Supra-National Socialism And Revolutionary Virtue
DEI - diversity, equity and inclusion - are their false gods
The left-right game show is an aspect of bread and circuses
The ‘who’ diverts us from the ‘what’
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss
Stakeholder capitalism is an inversion of the national socialist model
The Corporation now sits at the centre and the government is its tool
The State, under the ‘no borders’ policy, is effectively abolished
Hitler tolerated the middle class, Schwab says they’re the obstacle
Every undemocratic regime needs a justification
Vague ‘good’ and ‘purpose’ are the new ideologies
A series on thee economic aspects of fascism:
“Globalism, Socialism, Fascism, Feudalism” (Moneycircus, Sep 19, 2022)
“Philanthropy Is The Third Pillar Of Fascism” (May 7, 2022)
“When The Great Reset Is Complete — A future retrospective” (Nov 23, 2021)
(3,000 words or about 14 minutes of your company.)
Aug 3, 2023
Klaus Schwab brazenly displays a bust of Lenin in a photograph from his office...
The Lenin bust is to attract the Woke “Left” and throw the rest off the scent; to keep the L/R game show alive, as well as to disguise the fact that the Great Shutdown has much more in common with national socialism.
But there I go... talking within the terms of their fascism vs communism, when we know the same globalists assisted both.
The “who” is important, but we only see the front men.
The “what” is already happening.
In a 2010 report, World Economic Forum founder, Klaus Schwab, declared that “[a globalised world is best managed by a] self-selected coalition of multinational corporations, governments (including through the UN system), and select civil society organisations.”
“[Governments are no longer] the overwhelmingly dominant actors on the world stage [and] the time has come for a new stakeholder paradigm of international governance.”
As Harris Gleckman wrote in 2016 for the Transnational Institute, the proposed corporate-led intergovernmental system does not try to win support, and there is no need for universal consensus to act: the corporations, their owners, academics and select bureaucrats take it upon themselves to act. To lead beyond authority.
The strategy spreads incrementally... and from a bird’s eye view it gradually replaces the government with the corporation. That is why they do not use the word government but governance.
This is incontrovertibly linked to national socialism. As I have written, Mussolini's corporativism, copied by Hitler and borrowed by Roosevelt’s National Recovery Administration, put the State at the centre of the corporate constellation. The State decided priorities, allocated resources and set quotas. The State took care of life and death, and became the new religion. At the same time, corporations close to the centre of power became very rich - like Klaus Schwab’s father Eugene, whose company Escher-Wyss Ravensburg, used Nazi slave labor and prisoners of war. The city, where Klaus was born, “was the site of numerous Nazi crimes against humanity, such as forced sterilization for the purpose of racial improvement.”
But we digress. Focus on the corporate-social model.
The World Economic Forum (WEF) version inverts this. It is essentially the same national socialism but the corporation now sits at the centre and the government is its tool. The State, under the “no borders” policy that we see right now in Europe and the U.S., is effectively abolished.
Government usually has some democratic component but governance sounds more like governor, or a representative of the Crown/owner.
Even an undemocratic regime needs some justification for abjuring democracy — some idea which impels it. Crucially Multi Stakeholder Governance leaves this unspoken and vague.
The only credo is DEI, coincidentaly Latin’s plural for gods, but meaning diversity, equity and inclusion. This is a subset of ESGs, environmental, social and governance criteria. Which in turn is a subset of SDGs or sustainable development goals.
Critics of this matryoshka, or Russian doll, say that the DEI criteria are impossible to follow or measure. It leaves the corporate executive conflicted. Surely, if the corporation is at the centre of the WEF’s new social model, its role and duties should be hammered out and nailed down?
Is she to pursue diversity, equity and inclusion even if that hurts profits? Does she answer to the owner-investors or the colleague in charge of diversity? Anheuser-Busch, owner of Bud Light, has just sacrificed its biggest brand on the altar of Woke. Costa Coffee in the UK is discovering the reality of “go Woke, go broke.”
The explanation for this paradox should frighten everyone.
If the owner-investors are tolerating a new social model in which corporate profits are sacrificed for social goals, it can only mean two things: one is that the real value, wealth or productive capacity no longer resides in the corporation but in other resources and mechanisms; the other is that the organization of society has changed to something resembling the corporativist or national socialist model.
The first might reflect the 1992 Biodiversity Convention which, in short, allowed for the patenting of nature, through the manipulation of genetics, and that includes humans.
The parallel promotion of transhumanism, makes humanity itself a source of energy, including the storage of information in DNA. 
This necessarily requires that most humans become slaves. Thus the corporate model, in which labour creates value, which the human is allowed to store, with which to buy consumer goods, must be overturned. Humans will henceforth be worthless, for otherwise their “human rights” would stand in the way of the project to manipulate genetics.
We have been looking at the corporate model from the wrong end. The corporation, and the job for life, as a the centre of today’s society, is to be ended, along with the model of mass consumption. So the corporation must change, too.
When privately-owned corporations run society, their obligations will be defined not “under” or by the State, rather corporations will become the ultimate authority.
The corporation replaces the State, effectively becoming the State. The human thus becomes not the subject of the State, but the chattel of the company.
For a deeper dive, please subscribe and read Globalism, Socialism, Fascism, Feudalism (Moneycircus, Sep 19, 2022)
In short, fascism employs elements of socialism, but national socialism may not be fascism. In the original Italian it is not a mere combination of the state and corporations but corporativism, in the sense of the regulation, governance and social obligations of the medieval craft guilds.
The National Socialist German Workers Party, in its 25 Points of 1920, promoted partial collectivism aimed primarily at large industrial corporations, leading financial institutions and wealthy landowners.
The historian Michael Newton writes that after the NSDAP failed to win over socialists and communists in the late 1920s, they tried to broaden their appeal to the middle class by adopting elements of the Third Way of Mussolini’s fascists. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s National Recovery Administration and the New Deal of 1933 also copied the industrial measures of Mussolini’s fascism — but few would argue that made the USA fascist.
What Hitler’s state allowed was the survival of the middle class. Fascism combined partial socialism, heavy regulation of the “commanding heights” of the economy combined with widespread private ownership of small business — the Mittelstand remains the strength of Germany and Northern Italy today.
What is different now is that the middle class is to be eliminated. WEF’s chairman Klaus Schwab has said: “The Fourth Industrial Revolution has one big challenge, it is the holding out of the middle class.” 
That is what confuses people, because Schwab’s statement is redolent of communism, and famously the attack on the wealthiest and most skillful Russian peasants, who were branded “kulaks” or tight-fisted.
They were forced to give up their grain, including the seeds they were storing for the next planting season, so that the Bolsheviks could sell the grain for much needed foreign currency, and to enforce collective farming.
The WEF’s now deleted page declaring “you’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy” encapsulates this.
How can such a transition be accomplished?
The legal theorist of the Third Reich Carl Schmitt said the state of exception (Ausnahmezustand) reveals where power truly resides. It is not what is decided, but who decides. The sovereign act is a decision on the question of the exception.
By declaring emergencies — Covid or Climate Change — the powers declare a state of exception.
It was obvious when in 2020 governments around the world started chanting “Build Back Better” in unison, and when they implemented identical policies, like standing six feet apart — which turned out to be scientific hogwash — and when they reversed their position on masks in lockstep — even ignoring the World Health Organisation — it was clear that governments were being coordinated by some external entity.
That is Carl Schmitt’s revelation of where power truly resides. It is praxis: the establishment of power by the act or the will. Leading beyond authority.
The powers-that-be know they are vulnerable if the public wakes up and spots the parallels with national socialism. That is why academics are drafted in to support the powers-that-be.
Rachel MagShamhráin (in The State of Exception Between Schmitt and Agamben: On Topographies of Exceptionalism and the Constitutionality of COVID) writes:
“This political philosophy is usually read in (and arguably tainted) by the immediate historical context in which it was conceived, namely 1930s Germany and the rise of National Socialism. Nevertheless, it has been reinvigorated recently as a paradigm used to explain government decisions taken under evolving COVID-19 pandemic conditions. The current use of Schmitt to understand the suspension of the normal order of things coincides with intense controversy about the work of one of his arch-critics — the surprising hero of the anti-lockdown anti-vaccination movement, Italian philosopher, Giorgio Agamben.” 
That is why the Anti Defamation League relentlessly attacks anyone who compares modern day genocide with the Holocaust.
A lot of people are sceptical about the Great Reset. Yet people are in danger, and there are already casualties, all around the world.
People are sceptical because tranhumanist talk of super soldier programmes and a zombie apocalypse (Centers for Disease Control) sounds crazy. It sounds Biblical — but look up the sources: government agencies.
In 2009 the WEF convened experts to devise — in practice to roll out — a new system of global governance. Its three most senior leaders involved were founder Klaus Schwab, vice-chair the former British diplomat Mark Malloch-Brown, and managing director Richard Samans. 
Malloch-Brown is now on the board of George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, and also connected to the Smartmatic-Dominion voting systems — for questioning which former president Donald Trump is now being arraigned.
One WEF strategy is Global Redesign Initiative (GRI). In just 18 months the WEF created 40 Global Agenda Councils to develop governance proposals, each on a different theme. Councils were populated by corporate, academic, government figures, religious leaders and private foundations.
“What is ingenious and disturbing is that the WEF multi-stakeholder governance proposal does not require approval or disapproval by any intergovernmental body. Absent any intergovernmental action the informal transition to MSG as a partial replacement of multilateralism can just happen,” writes Gleckman.
The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio recognised nine discrete “non-state” groups, under Agenda 21. Examples include the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
Here you see the connection with Bill Gates.
Multi Stakeholder Groups (MSGs) have been created to implement the Sustainable Development Goals, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and public–private partnerships in war zones.
Note how BlackRock is winning concessions from the Zelenskiy regime in Ukraine.
The WEF strategy is to take these MSGs and elevate them into a “multi-stakeholder governance” system.
Gleckman suggests MSGs are “inherently dangerous because profitability or business efficiency should not be a necessary condition for 'solving' a global crisis.” As when corporate lobbying of politicians “morphs into a multi-stakeholder governance system that silently or not so silently takes over ;solving' a global problem.”
In this way “charities” or private foundations bypass governments and instead collaborate directly with corporations, proposing solutions that benefit the stakeholders, and creating institutional governance mechanisms to manage outcomes.
Have governments and politicians been deliberately undermined, in order to encourge and justify corporations and finance capitalists pursuing their goals directly?
Have you seen president Joe Biden lately? Not only is the titular head of the administration barely competent, the administration is chock full of representatives of the owner-investors, in the form of former BlackRock staffers.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Moneycircus to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.