Why Our Globalist Masters Hate Putin--And Trump

The answer to this question is very straight forward. Putin is committed to a Russian nationalist model—the concept of Russia doing what’s in the best interests of Russia and the Russian people. That includes restoring and preserving traditional Russian culture, which was nearly destroyed by atheist Communism. Trump advocated for a similar approach in America, allowing for the differing reality of America as compared to Russia—remember Make America Great Again? 

Our Globalist Masters, by contrast, are committed to a decidedly non-nationalist and non-traditionalist model. Call it—as they do—Trans-Humanist. From a governance standpoint it could be defined as Stakeholder Capitalism. Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum (WEF) defines that as:

a form of capitalism in which companies seek long-term value creation by taking into account the needs of all their stakeholders, and society at large.

In reality, though, it’s a form of governance built on the concept of public/private “partnership”. You could call it a development of the Fascist corporate state, bureaucratized on a global scale with Mega Corporations calling the shots and politicians implementing the policy preferences of the corporate elite.

This isn’t really pie in the sky stuff. In point of fact it’s being implemented as we speak—or read. Nor is it new. It’s been in the works for decades, but Trump was clearly a major speed bump in the agenda and had to go. Seemingly in anticipation of Trump’s removal, in 2019 the WEF took on the UN as a kind of junior partner in their world government project:

World Economic Forum and UN Sign Strategic Partnership Framework

• The UN-Forum Partnership was signed in a meeting held at United Nations headquarters between UN Secretary-General António Guterres and World Economic Founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab to accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

• The partnership identifies six areas of focus – financing the 2030 Agenda, climate change, health, digital cooperation, gender equality and empowerment of women, education and skills – to strengthen and broaden their combined impact by building on existing and new collaborations

• The full partnership framework can be found here

2019—that was very shortly before Covid-19 provided Schwab (who fronts for George Soros) and the WEF with “a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world."

I know what you’re thinking. When do I get to vote on “resetting” our world, on turning over to the WEF and UN governance “rooted in UN norms and values” and focused on “climate change, health, digital cooperation, gender equality and empowerment of women, education and skills”? Actually you have been voting on all that, it’s just that nobody bothered to tell you. That’s how we end up Soros financed DAs, governors, congressman, etc. Oh, did I mention presidents? Them, too.

The thing is that for all that fine talk about “stakeholders” taking into account “the needs of society at large”—you don’t get a voice in deciding what those needs are. Your Global Masters have decided that for you, and they’ve bought off most of the people you vote for. And if someone like Trump eludes their net, well, they have ways of dealing with that eventuality.

Which brings us to an article that actually dates back to October, 2021. Unfortunately, I can’t figure out how I got onto this—I tried searching emails and comments and couldn’t come up with the source—whoever it was, feel free to take credit and receive the hearty handshake and pat on the back. The article is by Iain Davis, and this link is to the Off-Guardian—but you can find it elsewhere, as well:

What is the “Global Public-Private Partnership”?

You can read the Wikipedia version of what the Global Public-Private Partnership (GPPP) is, and it will provide you with the whitewashed, happy horsesh*t version. However, a bit of reading between the lines will raise your eyebrows a bit. The first things to focus on is this—GPPP is a global governance mechanism. And you get no voice in that:

Global public–private partnership (GPPP) is a governance mechanism to foster public–private partnership (PPP) cooperation between an international intergovernmental organisation like the United Nations and private companies.

Existing GPPPs strive, among other things, to increase affordable access to essential drugs in developing countries, and to promote handwashing with soap to reduce diarrhoea. (see Global Handwashing Day).

Some of the work of the World Health Organization (WHO) may be considered global public–private partnerships (GPPPs). The WHO is financed through the UN system by contributions from member states. In recent years, WHO's work has involved more collaboration with NGOs and the pharmaceutical industry in Product development partnerships to create vaccines for diseases that primarily afflict third world countries. The WHO also works closely with foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. In 2012, 15% of WHO's total revenues was financed by private sources.

GPPPs are an example of multistakeholder governance which is a key target of United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 17. In particular, target 17.17 is formulated as: "Encourage effective partnerships: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships." This target has one Indicator: Indicator 17.17.1 is the "Amount in United States dollars committed to public-private partnerships for infrastructure.

Now, here is Iain Davis’ explanation of how all this works, and where your government fits into the plan:

The Global Public-Private Partnership (GPPP) is a world-wide network of stakeholder capitalists and their partners.

This collective 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 organisations, selected academic & scientific institutions, global charities, the labour unions and other chosen “thought leaders.”

Are you a “thought leader”? I can assure you, if you have to ask then you’re not.

The GPPP controls global finance and the world’s economy. It sets world, national and local policy (via global governance) and then promotes those policies using the mainstream media (MSM) corporations who are also “partners” within the GPPP.

Right. I’m sure you’ve seen those videos showing MSM readers all parroting the exact same talking points about Covid?

Often those policies are devised by the think-tanks before being adopted by governments, who are also GPPP partners. Government is the process of transforming GPPP global governance into hard policy, legislation and law.

... However, through global governance, the GPPP create 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 national government then enact the recommended policies.

Can you see why Trump was so hated? He had his own ideas, yet wasn’t a designated “thought leader”. In fact, he was a “thought heretic,” a Wrongthinker.

The policy trajectory is set internationally by the authorised definition of problems and their prescribed solutions. Once the GPPP enforce the consensus internationally, the policy framework is set. The GPPP stakeholder partners then collaborate to ensure the desired policies are developed, implemented and enforced. This is the oft quoted “international rules based system.”  

Here’s how that works, schematically. You’re a subject, so you’re at the bottom:

Now, read this next section carefully, and think it over in the context of what we’ve seen under the Covid Regime: globally coordinated policies—for the most part. Tight control of information flow in the MSM.

The GPPP has traditionally been referenced in the context of public health and specifically in a number of United Nation’s (UN) documents, including those from their agencies such as the World Health Organisation (WHO).

In their 2005 document Connecting For Health, the WHO, in noting what the Millennium Development Goals meant for global health, revealed the emerging GPPP:

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.”

The revised role of governments meant that they were no longer leading the way. The traditional policymakers weren’t making policy anymore, other GPPP partners were. National government had been relegated to creating the GPPP’s enabling environment by taxing the public and increasing government borrowing debt.

Note that the governments that you vote for aren’t actually the ones making policy. Have you been feeling as if your policy preferences are being ignored? That’s because major corporations—i.e., mega rich people—are the ones making policy. Why didn’t they consult us? Are you kidding?

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 GPPP led system of global governance is somehow beneficial for us.

Believing this requires a considerable degree of naivety. Many of the stakeholder corporations have been convicted, or publicly held accountable, for the crimes they have commited. These include war crimes. The apparent passive agreement of the political class that these “partners” should effectively set global policy, regulations and spending priorities seems like infantile credulity.

Or maybe self interest. Who funds the election campaigns of the political class? A relatively small investment in a politician can go a very long way when it comes to policy.

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

With the arrival of GPPP’s we were witnessing the birth of the process to formalise this relationship, the creation of a cohesive world order. The politicians have simply stuck to the script ever since. They didn’t write it.

…

There is the additional problem of national and cultural identity. Most populations aren’t ready for a distant, unelected world government. People generally want the political class to have more democratic accountability, not less.

The GPPP would certainly like to run a world government, but imposition 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.

…

The WEF do not have an electoral mandate of any kind. None of us have any opportunity to influence or even question their judgments and yet they are working in partnership with our supposedly democratically elected governments, and other GPPP stakeholders, to redesign the planet we all live on.

Stakeholder capitalism lies at the heart of the GPPP. Essentially it usurps democratic government (or indeed government of any kind) by placing global corporations at the centre of decision making. Despite deriving authority from no one but themselves, the leaders of the GPPP assume their own modern interpretation of the “divine right of kings” and rule absolutely.

In January 2021 The WEF spoke about how they viewed Stakeholder Capitalism:

…

The GPPP will oversee everything. Every government, all business, our so-called communities (where we live) and each of us individually. We are not the priority. The priority is the planet. Or so the WEF claim.

Centralised control of the entire planet, all its resources and everyone that lives on it is the core ethos of the GPPP. There is no need to interpret GPPP intentions, we don’t have to read between the lines. It is stated plainly in the introduction to the WEF’s Great Reset initiative:

To improve the state of the world, the World Economic Forum is starting The Great Reset initiative. The Covid-19 crisis is fundamentally changing the traditional context for decision-making. The inconsistencies, inadequacies and contradictions of multiple systems –from health and financial to energy and education – are more exposed than ever.. Leaders find themselves at a historic crossroads.. As we enter a unique window of opportunity to shape the recovery, this initiative will offer insights to help inform all those determining the future state of global relations, the direction of national economies, the priorities of societies, the nature of business models and the management of a global commons.”

...

It doesn’t matter who you elect, the policy trajectory is set at the global governance level. This is the dictatorial nature of the GPPP and nothing could be less democratic.

The fly in the ointment in all this has been the United States. With our constitutional checks and balances, our federal system with elections controlled at the state level, a far flung country with decidedly anti-elitist views exercising disproportionate influence (i.e., small population Red states with 2 senators apiece)—the US has been a tough nut for the Globalists to crack. Consider the degree of resistance shown by Americans to the Covid Regime, which appears to be achieving something like a critical mass. It’s a bit like the Pro-Life movement in America. We may all be deeply unhappy at the lack of gumption, the gullibility, on the part of so many, but how many countries in the world have viable and influential Pro-Life movements at all? And how many national populations have put up the degree of resistance to the Covid Regime that Americans have? Yes, Trump was removed, but the Globalists were left with Zhou and Kama Sutra.

There is hope, but understanding the odds that we face is necessary. There’s a lot more where those excerpts came from. I highly recommend it all. This is a titanic struggle on a true global scale.