ESG: The social credit system for business

In the previous article, we saw how Farage was booted by Coutt’s specifically because he was in breach of ESG rules. But where do these rules come from, and where are they heading.

-

To sum up very quickly - ESG is a corporate social credit system. One, which is certain to legally twist and turn, thereby increasing the regulatory burden of SME, while large enterprise not only get to eliminate competition from SMEs, but also get to sell expensive compliance services in this space, as they have a hand in penning the legislation.

Well, more specifically, the legislation is written by corporate giants. The sort, where the founders create foundations for tax exempt purposes, which are then used to rapidly monopolise wealth even further.

-

The bottom line here - it’s a scam. A total and completely unapologetic scam. The intent here is to drive SME out of business, while further concentrating wealth on top.

All while funding left-wing politicians who feign outrage about sharply increased Gini coefficients, therefore demanding further concentration of power in the hands of the few in order to protect you.

With all of that said, there are two components here - how did we get here, and where are we going. I prefer, personally, to look forward, and consequently - let’s start by looking at where this is all heading.

Let’s see what the European Union is busy working on.

-

First, a success story. They have so far implemented three initiatives, none of which benefits anyone but large enterprise.

There are the climate benchmarks - full of arbitrary measures, which may or may not address issues related to the pseudoscience that is climate change, while at the same time completely ignore that neither China nor the rest of the non-Western world is not similarly bound by international regulation. What this will all do, is export even more industry abroad.

But we also have items related to disclosures and taxonomy harmonisation. These to a large extent pertain to centralisation, but so far they only apply to large corporations. It’s all about gradually tightening the net. They start with large corporates, and then move down. That’s how it always works. Start small, and nudge forward, inch by inch.

After all, it’s just two weeks, right?

With those three rapidly out of the way - as said, I prefer to look forward - what’s about to happen? What are they currently negotiating?

And in that regard, they have a further three initiatives currently in various stages of completion.

The first one is ‘mandatory ESG standards’, and this is almost done. Now, if you will, do note that this is not limited to just climate and environment, but also social and governance, including ‘human rights’.

It only goes downhill from here.

Following the link will take you here. Already here an issue emerges - there’s no mention about ‘human rights’ whatsoever. Clearly a mistake, right?

Of course it isn’t. Why tell the proles what the intent is.

Let’s have a look at the proposal itself. It can be found here.

It kicks off with the usual ‘equal opportunities for all, including gender equality’, and so forth. But what the hell does 'other aspects' comprise, exactly? I mean, it's pretty obvious, really, it’s just another instance of these crooks lying by omission, but ‘other aspects’ is a sufficiently large loophole for them to drive a truck through - which is obviously the intent.

And do note - this is the output of your representatives busily representing you. Awfully, of course, but still.

The document outlines an amendment to existing legislation. So, in the interest of acceleration, let’s find the document with all updates integrated. It must be out there, surely?

Because beyond the above, this is yet another amendment, from 2022. It’s amendment following amendment - but I can’t find the full document. More lying by omission. If you find the complete document, please do let me know.

Now, I did find the original version from 2013, which looks as such -

Pretty lightweight, no?

It wouldn’t be, did you read the version, fully up-to-date including all amendments. But releasing it clearly would be endangering their democracy. No, not yours, pesky prole.

Back in the original document, we also find this - 'European Green Deal adopted on 11 December 2019'. And what a nice reference "COM(2019) 640 final." Even that is obscured, but fortunately, it can still easily be found. A full reference would have been nice, but there’s clearly no impetus on informing the proles.

As said, fortunately that document is relatively easy to locate, and here it is.

I won’t go into details here, because I could write books on this. In fact, many already have. The core point is that it’s about rolling out Agenda 2030, come what may.

And it’s about their 'just and inclusive' plans... which I’m sure just won't include you, because you are not ‘vulnerable’ per a definition which you certainly will never get to influence. No, that is best reserved for your dear leaders to define to protect you.

Setting aside the facetiousness, I find it hard to not becoming angry, reading this document. Because all of these will only serve to monopolise wealth even further - by intent.

Those 'investments' will be for the likes of Gates, etc, to capitalise on - not you. And all of this will be 'integrated' into the financial system - which will work to exclude you, per their standards and definitions. You are the target.

It’s corrupt to the very core, and completely and utterly undemocratic.

And I really am serious about that. Their vulture initiatives exist and are ready to go. They do not care about the common garden prole.

They do - not - care.

This is explicitly to monopolise wealth. And let me just link that again, in case you didn’t read it earlier, becasuse the framework really is up and running already. In fact, they even outsource risky R&D to the taxpayer, and no, why would they ask you if you were OK with that?

The document further carries on - with the above in mind - the PROLE is to pay for this transition. That means YOU, the TAXPAYER - not Gates, etc. They will scoop up the rewards.

And your elected politicians pushed this through. Who do they work for, exactly - you or the billionaire class?

Incidentally, this very question I still await a response to, in relation to Ofcom’s Gill Whitehead and the WEF. Because she’s paid by the UK tax payer, yet is working with the ‘Global Coalition for Digital Safety’ - a WEF initiative, which is censorship to protect you.

And please spare me the ‘collaboration’ argument - the WEF is a private institution. The correct collaborative approach in this regard would be one with her working with the United Nations, which is supposed to represent the public. It doesn’t, of course, but that’s its supposed, claimed intent. Her working with the WEF directly is an insult to taxpayers.

-

The second initiative your representatives at the European Union currently work on is green bonds.

Now, the standard can be found here. It's the output of another 'High-Level Expert Group'.

Let's just skip the foreplay, and see who contributed to this. I’m sure there are all sorts of exploitative angles here, like gradually forcing all bonds to become ‘green’, complete with absurd and arbitrary definitions, to which only some will have to live up to, as they ultimately will be judged by some commissar. That much is a given.

But let’s find out who actually penned this. I'm sure it was primarily those who have the proles in mind, right?

Let’s do the acknowledgements first. Chock full of private sector representation. But that’s merely the starter for an absolute joke of a main meal.

Here are the main contributors. Feel free to do a second take - I had to. I geuninely thought I misread.

London Stock Exchange, Luxembourg Stock Exchange, Aviva Investors, Polish Bank Association, AXA, AMC Strategy, ... all of these are private.

And even when there’s an entity not obviously controlled by private interests - like the WWF, University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainable Leadership - they’re all of the narrative supporting hard-left types we’ve seen repeatedly.

An example of which would be Tom Burke of the E3G. He’s a former Green Alliance member, who’s also been a senior advisor to Rio Tinto (mining), BP (energy), and Standard Chartered. Oh I’m sure he’s totally representing you, and not global corporations, right?

And the chair - Christian Thimann - worked for AXA, a global insurance company. This is just way, way, way beyond a bad joke - as if they will EVER represent you in a billion years. This is a global, corporate heist, and the taxpayer will be fleeced. And your representatives allowed this to happen.

... but what about Nick Robins. United Nations, right? Well, he currently sits on the board of for-profits, as his job with the UN is done. Funny timing, no? We see this a lot in DC circles - job-hopping following regulation change.

This is nothing short of total and utter corruption. And this lot is supposed to represent the taxpayer? Didn’t Mitt Romney pick up the phone when called, or why didn’t they just elect straight up corporate raiders instead, or would that be too obvious (and honest)?

-

Right, onto the third and final bit of EU regulation, which is underway.

I originally predicted this would apply to large corporations only, but I fear that I was wrong. My cynicism didn’t extend quite far enough.

'Companies that have an SME business partner are required to support them to comply with the due diligence measures'.

Which is to say, probably most of medium-sized enterprise. Certainly a large chunk of them. And they will - due to their corporate interests - now also be required to comply.

The document itself can be found here. Let’s have a look, so that we can wrap up this round of complete corruption on display. Except, of course, that it’s in hiding, because being honest isn’t something the EU - nor other governments - generally do. Why inform the proles, right?

It naturally kicks off with a 'large companies' phase, but also states that 'voluntary action does not work' which is why mandatory will be required.

Make no mistake - ESG is a social credit system for business.

The document instantly refers to a slew of other documents. What are the odds, right?

... in fact, it's a smorgasbord of references, including to the European Green Deal which I - very briefly - covered above. Agenda 2030.

-

Look, the bottom line is this.

The large corporations are OK with the ESG ‘values’, because they are the ones who dictate these through their associated foundations - as we saw above. These will then be used to not only rob SME of business, but also sell overpriced compliance services, which only they can, because only they understand… as they were the ones drafting the regulation.

As for the references, well one of them is this one.

Released on the 14th of January, 2020 - immediately after the WHO lied about an illness. Yes, the scamdemic. Hidden in plain view 'A STRONG SOCIAL EUROPE FOR JUST TRANSITIONS'.

And this is where their systemic bias and gross dishonesty takes a sharp turn - for the worse.

But all of this relates to gender equality and LGBT values, and this really is a such heinous detail that it deserves a separate article, and it drags in one of the very worst, most subversive Marxist rats on the planet and his despicable foundation.

-

But what I will leave is this spurious set of claims, which are not backed by anything but a media repeating it often.

-

There’s a reason why the United Nations always include ‘women’ and ‘the marginalised’, and so forth. It’s to introduce an ideological blind spot, so that they can sneak unwanted regulations through.

But I did not expect them to drive the entire fleet of trucks through.