The Root of the Problem

Sadly, ESG social credit systems are already very popular with large companies in the US, Canada, and quite a bit of Europe. According to a report from KPMG, one of the biggest accounting firms in the entire world, there are thousands of businesses located in over fifty countries that have ESG systems already in place, and that includes 82% of large businesses in the good old United States! Even worse, 96% of the G250-“the 250 biggest companies by revenue as defined in the Fortune 500 ranking”-produce ESG reports.

In these reports, businesses-many of which have hired dozens of employees just to work exclusively on ESG-brag constantly about how woke they are, how their bleeding hearts ache for the plight of Mother Earth, and how the members of their leadership team begin each day in their corporate yoga studios flogging themselves to atone for their business’s climate sins and for their failure to make more commercials that empower drag queens to be their “most authentic selves”. Sarcasm intended.

Anyone with an ounce of brains know that none of these corporations really care about any of these issues. Drag queens have been around for a very long time. yet corporations like Old Navy didn’t start hiring drag queens to hawk Christmas themed full bodied PJ’s until just recently. Further, executives in these corporate boardrooms have privately advocated for gay rights for more than a decade, but it wasn’t until the past couple of years that many of them developed large scale advertising campaigns to shout their support for “gay pride” from the rooftops.

Old Al Gore has been bloviating about the “existential threat” of the “climate change hoax” for more than two decades now, but why then is it only now the big corporations seem to be taking this lie seriously? There’s no doubt that if you were to ask the heads of most of the Fortune 500 companies in America to stop and identify the root cause of their recent leftward shift, they would blubber on about how they have been touched in recent years by the pain and suffering of “marginalized communities” and how the scientists have convinced them about the dangers of “climate change” while ignoring nearly 2,000 top scientists in the world say just the opposite and that “climate change” is just a hoax. But none of what they claim are the reasons are true. The truth is a very inconvenient word: China. The Communist Party of China has one of the most horrendous blood soaked record in all of human history, but that hasn’t seemed to have stopped nearly every major business in America-most of whom are now champions of the Great Reset-from doing business, in one way or another in or with China.

So if these big companies and Wall Street care so damn much with the marginalized and oppressed and care so much for Mother Earth, then why in the world would they do business with the same party that has murdered tens of millions of people and are the biggest polluters in the entire world? And let’s not forget the millions of ethnic and religious minorities they’ve locked away in “re-education camps”, severely restricting access to cultural ideas that are in opposition to the views of the leaders of the Communist Party, including issues such as homosexuality; limited families from having more than one child, then two children, and now three children; and dramatically increased China’s coal-fired power plants, even though elites in Europe and North America say coal is going to kill the planet? Oh then of course, there is that whole mysterious origins of the global coronavirus pandemic thingy.

So, the big question here is if these big corporations and institutions don’t really care about all the causes they say they support, why would so many of them go along with a plan to reset capitalism? What’s the real motivation behind this deceptive decision? Wouldn’t they rather prefer to have more control over their own businesses, build better relationships with their customers, pay lower taxes, and focus on products and services, rather than engage in endless social justice BS? I don’t know about you, but the last time I checked, capitalism has been pretty damn good to them.

Well, there are always reasons behind the decisions that they make. The reasons might be ridiculously stupid-and when it comes to the federal government, they quite often are-but there is always a justification for the behavior taken by these large institutions and individuals vested with authority. More often than not, when it comes to big corporations, that reason is cold, hard cash-or more accurately, digital Fed coins.

Probably the most important reason why most of corporate America is going wok is because if you go woke, you don’t go broke, in fact you get filthy rich by going woke. Or at least that is what most of the businesses that are caught up in the Great Reset tend to believe. It seems that everyone involved is under the impression that this is only true for those companies that agree to become “good little soldiers” in the sacred battle to save the planet, or whatever else might be the cause of the day for these powerful elites who are crafting these national and international narratives.

Ungodly amounts of money have flooded into ESG causes over the last ten years, and the momentum in recent years hasb een building up even more rapidly in favor of ESG than many analysts expected just a few years ago. Popular business website Fast Company reported-in an article published in their section titled “New Capitalism,” by the way-that 2021 “was a record year for ESG, with an estimated $120 billion poured into sustainable investments, more than double the $51 billion of 2020. (Whenever you hear the word sustainable, you should run in the opposite direction!)

Along with these massive ESG dedicated investment funds, there are trillions upon trillions of dollars in capital that have been committed to promoting ESG and other forms of “sustainable investment” and capital allocation. Take Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), for instance. PRI, a leading force behind ESG, began at a meeting coordinated by the UN in 2005. Initially, it included a group of just twenty influential investors from twelve countries. But one year later, when PRI officially launched, it had one hundred signatories, eighty more than PRI’s first meeting. Today, more than three thousand wealthy individuals and institutions belong to PRI. Together, these investors, pension funds, and asset managers control more than $100 trillion. That’s about five times the size of the entire gross domestic product of the US, and it’s a figure that’s greater than the combined total GDP for the entire world, including America. With that kind of cash in mind, is it really very surprising that corporations are eager to be on the fascist Santa’s “nice” list? By the way, all of us out in the real world, whom they claim to care so much for, we’re not included in this little global plan of theirs, you can take that to the bank.

The Stock Market Mafia

Even though investment trends are a vital part of the whole ESG equation, businesses aren’t adopting ESG social credit scoring systems just because they suspect or hope that they will receive a flood of investment from the members of PRI and other, similar groups. They are also being told that they MUST do this by the most powerful figures on Wall Street, as well as by countless banks and other financial institutions.

A lot of the players in the Great Reset movement have suggested that everyone involved is adopting ESG out of the goodness of their hearts, but truth be known, a super wealthy band of goons are the ones imposing this dangerous system on US businesses, breaking the financial kneecaps of anyone who gets in their way.

Some of the biggest thugs that are involved in this ESG scam are the asset managers like BlackRock, State Street Global Advisors, and Vanguard. BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard are the three wealthiest private organizations on the entire planet!

One of the main ways companies such as BlackRock throw their weight around is by purchasing stock and then using their shares to ensure corporate leadership is willing to do their bidding. (Just think about this for a second, the CEO of BlackRock is Larry Fink and he’s part of the Biden Administration) In most of the cases, threats alone are persuasive enough to get corporate bigwigs onboard with whatever BlackRock and other large asset managers want, including ESG.

S&P noted that “BlackRock has long been a prominent player in the environmental, social and governance arena. In January 2020, for example, the New York based money manager signed up to Climate Action 100+, an investor led initiative that’s pushing companies to move toward net zero emissions by 2050 or sooner. (These nitwits don’t realize that true net zero carbon would mean the end of the planet for most 6th graders know that plants need carbon dioxide to consume and then produce the oxygen for which we need to live.)

S&P further supported its claim about BlackRock’s devotion ESG by nothing that in “March 2021, BlackRock also committed to the goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or earlier. And in May that year, the asset manager caused a stir when it voted to replace three directors at Exxon Mobil Corp. because it believed the oil company wasn’t moving quickly enough to incorporate clean energy sources.

The saga that involved Exxon is now infamous among Wall Street elites and illustrates well how the ESG stock market mafia operates. In 2021, a relatively small and mostly unknown activist hedge fund called Engine No. 1 led a campaign to force Exxon Mobil-one of the biggest oil and gas companies in the world-to reduce its carbon footprint, which, of course, is intimately tied to the very same oil and gas it sells. This would be like going to McDonald’s and demanding that it stop selling so many cheeseburgers. Of course, if many leftwing politicians have it their way, including VP Harris, cheeseburgers probably will be the next target on the activists’ hit list.

According to a report in the NY Times about the campaign, “The tiny firm, Engine No. 1, wouldn’t have had a chance were it not for an unusual twist: the support of some of Exxon’s biggest institutional investors. BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street voted against Exxon’s leadership and gave Engine No. 1 powerful support. When all was said and done, three of Exxon’s directors were replaced because of their unwillingness to take a hard line on fossil fuels. (Like who could blame them? After all, Exxon is a fossil fuel company, remember? Geez)

The Times went on to say “Engine No. 1 instantly became a Wall Street name. The firm is among a new breed of shareholder activists, ones driven by the idea that social good also benefits the bottom line, just as policy and public sentiment on the environment are evolving. Chris James, the founder of Engine No. 1, argued that Exxon’s management wasn’t making needed changes fast enough.” (Is really the world you want to live in where the smallest of minorities run the entire show?)

The Times added: “The firm convinced the mighty BlackRock,” who claimed “We believe more needs to be done in Exxon’s long term strategy” on reducing climate risk, which threatens shareholder value, it (BlackRock) said in a statement explaining why it had sided with Engine No. 1.

This is really rare for BlackRock and any other big asset manager to play second string to a far lesser known group like Engine No. 1. Usually, if BlackRock wants to impose its mighty will on a business or even an entire industry, it has no problem leading the charge.

Even though the force put on display in the fight over Exxon’s leadership seemed to surprise journalists, it shouldn’t have. After all the CEO of BlackRock is Larry Fink who not only is in the Biden administration, but he is also on the Board of Trustees of the WEF and is a very close ally of the king pen himself, Klaus Schwab. Fink has often quite openly defended Schwab’s “stakeholder capitalism” Great Reset model. In fact, Fink’s 2022 “Letter to CEOs” was devoted entirely to providing a full throated response to critics of the Great Reset like many of us who know what the gig is all about!

“Stakeholder capitalism is not about politics,” Fink wrote. “It is not a social or ideological agenda. It is not ‘woke’ (like hell it’s not). It IS capitalism, driven by mutually beneficial relationships between you and the employees, customers, suppliers, and communities your company relies on to prosper. This is the power of capitalism.” (Thing is, this type of capitalism only benefits the already wealthy elites, but it will never benefit any of us peons/stakeholders.)

Fink’s insistence that “stakeholder capitalism” isn’t about a “social or ideological agenda” would be laughable if the whole “pushing the reset button” on society thing weren’t so terrifying. On its face, it’s a ridiculous claim that is easily disproven. There is no debate over whether ESG is designed to promote a “social” agenda. It obviously is.

If stakeholder capitalism and the ESG system that is such a big part of it aren’t about politics, ideology, or a “social agenda,” why does the ESG system developed by the WEF-which, again, is where Fink serves as a board member-include measures evaluating the racial composition of a company’s workforce or how well it supports labor unions?

So, why does WEF’s ESG scoring system include the “Percentage of revenue from products and services designed to deliver specific social benefits or to address specific sustainability challenges”? Also, why does it measure a business’s “Total Social Investment,” which seeks to measure, in no part, the degree to which a company is financially supporting social justice causes? In fact, the WEF’s 96 page report laying out their ESG framework includes the word social 132 times! In fact, social is one of just three words in ESG-environmental, social, and governance. But don’t worry about all that, America. BlackRock promises none of this “stakeholder capitalism” stuff has anything to do with a “social or ideological agenda,” and if ever there were a trustworthy organization, it’s got to be BlackRock, right? Really? Just how stupid does Larry Fink think we are?!

Just like all good little authoritarians, Fink just couldn’t conceal his desire to control others for long. In this case, he couldn’t even manage to write a single letter without spicing it up with a few threats directed at CEOs who might be getting cold feet about Larry’s wonderful plan to transform all of society.

Then in Fink’s very same epistle to CEOs in which he promised stakeholder capitalism isn’t “woke,” Fink wrote, “Capital markets have allowed companies and countries to flourish. But access to capital is not a right. It is a privilege. And the duty to attract that capital is a responsible and sustainable (uh, there’s that word again sustainable) way lies with you.”

Later in his letter, Fink warns, “Companies not adjusting to this new reality and responding to their workers do so at their own peril.” He also said this, “Every company and every industry will be transformed by the transition to a net zero world. (Net zero world = dead world) The question is, will you lead, or will you be led?” Now be honest with yourself, does that sound anything like BlackRock is just trying to gently persuade corporations, or does it sound more like Fink and his goons are threatening companies who are refusing to go along with the ESG agenda? (I know what my answer is to that question)

Let’s not think that it’s just BlackRock that’s cracking the skulls of business owners because they’re not. Vanguard which is another huge Wall Street firm, has also been on a high and mighty crusade for several years now to try and force companies to transform the gender and racial ratios of their work places and leadership teams. For example, in December 2020, Reuters claimed Vanguard promised it “will continue pressing companies to make their boards and work place more diverse, but stopped short of setting specific targets as rivals have done.”

“Pennsylvania based Vanguard will encourage boards (encourage – sure) to take other steps toward diversity such as looking for candidates among human resources executives and other untapped talent groups, or increasing their sizes,” Reuters reported. Reuters also noted that Vanguard’s global head of investment stewardship, John Galloway, warned that “Vanguard may vote against directors at companies not making any progress.”

Vanguard’s ESG team has been analyzing and tracking businesses diversity for years now. “By Vanguard’s count among Russell3000 company boards, some 200 lack gender diversity and about 500 appear to lack racial diversity,” Reuters reported.

Now, not to be outdone by its rivals, State Street Global Advisors, yet another Wall Street goon, has been even more aggressive when it comes to board diversity linked to its ESG and stakeholder capitalism initiatives. Back in 2018, the publication “Institutional Investor” reported State Street had expanded its board diversity policy, saying it “will vote against the entire slate of board members on the nominating committee of any company not meeting its gender diversity criteria.” As a result of its demands, “State Street says that more than 300 companies have added a female board director in response to its demands, and that another 28 have pledged to do so.”

But according to Larry Fink, this has absolutely nothing to do with “a social or ideological agenda,” right, Fink?

Then all of this is just made even worse by the fact that asset managers just like BlackRock, the biggest of all of them, have become far richer over the past ten years. BlackRock, controlled $10 trillion in assets in early 2022, about 8.7 trillion more than it did in 2008. And they are just one of the dozens of asset managers who have been using ESG as a weapon. The total assets controlled by the 10 biggest investment groups on Wall Street – BlackRock, Vanguard, UBS Group, Fidelity, State Street, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Allianz, Capital Group, and Goldman Sachs – were worth more than $34 trillion in 2021.

According to research by Lucian Bebchuk, a professor at Harvard Law School, and Scott Hirst, an associate professor at the Boston University School of Law, the average ownership stake of the “Big Three” investment firms was a 5.2% in 1998. In 2017, it was 20.5%. Even more importantly, the “Big Three” collectively cast an average of about 25% of the votes at S&P 500 companies.” That means when the Big Three firms demand that corporate America jumps, most CEOs can only respond with, “How high?” Now you can begin to understand just why companies are going “woke” on the American people!

And it gets worse, this consolidation of voting power is more than likely to get even worse in the coming years. Bebchuk and Hirst believe “that the Big Three could well cast as much as 40% of the votes in S&P 500 companies within two decades.” If that were to happen, three Wall Street firms, working in conjunction with a relatively small group of other shareholders, could effectively control nearly all of corporate America!