Crisis Update - Xi Visits Putin: To NWO Or Not?
Trilateral Commission delegate says 2023 is the first year of the New World Order
Trilaterals regaled with launch of the NWO at their first global meeting.
Corporate influence has left governments powerless to defend nation state.
Imbalance of power between big money and individuals has buried democracy.
World Economic Forum is latest iteration of a 50-year corporate scheme.
Effort to rein in multinationals in 1970s was condemned as socialist.
Now central bankers propose to kill off free-enterprise, for managed outcomes.
The corporations that broke the economy propose to fix it in their own interest.
1990s deregulation and the pretext of climate led to the capture of the UN.
Intergovernmental system being used to scrap politics; impose corporate control.
(2,600 words or 13 minutes of fortunate or interesting times.)
Mar 20, 2023
The Trilateral Commission has met in India — its first global meeting — to launch an economic reset based on managed outcomes, doing away with a free-market based on growth and lower prices. Instead it will pursue industrial policy with an inflationary goal, rationing goods at an ever-higher cost. 
It coincides with China mounting the world stage, bringing together two formerly implacable enemies, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Now the Chinese president has arrived in Russia for a three-day state visit.
The oiler and banker David Rockefeller set up the Trilateral Commission in 1973. Three years later it began to integrate China into the world, courting then paramount leader Deng Xiaoping. The Rockefellers had been already active in China for a century.
This month’s announcement from the Rockefeller institution represents the intention to replace free-market or laissez-faire liberalism with managed and engineered outcomes. The Nikkei Asia report on the Trilateral Commission puts a new gloss on the meeting. Published on Mar 14, it has not been widely reported in the West.
Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington (1978-1980) with the late Antony Sutton, says “the boundaries of the world are being redrawn as we speak and it does not look good for the USA.” 
When he wrote the book, private bankers dominated the Commission. Now central banks, as fronts for those same private bankers, have stepped into the limelight. Figures like former governor of the banks of England and Canada, Mark Carney, and Agustín Carstens, general manager of the Bank for International Settlements. They have prepared central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) that are on the brink of release.
The focus on control via energy — a long term aim of technocracy — is central. Investment will be directed to follow energy transformation. War in Ukraine had shifted priorities, the meeting in New Delhi heard.
According to the off-the-record style of the Trilateral Commission one unnamed speaker said:
“Three decades of globalization — defined as integrated, free-market based and deflationary — has been replaced by what will be a multidecade period of globalization defined as fragmented, not-free-market-based but industrial-policy based and structurally inflationary. This year, 2023, is Year One of this new global order.”
The danger is that this new world order will be introduced by deliberately crashing the banks. That is, unless the quadrillion-dollar derivatives market does not crash the financial system first.
Will they, won’t they?
President Xi Jinping arrived in Moscow for a March 20-22 visit. A Kremlin spokesman said president Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping held face-to-face talks in the Kremlin on Monday afternoon. The talks would continue on March 21, when delegations would join the two leaders.
Although it is a state visit there will be no pomp or displays with the focus strictly on business. China’s key proposal is the negotiation of peace in Ukraine. On his arrival Xi stated:
“In a troubled world, China is ready to act in concert with Russia to firmly uphold the UN-centric international system, safeguard the world order based on international law and the fundamental norms of international relations relying on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, support true multilateralism, promote multipolarity in the world, democratize international relations and promote global governance on a more just and rational track.”
Putin and Xi have a chance to challenge the Rockefeller stakeholder model and revive multilateralism. Nationalist governments like those of the U.S. under president Donald Trump, Putin’s Russia, Narendra Modi’s India and Xi’s China articulate a nationalist agenda but have rarely questioned the role of corporations. Instead the focus has been on national rivalries and geopolitical blocs.
In public Xi has criticised the U.S. using this month’s annual parliamentary session of the National People’s Congress (NPC) to accuse Washington of “containment, encirclement and suppression.”
Both Russia and China are developing a Eurasian economic space, with a customs union on the one hand, and the Belt and Road Initiative on the other.
This contrasts with Western resource wars, in which the military protects the position of the oiler-bankers and their corporations, as opposed to a more flexible, and certainly peaceful, process of economic diplomacy in which the pie is shared.
This could be a dance, of course: what David Icke coined, “the totalitarian two-step.”
This is more than a question of countries secretly colluding. It is about the corporate challenge to sovereign nations that has been accelerating for a century. Those corporations are powerful enough to sway governments around the world.
In 1972 the president of Chile, Salvador Allende, used the podium at the United Nations General Assembly to warn of the influence that transnational corporations had gained over peoples — he would later be killed in a coup driven partly by corporate interests.
In response to his speech the United Nations formed the UN Centre on Transnational Corporations (UNCTC), which operated from 1975 to 1992 when it was abolished. That year is symbolic for it was in 1992 that the Convention on Biological Diversity was drafted.
Rather than legislate and regulate corporations, as Allende had proposed, the Convention would unleash corporations, granting the power to commercialise genomes and DNA.
This was the financialisation of sustainable development, under which all genomes are tracked and valued. Under CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing technology, which won the Nobel prize in 2020, if genes are modified they can be patented and owned.
Sustainable development goals, supposedly set by the United Nations, would become the pretext under which finance capital intervened to shape the population over the heads of national governments.
That was still in the future.
The Centre on Transnational Corporations sought to address the overlap of national sovereignty and corporate responsibility. Allende saw this as essential to build an accountable, multilateral effort to protect the planet by redressing the balance between the rights granted to corporations and those given to individuals.
Allende called for “equity, sovereign equality, interdependence, common interest, and cooperation among all states … to eliminate the widening gap between developing and developed states.” 
That same language would be appropriated by the corporations and their fronts such as the Davos-based World Economic Forum, which had been founded just a year before Allende spoke those words.
National Security Adviser Heinz Kissinger was WEF co-founder Klaus Schwab’s mentor. Kissinger was also the architect of the coup in which Allende was murdered and replaced by Gen Augusto Pinochet.
According to the Transnational Institute, more than 3,400 laws protect corporate rights but there are none that force transnational corporations to respect human rights or the environment, or punish them if they fail. 
The European Union likewise gives specific rights to corporations but not to individuals. For example corporations are guaranteed against paying tax more than once on the transport of goods. Individuals have no such rights but only a voluntary waiver: in law EU citizens can be forced to pay sales tax (VAT) every time even used goods are exchanged.
The rebalancing of rights should be about more than narrative; genuine institutional reform.
The WEF is, of course, all about narrative. It even held a meeting in Dubai in 2021 called The Great Narrative. As for the institutional framework, that was undermined and ultimately disabled by corporate collusion.
Corporations saw Allende as a socialist — that was also Kissinger’s pretext for staging the coup. The pro-free enterprise Heritage Foundation in 1987 complained that the UNCTC planned to regulate only Western and Third World firms: “giant communist bloc enterprises will be exempt.” 
The UNCTAD effort was also undermined by the International Chambers of Commerce who worked with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation And Development (OECD) to develop a voluntary set of guidelines for multinational enterprises.
The role of the WEF and its Great Reset becomes clear: it is a voluntarist agenda for “responsible” corporate behaviour that is purely optional — precisely in order to avoid the power of law and regulation.
Thus the Great Reset, while it is a storybook narrative of a technological future, is really an argument from corporations against the nation state.
The WEF has promoted the multi-stakeholder model to replace multilateralism for decades. An example, in Jun 2019 WEF signed a cooperation agreement with the secretariat of the UN — not a decision of UN members — allowing WEF staffers to work alongside the UN.
This voluntary, take-it-or-leave it model, where governments do not debate nor commit to anything, where market incentives drive policy, does nothing to change or reset the causes of the crisis of capitalism.
The WEF calls has a phrase, agile governance, for innovating in real time — or what Pfizer’s European representative called, at a European Parliament hearing, moving “at the speed of science” — let the chips, or cadavers, fall where they may.
For example WEF talks of environmental and social goals like ESGs but it opposes any regulation or legislation upon companies to ensure that those changes happen.
Corporations pay less tax, weakening governments, while private foundations seek not only to advise the decision-making process but to control it. As an example, the Gates-funded GAVI global vaccine alliance funded COVAX and, once it decided that the project was no longer appropriate or profitable, GAVI shut it down. 
GAVI ran the pandemic response, overshadowing the WHO, yet it is heavy not with medical expertise but by bankers and big pharma executives. Their skills may be relevant but it is not broad, let alone free of conflicts of interest.
As for climate, the cause that is intended to unite us all in defence of the Earth, the solution of the West has been military talk of resilience, proposals to ration food and (price) water, as well as resource wars in order to secure the power of elites.
Lack of harmonisation
The corporate subversion of regulation is also clear from what did not happen.
For all the talk of justice and equity the courts do not apply internationally to all, as we see in the current spat over whether the International Criminal Court should issue a warrant to arrest Putin, while Tony Blair and president George W. Bush walk free.
Bush did have to cancel a planned visit to Switzerland last month due to threats of legal action against him for torture.
Health and safety regulations were not harmonised. At around the same time, in the mid-1970s an attempt was made to unify accounting standards but 50 years later there are at least two principal systems. 
Corporations have made different arguments as to why they should have the rights, but not the obligations, of individuals. Since they are not physical persons, for example, should they even be taxed?
One can always cite some argument, but at the end of the day this does leave corporations with lots of power and less responsibility. One of the frustrating things about the Council on Inclusive Capitalism, the Great Reset and ESGs themselves is that everything about voluntarism is so vague... they cannot even agree on a way to define the Great Reset or to measure ESGs.
The United Nations aims to expand the range of stakeholders. In 2021 the UN Sec Gen António Guterres launched what became the Foundation for Global Governance and Sustainability (FOGGS), with up to six new categories of stakeholder, but with no provision for governments. In 2018 the work of FOGGS was refocused towards putting together a new “Grand Narrative” for globalisation. 
Narratives, again. This is sister to the Great Narrative we heard earlier from the WEF — not very original, these globalists. Again the role of defining sustainable development goals (SDGs) is left to private think-tanks and foundations.
Socialist or elitist?
The charges that were used to demolish the UN Centre on Transnational Corporations seem disingenuous with hindsight.
Was the attempt to regulate multinational corporations a socialist plot — now that we know the Trilateral Commission plans to abandon the free-enterprise system and introduce managed outcomes?
Was the objection of Rockefeller and his fellow oiler-bankers about freedom now we see they propose central bank digital currencies, which are not compatible with freedom and liberty?
Was defending democracy ever the goal when we have seen three years of emergency powers under the pretext of “keeping you safe”?
UN Agenda 21 and the communitarian Reset makes much talk about subsidiarity — the democratic idea that decisions should be made at the lowest level possible — which is a principle of the European Union. Yet it seems to mean in practice that national governments are subverted by local authorities, which in turn are infiltrated by pre-screened communitarian/UN21 apparatchiks.
See Britain’s Institute for Government which is financed by the Sainsbury grocery billionaires for how such Astroturfing works.
While fake assembilies are in the works, genuine communities are being uprooted. The Netherlands has the polder model, in which the wants and needs of villages, towns and society are negotiated. Of course it is more suited to a smaller once-homogeneous populations like Norway or Denmark but it survived even as the NL became more diverse: its pinnacle was the farmers.
And the globalists are set upon destroying it.
This killing of the polder model illustrates the hypocrisy of the voluntarism of stakeholder capitalism... essentially a Great Narrative that masks a resource grab by the wealthy and powerful for their plan to reorder life in a top-down manner.
Does any other answer do better? Please comment below.
Harris Gleckman, senior fellow at the Center on Governance and Stability, University of Massachusetts, Boston, does a tremendous job of demolishing the WEF concept of stakeholders. 
Exclude companies from making decisions which regulate their operations, as they were from the regulation of tobacco.
Impose cross-border liabilities — which means investigations and findings against corporations in areas of human rights, and the enforcement of settlements.
Expose how corporations are shaping policy and undermining democracy. The concept of stakeholders is presented in the press as if it is settled and that all relevant bodies are represented — but stakeholders are selected by corporations and their philanthropic fronts.
Consider a new Centre on Transnational Corporations. (Gleckman was one of its staffers back in the day).
Discuss how democracy needs to be strengthened to counter corporate power and wealth. If the UN system has been captured, it needs to be reworked.
We shall see which way Russia and China lean under Putin and Xi. The forces of chaos and disruption are profound.
It is arguable that countries can be swayed by events without being willing participants. This theme has been discussed in previous articles:
China Touts Peace As West's Monetary Woes Tempt War Hawks (Mar 14, 2023)
Setting The Silk Road Ablaze (Jul 4, 2022)
Silk Suits & Mental Capture: Team Covid (Jun 10, 2022)
Ukraine's Bio Labs The Next Douma? (Mar 11, 2022)
Moneycircus is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
 Nikkei Asia, Mar 14, 2023 — Trilateral Commission calls 2023 'Year One' of new world order
 Patrick Wood, The Quickening Report, Mar 16 — Breaking: Trilateral Commission calls 2023 'Year One' of new world order
 Shahd Hammouri, TWAILR, 2020 — Revisiting Allende’s 1972 Speech at the United Nations General Assembly
 Transnational Institute, 2021 — Global Coup d’État: Mapping the Corporate Takeover of Global Governance
 Heritage Foundation, 1987 — The Centre on Transnational Corporations: How the U.N. Injures Poor Nations
 The Lancet, Jun 2021 — A beautiful idea: how COVAX has fallen short
 Mohammad Javaid, LinkedIn, 2021 — The Arguments for Harmonising International Accounting Standards
 Foundation for Global Governance and Sustainability
 Harris Gleckman, U Massachussets, 2019 — 50 years after Allende at the UN: a corporate triumph named multistakeholderism
"Does any other answer do better?" Nope.
When the globalists lay out their goals in Agenda 21 and 2030 it's clear. The aim is to get as many essential resources into as few hands as possible for as near as total control as is possible. Energy and water being the two most fundamental to humans. If we ever get offworld then air will be up there too.
One thing to add about corporations. They should have their corporate status removed. They are not 'bodies' they are collections on individuals and the individuals in them should be legally accountable for their actions. Limited liability is one of the big, fundamental cons of the modern world.