The Rise of Ethical Authoritarianism

… when you strip away the glitter, the lies, the incredibly well polished false promises and the manipulative half-truths, what all of this actually is, is Bogdanov’s Scientific Socialism - utilising Lenin’s New Economic Policy approach to economics.

---

In the Western tradition, politics has generally operated through a system where people elect representatives to deliberate and ultimately pass policies. The execution of these policies often involves private sector actors, but their involvement alone does not inherently constitute evidence of fascism—a claim I frequently encounter. In this model, the private sector typically renders contractual services, functioning less as an equal partner and more as an entity akin to a customer purchasing goods at a corner shop.

However, the corporatist model diverges from this approach by introducing a third partner into the equation. It posits that effective governance requires a tripartite structure, involving not only the state and private sector but also organized interest groups, such as labor unions or industry associations. This evolution of the traditional model can be seen as incorporating the third partner into the decision-making, task administration, and execution processes.

• Traditional Model: Decisions: Public, Administration: Public, Execution: Public and/or Private

• Corporatist Model: Decisions: Public and/or Third Party, Administration: Public and/or Third Party, Execution: Public and/or Private

When applied in the context of authoritarianism, the "third party" becomes either the communist party (e.g., Lenin’s New Economic Policy) or the fascist party (e.g., the NSDAP under Nazi Germany). In both cases, the public is excluded from the decision-making process:

• Communist Model: Decisions: Communist Party, Administration: Communist Party, Execution: Public and/or Private

• Fascist Model: Decisions: Fascist/Nazi Party, Administration: Fascist/Nazi Party, Execution: Public and/or Private

A key distinction in the corporatist model under fascism lies in the ownership of large enterprises, which communism prohibits. However, in practice, large enterprises in fascist regimes were tightly controlled by the state. Senior executives faced severe penalties for failing to comply with state directives, and measures akin to modern "windfall taxes" were imposed, with rates reaching as high as 95% in Nazi Germany. As a result, the practical differences between the corporatist models under these two branches of authoritarianism were minimal, despite ideological distinctions.

When Wolfgang Reinicke introduced his "Trisectoral Network" approach, it represented yet another variant of the corporatist model—this time positioning a "Civil Society Organization" (CSO) as the third actor. In the context of the United Nations, this third party is typically an ECOSOC-registered NGO with General Consultative Status. While NGOs with Special Consultative Status also exist, only those with General Consultative Status can "place items on the agenda" at the United Nations, effectively granting them a quasi-right to legislative initiation.

As previously outlined, the process begins with "creating awareness." Once an issue gains traction, it is discussed in the UN General Assembly. If deemed significant, ECOSOC is tasked with organizing the next steps, highlighting the central role ECOSOC plays in this framework.

• Trisectoral Model: Decisions: NGO, Administration: NGO, Execution: Public and/or Private

If you examine the list of General Consultative Status NGOs (about 130 in total) and trace their donors, a recurring pattern emerges: the same organizations and foundations appear repeatedly, with Rockefeller-linked entities often in the background. These foundations fund a significant number of these NGOs, driving the agenda-setting process at the United Nations.

Furthermore, while much of the operational funding for individual UN agencies comes from taxpayers, foundations frequently make earmarked donations—funds that can only be used for specific purposes. A cynic might argue that these foundations not only rely on taxpayer subsidies but also heavily influence the operational direction of UN agencies through the NGOs they fund.

As a result, one could suggest—perhaps cynically, but not without justification—that the structure effectively looks like this:

• Trisectoral Model: Decisions: Foundation, Administration: Foundation, Execution: Public and/or Private

The contemporary United Nations functions in a way that parallels historical authoritarian systems, but now much of this control is routed through foundations. Does that make it fascism?

Not exactly. Since 1992, the emphasis on "Good Governance" has grown alongside principles like "Corporate Social Responsibility" and Hans Küng’s "Global Ethic." "Good Governance" now includes tailored versions: "Good Government Governance" (public sector), "Good Corporate/Business Governance" (private sector), and "Good Society Governance" (civil society organizations). These frameworks set thresholds for acceptable behavior within the Trisectoral Network approach.

At its core, "Good Governance" is about what is deemed moral, focusing on ethics—specifically, Ethical Principles for Ethical Leadership. However, this version of "ethics" comes with a significant caveat: the long-term objective is to encode these ethical principles into law. This shift is evident in areas like corporate ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) requirements, which are gradually transitioning from optional guidelines to mandatory standards, with penalties for failing to comply within permissible boundaries.

Consequently, while NGOs may control individual initiatives, all activity must adhere to rules ultimately governed by ethics—rules not under their control. Failure to comply can result in prosecution or even the revocation of their charter, a dynamic Tony Blair highlighted in his 1991 Marxism Today article.

This framework operates through the United Nations and is applied globally. As such, it becomes a question of identifying the highest level of appeals, which leads to institutions like the ICC and ICJ. These courts will adjudicate individual cases using a unified framework of legally codified ethical principles. Even the judges themselves are bound by these principles.

Thus, the ultimate question isn’t who the judges are but rather—who writes the legislation that defines the ethical framework?

In the context of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), legislation aligns with SDG 16: "Peace and Justice." A few ECOSOC-registered General Consultative Status NGOs operate in this space. Among them is the Institute of International Law, which primarily focuses on international legal matters and holds historical significance as one of the first organizations of its kind. Another is the International Council of Environmental Law, specializing in environmental justice and ethics.

While there are a few other semi-relevant NGOs in this domain, one stands out for special mention: the Institute for Noahide Code, granted General Consultative Status in 2021. According to their ECOSOC profile, they aim to legislate for global ethics.

Hermann Cohen emphasized the concept of "infinite judgment," which bridges ethics and law. In his Ethik des reinen Willens, he advocated for a universal moral framework and rejected the traditional role of religion, viewing it as merely a channel for moral encoding. This perspective positions the Institute for Noahide Code as a key actor in advancing global ethics. For example, if one seeks to codify ethical violations like ecocide or other fundamentally moral infractions as crimes retroactively, this organization is optimally placed to influence such developments.

This role extends to trisectoral networks, positioning the Institute for Noahide Code at the center of enforcing ethical standards. These standards could encompass social, environmental, or even intergenerational unethical behavior, upheld by courts within a unified ethical-legal framework. Furthermore, even influential foundations would be subordinated to this hierarchy, required to adhere to legislative ethics. This ensures their acceptable range of behavior is constrained within the codified ethical boundaries.

The fusion of ethics and legislation has historically enabled arbitrary rule. Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini all merged ethics with law to consolidate power. In each case, the state was deemed morally infallible, allowing dissidents to be condemned arbitrarily—under Hitler, for instance, for "disloyalty to the state." In the Soviet Union, the massive purges coincided with the enactment of the 1936 constitution, further illustrating this dynamic.

A contemporary concern in this vein is "planetary ethics," which often centers on environmentalism and its associated sciences—sciences that are not always precise. This creates a troubling scenario where individuals might be judged based on imprecise scientific claims, transformed into ethical imperatives, and used to justify sentencing. The integration of ethics into law exacerbates this issue, as it risks rendering justice arbitrary or at least vulnerable to arbitrary interpretation and enforcement.

Consequently, foundations and large enterprises will also be subjected to a system reminiscent of those that led to the untimely demise of tens, if not hundreds, of millions in the 20th century.

This system, as applied in contemporary settings, exhibits several key characteristics:

• Internationalistic: Advocates for hyper-liberal trade policies.

• Pacifistic: Focuses on disarmament while seeking to eliminate private land ownership (e.g., UN Habitat 1976, World Charter for Nature 1982).

• Compulsory Land Acquisition: Utilizes mechanisms like compulsory purchase orders (e.g., Dutch farmers) and promotes the idea that “nature needs half” by 2050.

• Control of Key Resources: Seeks to control information, money, and energy.

• Aesopian Language: Employs vague and misleading language to mask true intentions.

• Global Surveillance and Digital Twins: Relies on extensive surveillance and predictive models for centralized planning.

• Cultural Engineering: Promotes “global citizenship” as part of a “great transition.”

• Corruption of Religion: Replaces traditional faith systems with “scientific rationalism.”

• Voting System Reform: Introduces cosmopolitanism, “participatory,” and “inclusive” approaches to reshape governance.

• Ethical Rule: Governs through a universal moral framework underpinned by an ethical imperative.

• Subjugation of Foundations and Enterprises: Even influential foundations and large corporations are subordinated to this authority.

Taken together, this framework bears a striking resemblance to Lenin’s New Economic Policy on a global scale, though applied under the guise of modern ethics and sustainability.

The extensive use of global surveillance, including satellites like GEOSS, provides input data for Input-Output (IO) analysis through digital twins, enabling predictive modeling for future scenarios. These predictions are then utilized for adaptive management, grounded in systems analysis—essentially general systems theory with an additional control layer defined by arbitrarily imposed "ethics."

General systems theory, which spans natural and social sciences, is fundamentally rooted in Alexander Bogdanov's Tektology. Bogdanov also developed "Proletkult," aimed at steering the "human super-organism" through Tektology. Additionally, he created an early precursor to Leontief’s IO analysis and an initial model resembling the Gaia hypothesis, conceptualizing Earth as a closed system, particularly regarding CO₂ dynamics.

Bogdanov co-founded the Bolshevik Party with Lenin in 1903 but was removed in 1909 after losing an internal power struggle. His ideal governance model was scientific socialism, centered on the control of information—a concept that aligns strikingly with contemporary discussions of fifth-generation warfare.

The Gaia hypothesis ties directly to the "Spaceship Earth" metaphor, which represents a closed-loop systems theory model. This model's specialization leads to the circular economy and its focus on maintaining planetary health through interconnected frameworks:

• Geosphere health: Addressed through the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Ecosystem Approach.

• Biosphere health: Promoted via the "One Health" concept.

• Noosphere health: Relates to Global Ethics.

• Planetary health: Integrates the Ecosystem Approach, One Health, and Global Ethics.

Planetary ethics, through its global legal codification, ensures adherence to our contemporary purpose—currently defined by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), though these priorities are almost certain to slowly evolve over time.

SDG 16, focused on "peace and justice," can be interpreted as relating to "legislation and enforcement." Meanwhile, SDG 17 emphasizes the inclusion of civil society organizations, aligning with the UN Trisectoral Network approach. This bears striking similarities to Lenin's New Economic Policy (NEP) and Bogdanov's Scientific Socialism, particularly in how civil society is integrated into the governance structure.

---

Conclusion

The progressive integration of ethics into governance frameworks, particularly through global initiatives like the United Nations’ trisectoral network, presents a profound and imminent danger to liberty and sovereignty. While cloaked in the language of inclusivity, sustainability, and moral imperative, these systems increasingly concentrate decision-making power in the hands of unaccountable entities—foundations, NGOs, and other elite actors—under the guise of ethical leadership.

Historically, the fusion of ethics with law has enabled authoritarian regimes to justify arbitrary rule, eroding individual rights and suppressing dissent. Today, the same dynamic risks unfolding on a global scale. Modern ethical frameworks, such as those underpinning the Sustainable Development Goals, are being codified into law, enforced through centralized mechanisms, and justified by vague notions of planetary health and global responsibility. This creates a system where ethical principles are not tools for justice but instruments of control, imposed without democratic oversight or recourse.

The parallels to past authoritarian models are stark. Just as Lenin’s New Economic Policy centralized control through a network of state-sanctioned actors, the current trisectoral approach effectively sidelines the public in favor of NGOs and foundations that wield disproportionate influence. Meanwhile, ethical imperatives, often derived from imprecise or politicized science, serve as the foundation for sweeping decisions that impact billions—decisions that are increasingly beyond the reach of national governments and the individuals they represent.

This trajectory is not merely a theoretical concern but a tangible threat. As ethics are encoded into law and enforced through international courts, the scope for dissent diminishes. Individuals, corporations, and even governments will find themselves bound by an ethical framework crafted by a select few, with violations subject to severe penalties. The risk of arbitrary and unjust application is compounded by the lack of transparency in the agenda-setting process, dominated by powerful foundations whose motives are often obscured.

If this system continues unchecked, it will result in a global order where sovereignty is dismantled, individual freedoms are curtailed, and dissent is criminalized—all under the pretext of moral necessity. The same ethical frameworks designed to address global challenges could become the chains that bind humanity to an authoritarian future.

The warning is clear: vigilance is imperative. The public must scrutinize the origins, motives, and applications of these ethical frameworks and demand accountability from those who wield power in their name. Without resistance, the world risks descending into a system of global control, where ethics serve not as a guide to justice but as a mechanism for subjugation.