relations and international law for centuries, as it established the concept of state sovereignty and the principle of non-interference in domestic affairs. This system has been the foundation of the modern international system of sovereign states and has shaped how states interact. While the system has clearly been influential, it is also criticized as deeply flawed- arguably the worst system except for all others that came before. One criticism is that it has led to a system of anarchy, where states are left to fend for themselves and may resort to violence to achieve their goals. Austrian school economists such as Murray Rothbard argue that the modern anatomy of the nation-state is fundamentally flawed and should be replaced with an even more anarchic free-market system. Others observe that the rise of global governance, transnational corporations, “investment funds,” corporatist-aligned trade unions, self-appointed global governance organizations, and international institutions have challenged the Westphalian system, eroding state sovereignty.

Since WW II and accelerating during the latter decades of the 20th century, a trend toward the emergence of financially powerful transnational organizations that are functionally independent of nation-states developed. Examples include quasi-governmental global organizations such as the United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), International Monetary Foundation (IMF), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and World Trade Organization (WTO); non-governmental “philanthropic” organizations such as the Gates Foundation and Wellcome Trust; “national” banks tied together into a functional cooperative by the Bank of International Settlements; massive global “investment funds” which dwarf the financial resources of most nation-states including Blackrock, State Street, Vanguard, Bank of America and their kin; and a variety of globalist-oriented cabals and corporatist trade organizations such as the Club of Rome, the Atlantic Council, the Bilderberg Meeting group, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies and of course the World Economic Forum.

Fueled by a variety of global 21st-century financial, political, geophysical, and medical “crises,” these transnational think tanks and organizations, together with a handful of major globalized corporations that sponsor much of their activities, have formed alliances that exceed the power, influence and financial resources of most if not all nation-states. Any economics or political science student can attest that such a power imbalance cannot be sustained. We argue that the wide range of current efforts to advance and structure global governance organizations is the logical consequence of these imbalances. Since the most economically dominant of these various transnational entities are intrinsically corporatist, it is self-evident that the emerging global governance organizations are corporatist.

The repeated history of the various forms of corporatism, often labeled “fascism” during the early to mid-20th century, has been the development of totalitarian political governance structures. In the 21st century, these corporatist political structures have come to rely on computational modeling and artificial intelligence algorithms informed by massive databases to guide decision-making. Databases that seek to identify and characterize the activities and biases of virtually all human beings and all available data concerning the nature of the world - geophysics, climate, resources, “one health,” energy, and any other useful predictive parameters. All combined within computational modeling algorithms, which are now accepted as an object of faith and have become a surrogate for measurable truths.

All of this has given rise to centralized, globalized, arbitrary, and capricious decision-making on a scale never before possible. Once the models have been run and the centralized decision-making has been performed, then the propaganda, censorship, and modern PsyWar technologies are deployed by various means, including captured “intelligence agencies” and the corporate media (which is owned and controlled by the same transnational organizations) to enforce these decisions.

This is the structure of modern techno-totalitarianism: an interwoven corporatist web that unilaterally controls and implements globalized policies, is answerable to no one, and recognizes no law other than its own interests and privilege. At the center of this web lies global public-private partnerships, or G3P. Caught like flies in this global financial and political web, politicians, political parties, indebted nation-states, and even multinational treaty and alliance organizations such as NATO and the European Union must dance to the tunes called by the G3P.

Global Public-Private Partnerships (G3P) are structured collaborations between international intergovernmental organizations, such as the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the World Economic Forum, and private companies to achieve shared goals and objectives. The asserted benefits used to justify G3P include:

• Increased efficiency: G3P can leverage the strengths of both the public and private sectors to achieve common goals more efficiently.

• Innovative solutions: G3P can efficiently foster innovation and the development of new solutions to address global challenges.

• Shared risk and resources: G3P can share the risks and resources between the public and private sectors, reducing the financial burden on governments and increasing project effectiveness.

• Global impact: G3P can significantly impact global development and public health, addressing challenges that transcend national borders.

Both the United Nations and the World Health Organization have established various agreements and treaties with transnational organizations, such as the World Economic Forum, and typically do not disclose governance details, funding, terms, and conditions of G3Ps to the general public.

These G3Ps form a worldwide network of stakeholder capitalists and their partners. This association of stakeholders (the capitalists and their partners) comprises global corporations (including central banks), philanthropic foundations (multi-billionaire philanthropists), policy think tanks, governments (and their agencies), non-governmental organizations, selected academic and scientific institutions, global charities, labor unions and other chosen “thought leaders,” including the various networks funded, trained and placed into influential positions by the World Economic Forum “Young Leader” and “Young Influencers” programs.

Under our current model of Westphalian national sovereignty, the government of one nation cannot make legislation or law in another. However, through global governance, the G3P creates policy initiatives at the global level, which then cascade down to people in every nation. This typically occurs via an intermediary policy distributor, such as the IMF or IPCC, and the national government then enacts the recommended policies.

The policy trajectory is set internationally by the authorized definition of problems and their prescribed solutions. Once the G3P enforces the consensus internationally, the policy framework is set. The G3P stakeholder partners then collaborate to develop, implement, and enforce the desired policies. This is the essence of the “international rules-based system.”

In this way, G3P are able to control many nations at once without having to resort to legislation. This has the added advantage of making any legal challenge to the decisions made by the most senior partners in G3P (which typically have authoritarian hierarchies) extremely difficult.

The organizational predicate for the planned global governance is the European Union (EU). The EU has pioneered a system wherein nation-states and their elected governing bodies are subsidiaries of a centralized super-governmental organization located in Brussels. That organization includes an elected representative parliament, but any recommendations developed or “approved” at the European Parliament level can be overturned by the unelected, appointed European Council acting in coordination with a President who is formally appointed by national leaders, which appointment is then “confirmed” by the European Parliament. The citizens of the EU directly elect neither the European Council nor the President of the European Union, and the authorities of both the Council and President are above those of individual national governments. Both the Council and President can unilaterally enter into agreements with corporations and other supranational organizations such as G3P, such as the contract agreement struck between the EU Council, President, and Pfizer for COVID mRNA vaccine acquisition. By analogy, the United Nations, which explicitly seeks to become the governing body of global government, does not and will not be directly elected by, nor will it be accountable to, the citizens of UN member states. However, it will be able to be held accountable by the G3P.

G3P have traditionally been referenced in the context of public health— specifically in United Nations documents, including documents from UN agencies such as the World Health Organization (WHO). The WHO’s 2005 document Connecting For Health, in noting what the Millennium Development Goals meant for global health, revealed the emerging role of G3P:

“These changes occurred in a world of revised expectations about the role of government: that the public sector has neither the financial nor the institutional resources to meet their challenges, and that a mix of public and private resources is required. [. . .] Building a global culture of security and cooperation is vital. . . . The beginnings of a global health infrastructure are already in place. Information and communication technologies have opened opportunities for change in health, with or without policy-makers leading the way. [. . .] Governments can create an enabling environment, and invest in equity, access and innovation.”

This statement again reveals the United Nations’ core belief that the Westphalian system of sovereign nation-state primacy is obsolete. In the envisioned new world order, nation-states are relegated to a secondary enabling role, and rather than setting foreign policy are to focus exclusively on resolving internal social justice issues and technical advancements. The revised role of sovereign nation-states implies they will no longer lead the way forward. Traditional policy-makers will not be making policy anymore; rather, the United Nations, in cooperation with G3P partners, will set global agendas and policies.

Under this system, national governments must be relegated to creating the UN and G3P’s enabling environment by taxing the public and increasing government borrowing debt. This debt is owed to the senior partners in the G3P. They are not only creditors; these same partners are also the beneficiaries of the loans. They use the circular logic of the propagandized term “public investment” to create markets for themselves and for the wider G3P stakeholders.

“Public Health” has served as the trojan horse for the development of the G3P ecosystem. This was described and briefly analyzed in an editorial published in the academic journal “Tropical Medicine and International Health” titled “Editorial: Partnership and fragmentation in international health: threat or opportunity?”, authored by Kent Buse and Gill Walt of the George Institute for Global Health. The editorial suggests that the G3P structure was a response to growing disillusionment in the UN project as a whole, combined with an emerging realization that global corporations were increasingly key to policy implementation. This correlates to the development of the stakeholder capitalism concept, popularized by Klaus Schwab beginning in the 1970s.

Buse and Walt describe how G3Ps are designed to facilitate the participation of a new breed of corporation. In theory, these new entities recognize the folly of previously destructive business practices and instead commit to the logic of the stakeholder capitalism concept, emphasizing socialist objectives such as promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion rather than a primary focus on profit and return on investment. This new breed of globally conscious corporations would achieve these objectives by partnering with governmental bureaucracies and established political elite to solve global problems, typically framed as existential threats to the global environment. Examples include “one health” infectious disease risks and climate change. Such threats are defined by the G3P and by the scientists, academics, and economists that the relevant G3P have selected and funded.

The two researchers identified a key Davos address, delivered by the UN’s then-Secretary-General Kofi Annan to the WEF in 1998, as marking the transition to a G3P-based global governance model:

“The United Nations has been transformed since we last met here in Davos. The Organization has undergone a complete overhaul that I have described as a ‘quiet revolution.’ [. . .] A fundamental shift has occurred. The United Nations once dealt only with governments. By now we know that peace and prosperity cannot be achieved without partnerships involving governments, international organizations, the business community and civil society. . . . The business of the United Nations involves the businesses of the world.”

Buse and Walt claimed that this shift signified the arrival of a new type of responsible global capitalism. However, that is not how many corporations view this arrangement. Buse and Walt acknowledged why the G3P was such an enticing prospect for the global giants of banking, industry, finance, and commerce:

“Shifting ideologies and trends in globalization have highlighted the need for closer global governance, an issue for both private and public sectors. We suggest that at least some of the support for G3Ps stems from this recognition and a desire on the part of the private sector to be part of global regulatory decision-making processes.”

The conflict of interest is obvious. We are simply expected to accept, without question, that global corporations are committed to putting humanitarian and environmental causes before profit. Supposedly, a G3P-led system of global governance is somehow beneficial for us.

Believing this requires a considerable degree of naïveté. Many of the G3P-associated stakeholder corporations have been convicted or publicly held accountable for corruption and crimes, including war crimes. The apparently passive agreement of the credulous political class (ergo, “Deep State”) is that these “partners” should effectively set global policy, regulations, and spending priorities. It may seem naïve, but it is actually a consequence of widespread corruption.

This naïveté is a charade. As many academics, economists, historians, and researchers have pointed out, corporate influence, even dominance of the political system, has been increasing for generations. Elected politicians have long been the junior partners in this arrangement.

With the arrival of G3Ps, we witnessed the birth of the process that formalized this relationship— creating a cohesive new world order. The politicians didn’t write the script; it is delivered to them in various forms, including the WEF “young leader” training program, and they then operationalize these plans within their respective nation-states.

Understanding the difference between “government” and “governance” in the global context is important. Based on the concept of a social contract validated through quasi-democratic mandates, governments claim the right to set policy and decree legislation (law).

Western representative “democracies,” which are technically not even democracies at all, practice a model of the national government in which elected representatives form the executive branch, which presents and ultimately enacts generally worded legislation. This is then operationally managed by a permanent unelected bureaucracy (the Administrative State) which is given considerable latitude to interpret legislative intent, and to which the judicial system (courts) defer as the definitive experts (in the USA, this is referred to as “Chevron deference” consequent to a supreme court precedent). As observed by Murray Rothbard in “Anatomy of the State”, the judicial systems of these “democracies” (ergo, the courts) act to legitimize and defend the State, rather than serving to guarantee the rights and interests of the citizenry.

Perhaps the closest thing to this form of national government on an international scale is the United Nations General Assembly. It has a tenuous claim to democratic accountability and can pass resolutions which, while they don’t bind member states, can create “new principles” that may become international law when later applied by the International Court of Justice.

However, this isn’t really world “government.” The UN lacks the authority to decree legislation and formulate law. Its “principles” can only become law via judicial ruling. The non-judicial power to create law is reserved for governments, whose legislative reach only extends to their national borders.

Due to the often fraught relationships between national governments, a world government is starting to become impractical. Given the non-binding nature of UN resolutions and the international jockeying for geopolitical and economic advantage, there isn’t currently anything we could call a world government.

National and cultural identity are also a consideration. Most populations aren’t ready for a distant, unelected world government. People generally want their nations to be sovereign. They want their federal representatives to have more democratic accountability to constituents, not less.

The G3P would certainly like to run a world government, but imposing such a system by overt force is beyond their capability. Therefore, they have employed other means, such as deception and propaganda, to promote the notion of global governance.

Former Carter administration adviser and Trilateral Commission founder Zbigniew Brzezinski recognised how to make this approach easier to implement. In his 1970 book Between Two Ages: Americas Role In The Technetronic Era, he wrote:

“Though the objective of shaping a community of the developed nations is less ambitious than the goal of world government, it is more attainable.”

Numerous G3Ps have formed over the last 30 years as the concept of global governance has evolved. A major turning point was the WEF’s perspective on multistakeholder governance. With its 2010 publication of Everybody’s Business: Strengthening International Cooperation in a More Interdependent World, the WEF outlined the elements of G3P stakeholders’ form of global governance.

Global Agenda Councils were established to deliberate and suggest policy covering practically every aspect of our existence. The WEF created a corresponding global governance body for every aspect of society. Nothing was left untouched: values, security, public health, welfare, consumption of goods and services, access to water, food security, crime, rights, sustainable development, and global economic, financial, and monetary systems.

WEF Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab spelled out the objective of global governance:

“Our purpose has been to stimulate a strategic thought process among all stakeholders about ways in which international institutions and arrangements should be adapted to contemporary challenges. [ . . .] [T]he world’s leading authorities have been working in interdisciplinary, multistakeholder Global Agenda Councils to identify gaps and deficiencies in international cooperation and to formulate specific proposals for improvement. [ . . .] These discussions have run through the Forum’s Regional Summits during 2009 as well as the Forum’s recent Annual Meeting 2010 in Davos-Klosters, where many of the emerging proposals were tested with ministers, CEOs, heads of NGOs and trade unions, leading academics and other members of the Davos community. [ . . . ] The Global Redesign process has provided an informal working laboratory or marketplace for a number of good policy ideas and partnership opportunities. [ . . . ] We have sought to expand international governance discussions [ . . . ] to take more pre-emptive and coordinated action on the full range of risks that have been accumulating in the international system.”

The logic of stakeholder capitalism places business at the center of global governance. It is an updated, modernized form of Fascism cloaked in socialist/Marxist ideology and language.

By 2010, the WEF had begun what it called a “Global Redesign” process, which defined the international challenges and proposed solutions. Fortunately for the G3P, these proposals meant more control and partnership opportunities. The WEF sought to spearhead the expansion of this international governance.

Here is one example: In 2019, the UK Government announced its partnership with the WEF to develop future business, economic, and industrial regulations. The UK government was committed to supporting a regulatory environment created by global corporations, who would then be regulated by the same regulations they had themselves designed.

The WEF does not have an electoral mandate, and none of us have any opportunity to influence or even question its judgments. Yet, it is working in partnership with our supposedly democratically elected governments, the United Nations, and various G3P stakeholders to redesign the planet on which we all live.

This essay has incorporated some analysis, references and text from Iain Davis’ open-source/creative commons blog post “What Is the Global Public-Private Partnership”.

If you would like these blog posts to appear in your email stream,

please sign up to