Beware of dark ‘inclusive’ spirituality masquerading as light. Transformative change-making is an arm of the 4IR NWO, based on Communitarian social theory (not Sacred Scripture). Period. The appeal to people of faith to create ‘positive impact’ in their communities is a perversion of the virtue of Christian charity (and its analogues in other faith-traditions). Charity is grounded in love and is a free gift given to another. This New Narrative is based on impact, outcomes, and practical consequentialist behavioral science – in addition to military psychological research and eugenicist theory. The goal with this NWO spirituality is to create total, submissive conformity and to prepare us for singularity.

I found the Fetzer Institute through its affiliation with the Bloomberg-funded Aspen Institute. Here is a link to its very disturbing whitepaper on the social entreprenuership model of spiritual narrative creation.

Fetzer’s Board is notable for its many ties to social impact investing and education programming organizations. Dan Cardinali is also on the Board of Independent Sector with representatives from Bridgespan Group and other titans of the Great Reset.


There is A LOT to learn from these organizations’ websites, especially in regard to the transfer of govermental responsibilities to private corporations. See, e.g., this post about a Biden executive order to promote public-private partnerships.

“The attached document, prepared in deep consultation with legal expertise from Holland & Knight, suggests a “first year” agenda that the Biden Administration might pursue to build an unprecedented partnership and strengthen the nonprofit sector so that, together, the federal government and the nonprofit sector might best strengthen civil society and ensure that all people living in the U.S. can thrive. It also builds on the collective wisdom and learnings from multiple administrations about how best to build this relationship.”

When billionnaire philanthropists are partnering with government and social entrepreneuers, the goal is social engineering for financial gain – at the expense of freedom, individuality, and the Truth that is the substance of genuine faith.

Are you ready for COGNITIVE CITIES? Oklahoma City, Oklahoma is already adopting Cognitive City technology.

Notice how Cognitive Cities focus on INCLUSIVENESS.  This buzzword ultimately intends to substitute the Hive Mind Singularity for rational, independent thought. Both Smart and Cognitive Cities do your thinking for you – the individual becomes nothing but a node in the Community Operating System.

A few thoughts on INCLUSION:

A “community” that is directed toward the “value” of INCLUSIVENESS / SOCIAL INCLUSION / INCLUSIVITY for every “identity”


a *society* that is  directed by *individuals* who possess the *characteristic* of CONFIDENCE / SELF-KNOWLEDGE/ SELF-SUFFICIENCY (or – to use a contemporary concept – SELF-ESTEEM).

INCLUSIVENESS is, first and foremost, about data capture and the compilation of hyper-detailed records of everyone’s attributes and experiences. This is for the benefit of human capital (and human liability) investors who want to make “big bets” on the possibility of achieving (or failing to achieve) “positive social outcomes” and it fulfills the desire of contemporary sorcerers to build an alternative mind – one to displace God’s Creation.

On a practical level, inclusiveness is also about creating “communities” in which everyone FEELS VALUED (as an asset) and EXPERIENCES (or has the perception of) BELONGING. Note that how one feels is a function of EVERYONE ELSE’S BEHAVIOR towards oneself – or how one perceives someone else’s behavior toward oneself.

Note that REASON / THOUGHT as well as INDIVIDUAL FORTITUDE / SELF-ASSUREDNESS are subordinated to EMOTIONAL EXPERIENCE. In an inclusive community, one’s sense of self (-worth/value) is determined by one’s opinions about the opinions of others. This sounds like a recipe for creating a diffident, servile people – or, to use the kinder, more popular term, an ADAPTABLE people – who may be “developed” now and into the future (i.e. sustainably). Inclusiveness is designed to turn individual human beings into mixed-use assets-under-management.

The older language of CHARACTER depends on the assumption that individuals become who they are through their free choices and their responses to the situations, obstacles, and opportunities that they encounter over the course of life. Both reason/thought and passion/emotion/feeling, as well as the will, play a role in choosing how one will meet the uncertainties of life. And over time those choices start to coalesce into habits and a more-or-less settled character. Human freedom is an essential component of this ethical paradigm – though it may be lost by individuals who consistently choose to act slavishly and who indulge the passions over reason and thoughtful consideration.

The element of FREEDOM, necessary for the unfolding of INDIVIDUAL CHARACTER is wholly absent from the Cognitive City structure.

The economic reset is designed to turn all businesses into social change agents and soft enforcers of the UN Sustainable Development Goals.  Employees are to be seen at all times as brand ambassadors for the companies that employ them.  This means that there will be no meaningful difference between “on- and off-the-clock.” Adherence to HR motivational-speak will be required in one’s private, personal time just as if he or she were at the office.  This is what is meant by the line “you’ll have no privacy and you’ll be happy.”

You might remember an earlier post I wrote about the design to Reset the definition of a corporation in order to transition from shareholder capitalism to stakeholder capitalism.  This whitepaper helps to explain how and why that redefinition is necessary.  Notice especially the screen shot that states:

“This level of change will require a huge mindset shift on the part of shareholders and management; however, the timing is favourable. The devastating labour market impact of the pandemic and the need for governments to step in and provide extensive support have made it clear that a financially incentivized business model driven by short-term wins no longer works; public and media focus on how companies manage their human capital resources is intensifying.”

The new economy works by “leveraging corporate purpose” to create SDG-aligned good global citizens.

Link to WEF whitepaper on Human Capital as an Asset:

Human Capital as an Asset

Heading Level 4

In this radio show, former Oklahoma State Senator Jake Merrick and I discuss the roll-out of Smart Cities in Oklahoma, the ways that the promise of “Economic Development” is beguiling Oklahomans, and what we can do as a state to protect our rights and the rule of law against an increasingly powerful global financial cabal.

Jake is a believer and follower of Jesus, married to Nicole for 12 years and father of two beautiful girls. He has a Master of Divinity from Southwestern Baptist Theological University, and he currently pastors a church in Oklahoma City. As a former professor, he taught Bible and Philosophy for 5 years at Southwestern Christian University in Bethany. During this time he also owned and managed a fitness center. Currently, Jake owns a tool sales company and manages the non-profit Paraklete, Inc, which he founded to create an alternative to the failing healthcare system. As a former state Senator, he is also using the insights gained from his time in office to rally the people of Oklahoma to fight for their individual freedom via 100K Friends.

Heading Level 4

In this radio interview, Bruce de Torres and I discuss the problems and potential avenues of restoration for the American Nation.  We focus on public-private partnerships as a danger to representative government and how state-level action might be our best option for salvaging the rule of law in this country.


Bruce is the author of GOD, SCHOOL, 9/11 AND JFK: The Lies That Are Killing Us and The Truth That Sets Us Free, Marketing Director for TrineDay Publishing and moderator of TrineDay’s podcast, THE JOURNEY: CONVERSATIONS WITH PUBLISHER KRIS MILLEGAN, and host of WORLDSTAGE WITH BRUCE DE TORRES on TNT Radio DOT Live.


This is a recording of a presentation I was honored to give to a group in Newcastle, Australia about the transition to the Impact Economy and how the city’s Smart City Plan is integral to it. Smart cities collect the data that makes the Impact Economy viable – ubiquitous surveillance provides “proof of impact,” which is used in determining the Return on Investment for impact investors. Smart city technologies also deliver nudges – or automated signals – designed to change behavior in ways that support the impact agenda, which coincides with the UN SDGs. In the simplest terms, Smart Cities are for social credit scoring and geofencing. I discuss the role that Anchor Institutions and Collective Impact strategies have had in advancing the 4IR Smart City agenda quietly and without genuine public oversight.

Many thanks to  @Kate Mason  for setting up this meeting. Her video on the real-life consequences of Australia’s social policy responses to the events of the past 2 years is excellent to share with those who are still wrestling with the true nature of the new normal. Here is the link to her talk:

See Newcastle’s Smart City plan here:

G8 Report on Social Impact Finance, which details the importance of measurement for social impact finance markets and states that smart communities are those wherein smart city tech and the impact economy cooperate to transform society:

Australia’s Griffith University whitepapers on Social Impact Finance and Universities as Anchor Institutions:


University of Newcastle Strategic Plan:

Greater Newcastle Economic Development Plan:

On Smart Payment Systems for Social Services, Commonwealth Bank of Australia:

On Blockchain for Education (aka Human Capital / Social Credit Scoring):


An easy way to raise awareness about your city’s implementation of the smart city model:





and then





A draft of a plan for organizing the people for freedom (2 formats):

The financial cartel have been setting up the New Inclusive Economy, based on a model of social-engineering-as-a-service, for over 15 years. Inclusive means that EVERYTHING and EVERYONE will be “measured and managed.” This Harvard Business Review article argues that having a comprehensive approach to the MANAGEMENT of PEOPLE SYSTEMS has strong PREDICTIVE VALUE for a company’s FINANCIAL RETURNS.


SMART TECHNOLOGIES, which replace HUMAN JOBS, are also about managing people and therefore about predicting and driving financial returns. They won’t go out of style anytime soon. All environments will become SMART – in order to manage, measure, and monetize the people who have been rendered “economically irrelevant” by Fourth Industrial Revolution technology.

“More than 120 million workers globally will need retraining in the next three years due to artificial intelligence’s impact on jobs, according to an IBM survey.” The amount of individuals who will be impacted is immense. The world’s most advanced cities aren’t ready for the disruptions of artificial intelligence, claims management consulting firm Oliver Wyman.

–, 2020

This is setting up a vicious cycle of corporate and state-sponsored social control that will drain all true vitality from human existence. Notice how this approach was tested in and applied to schools – the more manageable the child, the more productive (and predictive) the asset. Remember the saying, “No child left behind“? It expresses both the comprehensive nature of this program AND the deliberate destruction of children – because in the place of a child, this system leaves nothing behind but a machine.


The phrase “long-term value” – as a goal of or approach to the new economic order – signifies the transition TO Impact/ESG outcomes and investments (FROM real goods and services) as the fundamental unit of economic value. “Long-term” is a phrase that operates as a sort of risk-management strategy. You’ll likely never see materialized the economic “value” that these approaches purport to create. That is, you won’t see any problems fixed or satisfactory outcomes achieved.

In order to prevent questions and the rejection of the system, the architects of this grave reset have hedged their bets, so-to-speak, by claiming at the outset that the returns are to be realized far, far off into the future. They can do this because they’ve also defined the problems as global, systemic, and structural challenges that are impossibly large in scope – not to mention usefully vague and apt to morph in nature, scope, or origin. When you are inclined to think that “long-term strategy” means something reasonable or prudent, just remember that these wordplays always appeal to our highest aspirations as a way of obscuring their sinister and deceptive meanings.

The excerpts below (from linked articles) lay out the parameters of the 4IR transformation and its relation to ESG/ impact investments.

(Ftr: I think the Millennial/Gen Z “demand” for ESG accounting is 100% manufactured and maybe 10% truthful.)



Companies that look ⚠long term – to 2030 and beyond – and master the integration of environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks and opportunities with commercial strategy will build the resilience to thrive over the next decade. Getting this integration right matters for C-suites and boards – and it matters because we urgently need to accelerate progress to live within planetary boundaries and towards social justice and equity.

The principle here is simple: sustainability strategy is smart⚠ long-term business strategy. Increasingly, it’s also smart near-term strategy.

Why? Because effective management of ESG opportunities and risks contributes to commercial value creation. Sustainable offerings can increase topline revenue and build trust with customers. Operational eco-efficiency can reduce costs over the ⚠long term. Values alignment and ESG performance are increasingly important to attract and retain top talent, which in turn drives productivity and innovation. Community investment bolsters social licence to operate and can help secure sources of supply – while driving positive societal impact. And strong ESG performance increasingly unlocks capital, either as a signal of sound management to investors, or through sustainability-linked loans or bonds.

From now to 2030, businesses across industries are rapidly transforming due to digitisation, AI, big data, the future of work, consumer power, and reshaping of global supply chains, among other macro-trends. Compounding these shifts are rising expectations for companies to deliver ESG performance and value to stakeholders, including – but no longer limited to – shareholders. And around the globe, governments and businesses are facing calls to “build back better” and deliver an inclusive, green, economic recovery.

To optimise near-term value through ESG, while building a⚠ long-term strategy for sustainable and responsible business, companies need to make smart decisions about what to prioritise and resource. At Corporate Citizenship, we are seeing companies develop sustainable and responsible business strategies through two approaches: 1) bold and rigorous ⚠long-term planning that sets direction and identifies early wins; and 2) “fail fast” innovation sprints that build early momentum and lay the foundation for ⚠long-term goals and targets.

Building resilient businesses will require a new mindset for many leaders. Instead of focusing exclusively on maximizing efficiency, resilience involves building new capabilities that may come at a short-term cost. And instead of managing short-term shifts in performance, resilience requires a focus on consistent ⚠long-term value creation and a balancing of short-run efficiency against ⚠long-run effectiveness.

As the post-COVID world emerges, leaders will need to shift their attention back to ⚠longer-term challenges. By building resilience, digitizing for advantage, and supporting collective action on climate change, leaders can put their businesses in position to succeed in and help shape the new reality.

Securing competitive capital.

As millennial and Gen Z investors become an increasingly important segment of the investment market, their interest in values-based investing will enhance pressure for ESG-type transparency. Addressing the evolving wants and needs of these stakeholders will be critical to secure the capital needed to make ⚠long-term, growth-oriented investments⚠ and supporting new programs and initiatives that will evidence an organization’s commitment to its stated values. Organizations like the Montreal Social Value Fund, which Eva has co-founded, and other Social Value Funds across the country are run by post-secondary students who make impact-first investments that prioritize the social and environmental efforts of Canadian businesses. And they’re one of many initiatives that work directly with organizations who are committed to driving sustainability efforts.


Companies are increasingly shifting towards more sustainable strategies and stakeholder capitalism by⚠ moving away from short-term shareholder primacy.

Financial and accounting systems influence decision-making, the assessment of corporate performance, and the value attributed to it. Therefore, financial and accounting systems play an important role in helping management and others evaluate a company’s ability to identify and manage ESG risks and create ⚠sustainable value over time.

As accountants, we are expert in financial capital, management information, and accounting standards. But I would strongly argue that the stocks and flows,⚠ impacts and dependencies of other forms of capital are ⚠equally – if not even more – important in the 21st century to understanding value creation.

See also:

Investors aligning COVID-recovery with ESG

ESG investing focuses on understanding how ESG risks and opportunities impact on long-term success, and takes into account externalities and the potential impact on performance.

These considerations have not disappeared as a result of COVID-19. In fact, there is growing recognition from the investment community that ESG is more important than ever. The United Nations-supported Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) – the international network of investors with over 2500 signatories – has recognised that systemic recovery from the crisis is paramount, signalling that PRI signatories should be ‘supporting sustainable companies through this crisis – in the interests of public health and ⚠long-term economic performance – even if that limits short-term returns.’
See also:

Imagine a young girl, maybe 20 years of age, who has been courted by an older man for a long time. He spoiled her with flattery and gifts and she felt on top of the world. Her parents were no where to be found, and the young girl came to depend wholly on the older man for her sustenance and for her sense of selfhood. She never hesitated to do his bidding, and she enjoyed the feeling of power and agency that it gave her. But her older lover was often absent and didn’t tell her where he was going or what he was doing. As she grew a little older and her beauty began to wane, and her lover’s affections cooled, she began to question the man’s actions and his intentions, and she began to wonder about herself – whether she had any life or identity independent of her keeper. She looked back on the years she had been by his side and started to perceive – as through a glass, darkly – that she had been deceived and abused and, to her deep embarassment, that she had welcomed it, not knowing any better. Now she is dazed and struggling to find her way before the walls close in.

This is one of many images that comes to mind when I consider the tragic situation of my country, the United States of America. Most of us have no understanding of the role we’ve played in the world.

A Glimpse into the Future

The following questions were occasioned by this interview write-up:

Looking into the Future of Work, Relationships and the with Liselotte Lyngsøhumans-with-liselotte-lyngs/

How appealing are the following innovations, each of which is described in the above interview as a possibility in the not-so-distant future?

●Licking your phone to experience gourmet aromas and flavors?

●Having your company require virtual water cooler encounters to nudge more diverse interactions?

●Determining whether you and your spouse should accompany each other into the Meta where you date other virtual creatures?

●Education based on an AI profile of you that has run every possible scenario for your pathway?

●Having a digital twin of your child to coach you on what parenting decisions you ought to make?

Each of these scenarios assumes a fundamental shift in the order of human life and society, and the moral assumptions that hold them together. Do any of these things sound like a future we want for ourselves or our children?

The Fourth Industrial Revolution is a New Religious System

One of the most important concepts to grasp at the cusp of this catalysmic shift in human history is the fundamental model of managing wants and needs through predictive profiling. The Precision Economy is based on the power of an AI to know you better than you know yourself and to determine how to optimize you for the benefit of yourself and others, ostensibly leading to habits that generate less waste and more happiness. At its core, this type of human-management system is, I think, the result of an effort to erect a substitute for God – a project guided by man’s desire to believing that he is his own maker. Yuval Harari’s 2016 article in The New Statesman is a clear example of this type of existential grasping.

The assumption that metaphysical and ontological structures are changeable and changing is evident in an article I recently came across: an Age of Aquarius interview with Danish futurist, Liselotte Lyngsø. Her company, Future Navigator, markets “Future-as-a-Service” and other similarly nebulous offerings to its clients. Until recently, the fantastical projections of professional Futurists have seemed too far-fetched for the general population to take them seriously as a guide for personal or business planning. But the events of the past 2 years have brought the Fourth Industrial Revolution and all its technologies into the mainstream, and – as its architects are the ones who are currently driving the rapid transformation of human society – we would do well to pay more attention to the Futurists’ incredible predictions. They are absolutely serious in their efforts to foresee and to control new worlds on the basis of advances in high technology.

Skeptics may find it helpful to consider how technology has already been put into place at employers including WalMart and in schools in the United States. Moreover, according to the World Bank, the growth of educational gaming protocols – sometimes called “edutainment” – as a behavior-modification technique are being used in both corporate and education sectors. In 2017, an article by Jump Associates, an innovation strategy consultant to major corporations, describes how VR “experiences” can alter perceptions and lead to behavior change:

VR’s ability to transport people into situations that are physically and emotionally inaccessible shows much promise. Stanford’s Virtual Human Interaction Lab is experimenting with using it to influence choices people make in their everyday lives. They’ve found that after VR interactions like playing the role of cow eating and drinking before being sent to slaughter, or virtually eating lumps of coal representing energy used to heat water while taking a shower, people see a connection between choices they make and the potential environmental costs of their actions.

Notice how, in the example above, human beings are presented with non-human – i.e. animal – experiences in order to encourage them to develop an emotional (vs. intellectual) commitment to carbon-reduction goals that are key to UN Sustainable Development Goals.

This type of attitude-management strategy is crucial to the Build Back Better, or impact economy, because it will not only increase a corporation’s ESG rating, it will also increase employee productivity by linking competitive gaming frameworks to job performance incentive strategy, as for example, in Salescreen’s product line.

How the ostensible conflict between competitiveness and empathy or global citizenship will be mediated in a future-world that takes all morality and metaphysical and ontological structures as fluid is anyone’s guess. My guess is that it will be decided by those who care more for management than they do for people.

In conclusion, I highly recommend listening to the 55 – minute podcast embedded in the Age of Aquarius article. Liselotte Lyngsø is optimistic, open-minded about the positive potential of these futuristic technologies, forthright in her assumptions, and blissfully unperturbed by the dystopian visions of humankind 2.0. In other words, she has bought into the 4IR ideology and will give you an honest tour of the best possible version of it. Of course, her naivete is demonstrated by her belief that we – regular people – will be able to determine how these technologies are put to use. I doubt that that is the case, but think rather that we will have no say whatsoever in transhumanocracy and its subjugation of all things genuinely human. The reality is that this agenda will be forced on us in the same manner as the coronapocalypse, as a set of VR goggles, and so many other titanic programs of domination.



Over the past decade, and especially since 2020, billionnaires, mega-corporations, and the government have, with growing intensity and volume and in the same words and images, called on civil society, business, and the public to end systemic racism. There is something curious about the fact that these groups – which have long histories of exploiting minorities and (directly or indirectly) encouraging bigotry and strife for purposes of profit – have suddenly become vocal promoters of racial equity, dismantling systemic racism, and diversity, equity, and inclusion norms, etc.

We can begin to unravel this paradox of public good will by considering the organizational commitments to racial equity published by JUST Capital. A non-profit organization founded by “a group of concerned people from the world of business, finance, and civil society – including Paul Tudor Jones II, Deepak Chopra, Rinaldo Brutoco, Arianna Huffington, Paul Scialla, Alan Fleischmann, and others,” JUST Capital is an organization that claims to promote a “just economy” and “true prosperity for all” by measuring and ranking corporate performance on a set of common metrics related to those goals. Investors who are concerned with racial equity, for example, may use JUST Capital’s rankings to determine which companies are most committed to this moral norm and most deserving of investment capital.

By examining JUST Capital’s statements about what goes into tracking racial equity, we start to see that one social justice issue is used to justify the imposition of a much larger program of human capital scoring.

“We have listed below our internal commitments to racial equity and how they deepen our mission’s impact. 

As an organization, we commit to: 

Audit the demographic composition of our workforce – including race, ethnicity, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity, among other intersectional dimensions – on an annual basis, and share results publicly. 

To track and report on the distribution of employees across standard pay bands – by race, ethnicity, gender, and job category – on an annual basis, and share results publicly, including whether any adjustments have been made. 

Develop fair, equitable, and inclusive hiring and promotion processes by conducting a diversity audit of existing practices; setting goals for hiring, promoting, and retaining Black and Brown employees; and establishing a transparent framework for determining salaries, internal pay bands, pay increases, and promotions. 

Build a more diverse board of directors by setting clear board diversity targets and actively recruiting new directors who represent the Black and Latinx communities. 

Continue to discuss and address issues of bias within our organization through antiracist training and education for our leadership team, staff, and board of directors. 

Create and clearly define a more comprehensive grievance mechanism that allows employees to report instances of marginalization and discrimination, and provide training to those responsible for handling grievances. 

Continue to cover structural racism and racial equity in our research and content, even after these issues have become less prominent in national consciousness. 

Ensure that a greater diversity of voices is integrated into our content and events by elevating the voices of our Black and Brown colleagues and external leaders. 

Build our network of partnerships and collaborations with organizations advancing the cause of racial equity.”

From these commitments, we can see that a published concern for racial equity makes a very effective justification (i.e. a cover) for implementing universal standards for and expectations of HUMAN CAPITAL monitoring and reporting.

No matter what JUST Capital’s Public Priorities Polls claim to demonstrate (I suspect they are heavily influenced by the Solutions Journalism/Impact Media approach, which is not unlike that which a now-infamous data modeller from London’s Imperial College used back in 2020. See, e.g. this ESG-related poll.), I think most people – black, white, and all others – are categorically opposed to the kind of SURVEILLANCE PROFILING entailed in the policy recommendations proposed by this organization. Or at least that would be the case if the peddlers of this brutal scheme were honest about how it is designed to work and to what end.

There are other reasons why racial equity is in every foundation’s, every corporation’s, every NGO’s mission statement – these include things like disrupting social demographics, redistributing wealth, demoralizing people who are white, and shifting economic power and prestige to the Non-Profit Industrial Complex (which is a main offender in terms of human capital tracking).

Note: I think that there are real wounds and scars and ongoing injuries that are the result of bigotry and prejudice. The statements above are not intended to dismiss those real injustices. Rather, I hope my observations will encourage further scrutiny of the language of systemic racism and especially its invocation by billionnaires, corporations, and the government. There is something unsettling about the fact that the same interests that are quick to eulogize George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter movement are also funding the pilot program installation of FLOCK SAFETY license plate readers in (to use a local example) a low-income, predominantly Black TULSA NEIGHBORHOOD. These groups care little about genuine progress in the area of race relations. Why would they? Trauma, division, strife, and poverty are the conditions upon which the new impact economy thrive. And, after all, Paul Tudor Jones, the mastermind of this organization made his fortune in …. what?

I encourage you to look it up.

Paul Tudor Jones video

Please watch this 3-minute-long promo video for Grapheal’s TestNPass application.

This is the “solution” (digital identity health pass) that has motivated the “problem” (the declared illness) and the “reaction” (the economic and social collapse that will justify the Build Back Better, or Great Reset).

More than Simply a Health Pass

This digital credential-verifying technology eventually will be used to register every possible data point generated about each one of us. This data will form our unique human capital profiles, which will, in turn, determine what “privileges” we are “allowed” to access. Some privileges will require that we comply with “personalized” recommendations for “wellness” or “social responsibility.”

Notice that IBM offers a health credential passport, a learning credential passport, and more using the foundation of blockchain distributed ledger technology.

Behind the theatrics of the Covid 19 pandemic, a seismic shift in corporate and economic structures is underway, and the digital passport introduced in response to a “public health crisis” is the prologue to a full-scale digital identity credential passport that will serve the new model. On short, corporations are transitioning their business strategies from shareholder capitalism to stakeholder capitalism.

Stakeholder capitalism is as brutal as the name sounds, which is why this Emperor is clothed in a tapestry of pleasant buzzwords such as Resilience, Sustainability, Inclusiveness, Equity, Innovative, Accountability, Collaborative, Transparent, and Diversity. These terms give us the impression that ESG investing – the new model of “socially-responsibile investing” that purports to benefit all ‘stakeholders’ – represents genuine progress from profit-oriented shareholder capitalism to something more beneficial to “the community.” Not so, however.

ESG Investing incorporates Human Capital metrics into a corporation’s overall, ESG profile – a profile that determines whether the firm will receive capital investments from banks and other lenders. The Digital Credential Passport will be the tool for tracking not only employees’ health statuses, but also their larger social responsibility (ESG) profile, as captured through Smart City infrastructure and the expanding Internet of Things. If an employee is not ‘committed’ to the attitudinal and behavioral goals deemed appropriate to a good 21st-century global citizen – viz. the UN SDGs or Global Goals, which are commercialized in the Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics – his or her employer will intervene to correct that, assigning professional development training that measures attitudes before and after the assigned intervention (tracking impact / investments in the workforce). Moreover, as a result of AI processing of employment applications, anyone who does or is likely to fall short of good global citizen status will probably find that he or she has very limited, if any, ‘access’ to employment at all.

Tracking Employees’ Loyalty to the Firm

We also see that, in the Built-Back-Better economy, employees will be expected to have, in addition to a commitment to the Global Goals, a level of engagement to the firm that leads to his or her personal promotion of the firm even and especially during off-the-clock life. In this industry piece from Marketing Insider Group, CEO and author of the book Mean People Suck Michael Brenner writes:

Statistics show that employee engagement does indeed drive marketing ROI by a significant percentage. The more business your engaged employees bring in, the more it drives up profits.

Loyalty 360 study supports that conclusion. Reporting customer retention rates 18 percent higher for companies whose employees are “highly engaged,” the study demonstrates the impact engaged employees can have on this sought-after marketing metric.

  • That kind of engagement can only happen when every department acts as the right arm of the marketing team.
  • That kind of collaboration depends on the marketing team’s initiative to get everyone from the CEO to the janitor and everyone in between involved in marketing efforts.

In the 4IR future of work, corporations will expect employees to be their “walking billboards” and brand ambassadors. The Framework for Inclusive Capitalism recommends instituting pay equity on the basis of an accurate assessment of the value that an employee creates for the company. Here again, this is where a digital access pass, based on blockchain distributed ledger technology, proves its worth beyond health-related applications – the access pass can hold massive amounts of data about all sorts of employee choices, attitudes, and interactions – occurring both on- and off- the-clock and recorded by multiple sources – that might have some bearing on the company brand.

This brand ambassador ledger becomes an important tool in standardizing human capital scores for pay equity initiatives, especially insofar as employee behavior during non-working hours has the potential to generate steep ROI for companies that have ‘activated’ their employees.

When you activate your employees, though, it’s marketing magic. Activation includes a wealth of tools to empower your employees to become walking billboards for your company, including:

  • Training that not only makes them more informed about your products, but also allows them to climb up the corporate ladder – imagine – you gotta love a company that trains you to qualify for a better job
  • Permission to post content on social media and elsewhere about your company’s culture, products, and services
    Involvement in creating blog posts, videos, white papers, and other “official” marketing content, creating a platform on which they can showcase their expertise

Once your employees start sharing the love your company has shared with them, it will pay off. Not only will it pay off in good vibes, but it will also likely make a huge impact on your bottom line.

Source: Michael Brenner, “21 Marketing Trends You Need to Know For 2022,” Marketing Insider Group, 2021

Since positive comments and posts about an employer on an employee’s personal social media account create significant value/profits for the firm, corporate strategy will include investments in activation programming, new and existing personnel who are amenable to being activated, and technologies such as a digital access pass which enable firms to measure and manage the value of their investments in employee activation.

The willingness to stake one’s own reputation on the company brand – and one’s effectiveness at so doing (which may be determined by consulting the ledger of interactions written to a digital access pass) – will be a major factor in determining a person’s ESG Score, or human capital score. That score is the employee’s key to unlocking privileges across many sectors – personal, professional, mobility and recreation, etc., and is also an opportunity for market speculators to make big bets on how one will fare in the human capital futures index.

Will anyone actually go along with this program for total surveillance and corporate behavioral engineering of employees? Unfortunately, yes. Most people will accept the access pass and the program that comes with it because the corporate resetters are demolishing the economy and engineering human labor surpluses in order to create massive unemployment. Jobs will be few and hungry families will be many. This is their strategy to force people to accept the “activation.” The digital identification system is about behavioral conditioning and control.

Here’s a short talk about Ocean Protocol – a new ‘solution’ for the problem that we don’t own our own data. In other words, the problem that the data that we generate (through all sorts of signals intelligence, e.g. Fb) belongs to and is monetized by the giant data-capture companies, leaving us as merely ‘the product’ of the services we use. The speaker here is an enthusiastic supporter of Ocean Protocol, and he celebrates the potential of privacy-protecting open-data platforms to enable ‘some whiz-kid’ (Greta’s bff, perhaps?) to discover a solution to all the world’s problems. He also explains that Ocean provides compensation to data-providers, eliminating the ‘you are the product’ problem.

But listen to this talk closely. The speaker knows his stuff (certainly better than I!), but I think he overlooks three very important things.

First, when he talks about being compensated for data-production/intellectual activity, he explains that our data output becomes an asset that may be leveraged to gain privileges. This sounds a lot like a human capital ranking or social credit score.

Second, the corporate partners involved in Ocean Protocol – Daimler, IBM, Roche Diagnostics, BMW, to name a few – have deep roots in the eugenics revolution of the 20th century. That they would pivot to caring about human beings is a long-shot indeed.

Third, Ocean is partnering with the World Economic Forum and the United Nations. No need to explain that one, as everyone knows that Klaus and his band of thugs want to Reset the world. There’s also the MIT connection, the hexagon logo, the creepy octopus symbolism, but I won’t go into that.

Bottom line: lots of serious investors and social engineers are setting up the new data economy, and they are using the coronapocalypse to do it. But this open-data ‘solution’ is a trap. Its real aim is to usher in techno-facist regime of digital totalitarianism, smart contracts, social credit scoring, and VR GOGGLE-prisons.

Ocean Protocol Video

Besides facebook reactions, I don’t have any way of knowing who has read or considered the information that I share in my posts.

I hope the information I share – which deals with the CLEAR AND PRESENT danger to AMERICANS’ BUSINESSES, BANK ACCOUNTS, and BILL OF RIGHTS might somehow reach individuals who have the COURAGE and the CLOUT to stand up against the CONTROLLED DEMOLITION of AMERICAN SOCIETY and INSTITUTIONS.

INCLUSIVE CAPITALISM is a program that delivers into the hands of FOREIGN-OWNED PRIVATE CORPORATIONS all the coercive tools of government, effectively obliterating any public check on the use of this power.

Someone is going to interject, saying that government was set up to oppress the people and that popular sovereignty is a myth, etc. etc. I am not interested in that argument right now.

If the CORPORATE TAKEOVER of the United States of America and the implementation of the UN Habitat Smart Cities program CONTINUE, everyone will be required to profess allegiance to the planetary technate, and the prospects for meaningful discussions of alternative lawful and political paradigms will be nil.

This is what I think is important right now: If enough people BELIEVE and are WILLING TO ENFORCE the principle that government is a creation of the people, set up to protect RIGHTS, the source of which is SUPERIOR to ANY constitutional or political system, then the institutions will become – in practice – answerable to the People. The Bill of Rights has power because the People believe and are prepared to enforce that its prohibitions and protections are FOUNDATIONAL to the organization of society and have an INVIOLABLE STATUS as principles of constitutional order.

“But, but the laws that have been passed… and the Supreme Court rulings …”

We would do well to remember one pithy response to institutional overreach, “Mr Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

With these statements, I am not glorifying the state or a particular form of government or the American regime. I am trying to call attention to the FACT that we are facing a HIGHLY ORCHESTRATED, COORDINATED EFFORT to abolish individual rights and the rule of law and the freedom of thought and conscience. This is taking shape through the transfer of public administration to foreign-owned and -interested corporations. If this transfer continues unabated, there will be NO GOING BACK and the American people will truly be the most miserable in the world. The Fourth Industrial Revolutionary Regime will be a TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT POLICE STATE.

There is a term for entities that conspire to destroy the foundations of law and institutions, that sell their country to a hostile cartel. And there are criminal penalties for engaging in the activities comprehended by that term. The American People need to think deeply about the significance of this and of the existential crisis that we are facing right now.

I recently came across this excellent little piece of 4IR-start-up-venture propaganda, written by TheCodeWorkTeam:

It was the occasion for a few reflections on corporate marketing in the context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

The 4IR isn’t only about technological upheaval, transhumanism, and surveillance – it’s also about “blurring the lines” between what’s real and what’s not so that *experiences, *feelings, and *perceptions become more important than *objectivity, *intellect, and *reality. This is a necessary step in the march toward the sacrifice of real life for meta-life.

This article’s catechesis in “technopreneurship” is a perfect example of the brassy, venture-hipster-chic-speak that the peddlers of false perception have to use to if they are to trick people into buying their meta oil. They aren’t making or doing anything original or genuinely valuable. They are in the “experience” business, which lacks substance, but is glutted on buzz and stock imagery and the fantastical conceit of market-driven social progress.

Just look at how they plan to finance this emerging class of start-up technoprenuers – through investments secured by the promise of future cost offsets in the public sphere.

Capitals and investments: Investments are one of the most essential parts of any business. Right? Naturally, an Entrepreneur/ technopreneur needs capital to start up their business ventures. So what do you think they do? They take economic support from various investors. Simple! They use the public savings which in turn leads to economic flow and development. To be very precise, technopreneurs use the money for overall societal development. Tell me you love the idea already!

They predict that their “innovations” will save society some future expense that it would incur (or so they predict) should it continue according to the status quo, and that these savings ought to justify the expenditure/investment in their experience service. But IT’S ALL HYPOTHETICAL, which is why they must rely on narrative manipulation, or propaganda. The fleecing of the public, on whose backs the whole burden of this sham will fall, is, however, very real indeed.

The language used in articles like this one gives us an indication that the “societal progress” envisioned by the Technopreneurs is one that is disembodied, artificial, and augmented. The “brainchild” of the technopreneurs’ “validated brainstorming session” is tweaked and teched for the purpose of revolution, ad infinitum.

In this technology-driven era, technopreneurs start their businesses with a validated brainstorming session. Once they reach an innovative idea, they start plugging technology into this very brainchild. It is all about using creativity and innovation to revolutionize business productivity and traditional practices. You already see the flow, don’t you?

I see the flow, and it looks very much like the closed system of sustainable finance – a circular economy that operates as a reflexive feedback loop, designed to benefit only the very few by impressing the rest into an elaborate system of measured, managed, meta experiences.

This has been the goal for a long time – corporate global governance, enforced by advanced monitoritoring technology and social credit scores. We are seeing the final stages of the maturation of the techno-fascist surveillance state, which began in earnest 19 years before the Covid 19 epidemic: on 9/11/2001. Then, in 2010, Richard Florida, an influential social engineer from the University of Toronto’s Martin Prosperity Institute, coined the term ‘Great Reset’ in order to describe a seismic transformation of the global economy based on concentrating most of the world’s inhabitants into urban megacities.

Here is an excerpt from a review of his book:

“In The Great Reset, Florida examines the roots of our current economic crisis. Unlike most observers, Florida argues the crisis is not merely a temporary emergency in government policy. It is a fundamental shift in our economic system—a “great reset.” Florida claims that times of major economic crisis necessitate the resets. Every reset involves a spatial fix, a change in where we live and work. The first reset involved a movement from farms to cities. The second involved suburbanization. Our current reset is a move towards mega regions, dominated by major urban centers.”

2010 was also the year that Sir Ronald Cohen, an investor from the UK, developed the first Social Impact Bond (SIB), a financial instrument that incentivizes corporate investments in social impacts/outcomes in roughly the same way as a bonus for early completion of a contract would incentivize a private company to agree to accept a public project. SIBs are also called Development Impact Bonds (DIBs) or Pay for Success Contracts (PFS) and all fall under the category of Social Impact Finance (SIF). The language of “what works,” “data-driven,” “performance-based,” “results-oriented,” etc. signals a shift toward private social impact financing rather than, or in conjunction with, public tax revenues.

MaRS, a Toronto-based “engine to lead Canada in the Innovation Economy,” explains Cohen’s social impact revolution in a 2010 article, excerpted here:

“Sir Ronald’s goal is to connect the capital markets to the social sector. “It is not enough to increase the standard of living at the high end. It is right at the same time to worry about those who are left behind,” he says.

It would be a shame to waste the economic crisis that we have just endured and not learn lessons from it. Sir Ronald offers the following reflection and I would suggest hope that “societies everywhere will come to the conclusion that an important part of the capitalist system is having a powerful social sector to address social issues, because government doesn’t have the resources.”

Sir Ronald and his colleagues have formed an organization appropriately called “social finance” and have come up with the concept of a Social Impact Bond – “a contract between a public sector body and Social Impact Bond investors,” in which the former commits to pay for an improved social outcome. Investor funds are used to pay for a range of interventions to improve the social outcome.

“By enabling non-government investment to be utilized, Social Impact Bonds will lead to greater spending on preventative services. These interventions can have a direct impact on costly health and social problems.”

“Social Impact Bonds are a unique funding mechanism, in that they align the interests of key stakeholders around social outcomes”.

In 2016, Cohen explained that SIF would be a crucial mechanism to compensate for pervasive budget deficits that had rendered many governments across the world incapable of providing basic services for the people they serve. Austerity is a precondition for shifting from public finance to private SIF:

“Governments across the world are throwing up their hands when they see the “yawning gap” between the need for social services and their ability to pay for them, Cohen said. “We’re beginning to see governments across the world saying, ‘We can’t cope. We need money from the capital markets.’” Venture capital, he said, was a response to the needs of tech entrepreneurs: “Why can’t we find a similar response to the needs of social entrepreneurs who are motivated by empathy to help others?””

Then, in April of 2020, when many people were still trying “flatten the curve” of the forecasted surge in cases of the novel coronavirus, and before the public announcement of the Abraham Accords, an article in Arabian News discussed the promise of SIF for addressing the social and economic weaknesses exposed by the Covid 19 epidemic:

“The World Health Organization (WHO) declared Covid-19 a pandemic on March 11th, 2020 causing significant economic and social implications, which continues to evolve rapidly across the world.

The persistent effort for finding long-term solutions to overcome its effect is both ongoing and at the forefront of governments, corporates, philanthropic foundations and the global community itself. There is a need more so than ever to look for innovative ways to combat the situation and relieve its effects. One such solution gaining traction in the market is the use of social impact bonds (SIB). As Sir Ronald Cohen stated “A SIB is an excellent tool for preventing different harmful matters and global issues”.”

The social impact bond blends public-private partnerships (PPPs), results-based financing and impact investing. Within a social impact bond, private investors provide up-front capital for social needs and are repaid by a measurable outcome funder dependent on the achievement of agreed-upon results which is similar model to a “green bond”. The COVID-19 crisis has presented significant challenges for the global economy, and society which has paved the way for the adoption and exploration of social impact bonds.”

Cohen’s interview in 2016 explains how measurement toward actionable goals is key to making SIF work for investors and the public. The aspirations of the UN Sustainable Development Goals conveniently provide the substance of global set of targets for environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investments that ought to benefit all “stakeholders.” Responsibility to those stakeholders requires “evidence-” or “science-based” policies that can demonstrate “transparency” and rule out “bias” in policy-making and ensure that no one is “left-behind.” The criterion of “science” is using raw data, measurement -as much of it as possible and in real-time- in the construction of any given policy. Continuous measurement tracks a program’s progress toward SIF outcomes, or success metrics, the achievement of which triggers a success payment – hence the phrase Pay for Success.

Like the fallout of 9/11, the response to Covid 19 has – under the auspices of “safety” – amped up the surveillance infrastructure that is needed for the transition to the Impact or Innovation Economy. Wearable technology, contactless digital currency, remote work (which brings corporate surveillance into private homes), and economic devastation that will force many businesses and homeowners to default on mortgages, leaving those properties ripe for social impact investors like BlackStone and BlackRock to restructure patterns of real estate and land use: toward the Great Reset described by Florida in 2010.

Make no mistake, C19 is not about a public health crisis at all. It is a controlled demolition of the global economy that paves the way for corporate investors and venture capitalists to “Build Back Better” by launching the social impact (engineering) economy.”

Framing the Fourth Industrial Revolution and Inclusive Capitalism Video Series

Overview of the Framework of Inclusive Capitalism – Recorded Live

In this video series, I offer a general introduction to the Framework for Inclusive Capitalism, which is the plan for a new global, “sustainable,” economic system that is to be managed by a collaboration between businessess and government. I discuss how ESG investment metrics, human capital scoring, and track and trace technologies contribute to a culture of corporate control, the likes of which the world has not before seen. The Framework is an elaboration of the “Great Reset” plan, introduced in June 2020 by the World Economic Forum during the height of fear and speculation about the worldwide epidemic.

The version of the Framework that I use was written for the USA – its subtitle is “A New Compact Among Businesses, Government, and American Workers” – and it can be downloaded by clicking on the final url listed here. You can find your country’s plan by searching the web for “Inclusive Capitalism” AND the name of your country, or visit the Coalition for Inclusive Capitalism’s homepage for further info.

Special thanks to my friend Bryan Mayberry, who has generously gifted his time and talent to polish up this recording and prepare it for distribution here.

Helpful websites: White House Intitiative on Inclusive Capitalism:

Document: The Framework for Inclusive Capitalism: A New Social Compact Among Business, Government, and American Workers

Overview of the Framework for Inclusive Capitalism, Part I: PIllar One Principles


Part I: Introduction and Overview of Pillar One – Principles

This was supposed to be a 15-min overview of Inclusive Capitalism buzzwords, but it became an hour-long overview of the 4 points of the First Pillar of The Framework for Inclusive Capitalism.
This was my first live set-up for something like this, and I had a hard time seeing what viewers could see and figuring out the dashboard. Also, unlike a Zoom call, you can’t see the faces of viewers during a fb live recording. I found this to be very disorienting – we cue off each other’s faces for so many features of communication, after all – so please forgive me for the rough spots. I have a couple of ideas to fix that for future talks. Of course, the social engineers know how awkward these formats are, and that’s why media design companies are creating software packages that claim to humanize digital communications through augmented reality features and “immersive experiences.” Remember that “sustainable economic growth” happens in the cloud – when our lives are moved to digital worlds, lived through computer-brain interfaces. Hard to believe? Look up SuperWorld, which is selling virtual real-estate. VIRTUAL REAL estate = word salad.
Also, check out GoldmanSachs whitepaper on the Great Reset (=Inclusive Capitalism) and “sticky learning.” These guys KNEW that most human beings would recoil at the prospect of a permanent shift of work, education, healthcare, commerce, worship, etc to digital formats. We stubborn humans wouldn’t voluntarily learn to use these tecchnologies – we’d go on “gathering” in person, claiming (rightly) that in-person activities are more fruitful and better for the bottom line, too. Hence the need for a pandemic – to “accelerate” our acceptance of these dehumanizing “innovations” AND to force the obsolescence of anyone not able to “adapt” (via sticky learning) to the new abnormal. “Adaptable” = “Resilient.” Remember, they WANT to cause economic collapse so that labor and skills supply chains can be re-engineered. So they are happy to hurt the bottom line and to undermine productivity. This creates an impact “Opportunity” for measuring outcome improvements, and that is the basis of the new impact economy.
You can also see that the old economic system is referred to as “the gathering economy,” whereas the new econ system is the “impact economy.” One example:
So I’m going to grit my teeth and try my hand at a little Resilience (haha!) and figure out how to make these talks smoother and to condense them for easy viewing.


Overview of the Framework for Inclusive Capitalism, Part I

Part II: Continuing Pillar One – Recommendations


This video is Part II in a series in which I offer a general introduction to the Framework for Inclusive Capitalism, the plan for a new global, “sustainable,” economic system that is to be managed by a collaboration between businessess and government. Part II continues the examination of Pillar One: “Create More Opportunities for Workers [to enter and remain in the workforce],” turning to the specific Recommendations for Businesses and Government that are designed to keep Workers working.

The Recommendations outlined in the Framework are suggestions (in name only – these policies are already being implemented) for Businesses and Government to adopt in order to “Create More Opportunity for Workers” to enter into and remain productive in the Workforce. In the video I try to explain what the buzzwords like Resilience, Sustainability, Employee Wellness, etc. mean for the “American Worker” who will be unhireable if he or she does not embody them 24/7. Labor surpluses (which are forming as a result of growing automation and robotification many jobs) will create a “race-to-the-top” situation in which employment is contingent upon a “worker’s” demonstrated “commitment” to the values and policy program set out in the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

The reason why the SDGs are so important is that they are directly tied to a corporations access to investment capital. The SDGs are the starting point for ESG Investing Metrics – a new set of social / corporate responsibility indicators that are supposed to give mission-oriented, purpose-driven impact investors the information they need to select which companies in which to invest. Impact investors will be looking to invest in corporations that have the highest “S” metrics, which are the measure of how the corporation ranks on Social indices. Here, a company’s Human Capital Assets (the worth of its workforce) are greater if the company’s employees are good 21st century global citizens, They turn into liabilities if a company’s employees aren’t sufficiently socially responsible, as defined by the SDGs and demonstrated by digital record created by the Internet of Things,

Knowing thiat their investors demand the highest degree of social responsibility, the corporations will be careful to hire ONLY those individuals who are top-rated in terms of their do-gooding. But what if you didn’t start volunteering when you were a toddler? Or if you don’t agree with the transgender agenda, or if you forget to recyble that plastic fork one day? Two words:: You’re screwed.

Overview of the Framework of Inclusive Capitalism, Part II

Related video from Facebook: Testing, Resilience, and Job-Sharing:  



In the elite circles of big philanthropy, Tulsa, Oklahoma has earned quite a reputation.

In 2018, the mid-sized city located in America’s heartland received the Readers’ Choice Award for “Best City for Philanthropy” in a poll conducted by The Chronicle of Philanthropy, and this was not the first time Tulsa received national attention for its generosity. In 2012, local NPR-affiliate KWGS-Tulsa reported that Tulsa ranked in the top 20 cities in the nation for philanthropic giving, according to a national survey. When one envisions charitable giving in Tulsa, a number of familiar names come to mind. However, none is more prominent than that of George Kaiser, the billionaire banker, tech-investor, oilman, and the man behind the George Kaiser Family Foundation (GKFF). Not only is GKFF a behemoth in its own right, it is also the major donor to the Tulsa Community Foundation (TCF), which, according to a 2016 report, was the second-largest community foundation in the country by assets.

Earlier this year, U.S. News and World Reports published an article entitled “Oklahoma Relies on Philanthropy for Basic Services”, which raised serious concerns about the magnitude of philanthropic influence in Oklahoma, a state that has seen “among the most significant [public] disinvestment” in the nation. “Without public oversight, [philanthropic] foundations can fund the work they care about without any of the decision-making power transferred to ordinary citizens.” In other words, when philanthropic foundations provide the financial or administrative resources for public programs in education, healthcare, the justice system, recreational offerings, or even records administration, they more or less get to establish the terms regarding the operation, delivery, and guiding principles of those services. The users of public services, the voting public, and taxpayers often find themselves with little choice but to accept the terms of service that have been set by the wealthy, politically-unaccountable philanthropists who fund them.

In Tulsa, Mr. Kaiser’s GKFF funds a portfolio of public service initiatives that include focus areas in education, health and family well-being, criminal justice, and promoting a vibrant and inclusive Tulsa. TCF, which was established under Mr. Kaiser’s leadership and receives substantial support from GKFF, directly supports initiatives in the following areas: information technology services, emergency disaster relief, professional development and funding strategies, medical-related financial hardship assistance, planned giving services, regional affiliate programs, and education. TCF also supervises over 250 Partner-Agency Funds. Given the reach of GKFF and TCF, one can hardly underestimate the scope of Mr. Kaiser’s influence in Tulsa. Lindsay Jordan, a Tulsa philanthropic adviser, told U.S. News that, “Those of us in philanthropy call [Mr. Kaiser] the ‘benevolent overlord of Tulsa.’”  

“O.K., let me start by describing the logic that got me to where I think we all are — that sensory stimulation at the earliest possible point in life is the most important thing we can do to provide equal opportunity in our society. I have felt for most of my adult life that we all got where we are by dumb luck, that we have a moral obligation to share our random advantage with those who didn’t win the ovarian lottery and that the purest form of charity is one which intervenes in the cycle of poverty at the earliest possible stage through improved nutrition, healthcare, housing, etc. Of course, the truly purest form of charity would also be anonymous and applied in areas of much greater need like southern Africa or Bangladesh so my self-bestowed halo is a bit tarnished.”

George Kaiser,
Speech on Early Childhood Education, 
New York Times, Feb 2007


In this series, I consider how Mr. Kaiser’s philanthropy affects the people of North Tulsa. In this first part, I examine Mr. Kaiser’s strategic approach: the social impact model of philanthropic giving. This approach aims at “social impacts”—benchmarks of success that are trackable, measurable, scalable, and, ultimately, profitable. Importantly, these social impacts are discrete outcomes (for example, improved performance on a reading assessment) rather than a holistic vision of thriving that would render further philanthropic interventions in North Tulsa unnecessary. Mr. Kaiser’s social impact philanthropy benefits from relatively recent trends in public administration, especially “Social Innovation Finance” (SIF).  SIF combines “Pay for Success” (PFS) contracts, Public-Private-Partnerships (P3s), and a new financial instrument, the Social Impact Bond (SIB), which enables securities investors to speculate on the success, or failure, of programs designed to result in specific social change outcomes. These mechanisms set up a structure for transforming philanthropic investments in under-resourced communities into profits—into real, financial gains as well as valuable human data. Because profits are tied to specific outcomes, social impact programs have an added incentive to implement a system of nudges, or social controls, designed to ensure maximum program compliance. Mr. Kaiser’s social impact philanthropy sets up the conditions for a cycle of future wealth- and data-extraction from the residents of North Tulsa, the Black community in general, and the people living in poverty who rely on Kaiser-sponsored social services.


Title from 2019 TulsaStar publication.








The relationship between big philanthropy and social accountability is a topic that has become increasingly salient as the gap between America’s wealthiest individuals and the bottom 90% continues its rapid expansion. For those in the lower wealth percentiles, the gap has enormous consequences on the ability of individuals to provide for their most basic needs.  As a Forbes article put it, “the poorest 50% of Americans are literally getting crushed by the weight of rising inequalities.” Though 2019 confronts us with circumstances that make this question urgent, the question is not new. Even in the early days, the power of big philanthropy gave rise to concerns about the erosion of public oversight. One historical sketch cites a 1912 warning about the power of the Rockefeller Foundation, whose “domination” was “being rapidly extended to control the education and ‘social service’ of the Nation.” 

Thomas J. Tierney, an expert on philanthropic strategy and co-founder of the Bridgespan Group, explained that what is relatively new, however, is “social impact” philanthropy, a business-model approach that seeks to increase both “impact and financial returns by continuously striving to achieve better results with the same or fewer resources.” In 2007, he called on the philanthropy sector to appropriate practices widely used in business. This came after The Annenberg Foundation released a report in 2002 that showed only mixed results for its Annenberg Challenge, a landmark campaign to transform public schools across the country. The takeaway from the Challenge and the report was that the problems facing society are so massive that they must be addressed according to the business principle of “disciplined, quantifiable, and financially centered bottom-line thinking—crunching numbers and keeping score.” Data—lots of it—is key: “Mountains of solid data combined with thoughtful, rational decision-making are essential to achieving results. The right numbers, correctly crunched, provide a source of competitive advantage.”

Although results-based philanthropy might be more effective at tackling massive social challenges, it carries its own host of problems. One danger of a quantitative, outcomes-oriented approach to setting and evaluating social impact benchmarks is that the philanthropic organization becomes a business de facto, albeit one with tax-exempt status. Moreover, in an increasingly complex and connected world, the input-output effectiveness assessments of specific social interventions become valuable in their own right. Funded by the deep pockets of big philanthropy and capable of touching almost every aspect of clients’ lives, these assessments can achieve remarkable levels of precision and comprehensiveness in collecting the data used to develop the next round of “changemaking” strategies. When the assessment data becomes more valuable than the mission-specific outcome of the intervention, what is to prevent a service organization from dropping the philanthropy mantle altogether and wholly embracing the business model?

This brings us to the business of “impact investing,” which, in a 2016 article, businessman and social entreprenuer  Jim Sorenson describes as “leveraging private capital for social good” through decisions made on the basis of the growing body of research on the connections between social spending and specific outcomes. Sorenson, who made his fortune in media technology and biomedical data management systems, and serves as an advisory board member at the technology investment fund, Epic Ventures, observed that impact investors look to fund initiatives that are aligned with their values and are well-managed, but that explains only part of their motivation.  In addition, he writes, “impact investors are motivated by double or even triple bottom-line opportunities to earn a financial return while also doing something good for society. Securing a financial return helps ensure that the organization generates measurable impact that is scalable and self-sustaining over time. 

How is it that social impact investments generate a financial return for socially-conscious investors? In order to answer that question, one must look to the work of University of Chicago economist James Heckman, whose “Heckman Equation” is notable for demonstrating how investments in early childhood education programs may generate up to a 13% ROI, as a Center for High Impact Philanthropy whitepaper explains, or even up to 15%, as reported by Forbes. Alison McDowell, a respected blogger and public lecturer on the subject of impact investing, has extensively researched and written about this process in her blog, She explains that Professor Heckman’s insight into the financial benefits of targeted social interventions, pitched in combination with a business strategy for scaling developed by the tech-oriented venture capitalist and Illinois politician J. B. Pritzker, can persuade policy makers to replace traditional public services with private high-impact programs. In other words, strategic investments in social programs that have a proven record of meeting certain benchmarks yield substantial economic benefits for those served by the programs, for governments, for investors, and for society at large. This proven record of economic gains can serve as a selling point to government service providers who might be persuaded to outsource public services if a private service provider (backed by high-impact investors) can virtually guarantee a certain set of desirable outcomes. 

Goal-oriented philanthropic investors have seized upon the social impact investing model by forming large consortiums of like-minded, super-wealthy social “change-makers” in order to combine their investment resources and drive large-scale, innovative responses to pressing social concerns. One example of such a consortium is Blue Meridian Partners, a conglomerate of super-wealthy impact investors, including former New York mayor and founder of Bloomberg Philanthropies, Michael Bloomberg Michael Bloomberg. Blue Meridian’s website states, “We make big bets, up to $200 million, on each of our investees. Scaling plans are at the heart of Blue Meridian’s large-scale investments.” To that end, Blue Meridian’s investees receive flexible, upfront growth capital and annual payments for successful completion of performance milestones. 

Blue Meridian only invests in programs that can demonstrate successful outcomes. Any program receiving Blue Meridian funding must carefully monitor its work and share the results with a Managing Director assigned to their sponsored programs. This investment gives Blue Meridian access to the stores of data about the populations who receive assistance from these sponsored programs as well as data linked to the success rates of specific interventions. This data may become a valuable source of information for developing commercial strategies in unrelated business ventures. In other words, impact investors, like Blue Meridian, receive a very valuable benefit from high-impact philanthropy: a virtual goldmine of “human data capital”—information about how people make choices, what external factors may be applied to individuals for the purposes of altering behaviors, how certain populations might differ from others in key respects — all of which provides high-impact philanthropists with the tools they need to effect the social change that they wish to see.


In the past decade, economists and businessmen have figured out a way to monetize the success potential of social impact programs by analyzing the human behavioral data collected by social impact philanthropy and using it to speculate on social-innovation-finance-agreements futures.  The Social Innovation Finance (SIF) model is a new funding mechanism designed to facilitate the large-scale implementation of successful results-oriented social interventions in a way that poses little financial risk to taxpayers. SIF combines two instruments: 1) a performance, or “Pay for Success” (PFS), contract that stipulates the specific results that constitute program “success,” and 2) a privately-issued “Social Impact Bond” (SIB), or operating loan, to cover the upfront costs of delivering the service intervention. According to The National Conference of State Legislatures:


Source: National Conference on State Legislatures 

Social Impact Bonds (SIBs), a type of pay-for-success funding agreement, work by allowing private entities to provide upfront capital that government can repay later. This makes SIBs essentially a contract between a private entity and the public sector. The private party commits to pay for a program that leads to improved social results and public sector savings. The private investors are then repaid when contractually agreed upon objectives are achieved.

The SIF funding mechanism is often referred to simply as PFS financing or SIB financing and its popularity is growing. A 2019 report by Nonprofit Finance Fund, a leader in PFS program development and financing, states that, in 2018, 25 PFS were programs implemented across the country in multiple policy areas and supported by both state and federal legislation. Consistently, advocates highlight the potential of PFS projects to bring about necessary social innovations based on evidence-based practices that are effective and free of partisan or personal bias.


Because SIF pays for results achieved “outcomes” rather than “outputs,” the private funders who cover the up-front costs of service delivery have a financial incentive to ensure that social service providers know and employ the most effective methods for meeting performance expectations. One way to do this is to collect as much human behavioral data as possible in order to develop very accurate predictive algorithms. The SIF system encourages social impact investors to extract as much human data as possible–data about experiences, thoughts, choices, feelings, preferences, and any other factors that help investors predict and modify human behavior. This data may be collected from things like surveys, reports, camera and audio surveillance, access badges, web-based learning or record-keeping applications (such as educational technology and training programs), even video games. It is analyzed not simply to understand how or why people make the choices that they do, but also to determine how some choices may be encouraged and others discouraged. It has the potential to create a lucrative cycle of impact protocols that not only promote the mission-oriented outcomes that social impact investors support, but also generate an ROI for the social impact investors.

In her recent book, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, Harvard professor Emerita Shoshana Zuboff explains how companies like Google and Facebook harvest data from users, often without their consent, in order to develop products that are able to predict and control behavior. In an interview with The Harvard Gazette, Zuboff stated: 


The competitive dynamics of surveillance capitalism have created some really powerful economic imperatives that are driving these firms to produce better and better behavioral-prediction products. Ultimately, they’ve discovered that this requires not only amassing huge volumes of data, but actually intervening in our behavior. The shift is from monitoring to what the data scientists call “actuating.” Surveillance capitalists now develop “economies of action,” as they learn to tune, herd, and condition our behavior with subtle and subliminal cues, rewards, and punishments that shunt us toward their most profitable outcomes.

The competitive dynamics of surveillance capitalism have created some really powerful economic imperatives that are driving these firms to produce better and better behavioral-prediction products. Ultimately, they’ve discovered that this requires not only amassing huge volumes of data, but actually intervening in our behavior. The shift is from monitoring to what the data scientists call “actuating.” Surveillance capitalists now develop “economies of action,” as they learn to tune, herd, and condition our behavior with subtle and subliminal cues, rewards, and punishments that shunt us toward their most profitable outcomes.

Although she is referring to for-profit commercial activities, the dynamics of surveillance capitalism apply to social impact philanthropy as well. Quoting from Zuboff’s book, an article in The Guardian explains that “prediction products are traded in a new kind of marketplace that I call behavioural futures markets. Surveillance capitalists have grown immensely wealthy from these trading operations, for many companies are willing to lay bets on our future behaviour.” Social impact bonds, or pay-for-success contracts, become the stuff of behavioral futures markets for which investors and financial speculators may take a “short” or “long” position in the same way they would with any other type of financial instrument. Only in this case, the course of an individual’s life is the object of speculation. In this way, social impact philanthropy makes a commodity of the vulnerable people whom it claims to serve through their social programs. Program assessment data–the data harvested from the recipients of philanthropic social interventions and which is used to quantify impact–contributes to the development of more sophisticated and effective social interventions. It gives financial speculators a strategic advantage in selecting behavioral-futures investments positions (and these might be on the side of success or on the side of the failure of some interventions) that are most likely to generate maximum profits. 

What does this complicated system of high-impact social changemaking have to do with Tulsa? A lot, actually. Tulsa relies on Mr. Kaiser’s philanthropy for the provision of many basic social services, such as education, housing, and healthcare. Mr. Kaiser is one of the principal members of Blue Meridian Partners, which has a special regional initiative in Tulsa. Mr. Kaiser also serves on the Leadership Advisory Council of Too Small to Fail with J.B. Pritzker, whose work with Professor Heckman has contributed to the Social Impact Bond market and, as a result, to the hyper-growth of surveillance capitalism. Mr. Kaiser’s ties to the Silicon Valley Tech industry, the world of big philanthropy, and the human data capital markets touch the interests of all Tulsa residents. One source reports that Mr. Kaiser has been called “the godfather of Tulsa philanthropy.” His influence is wide and deep and continues to expand. GKFF, in fact, was the major supporter of Oklahoma’s first PFS program, the Women In Recovery prison diversion program, which went into effect in 2017.  Moreover, the State of Oklahoma recently enacted the “Pay for Success Act” on November 1st of this year (Oklahoma Statutes, Section 9010.2 of Title 62), which encourages greater reliance on public-private-partnerships and PFS programs to tackle social policy issues. The ways in which this situation affects the lives of North Tulsans who depend on the public services administered by Mr. Kaiser’s social impact programs–and how this, in turn, affects the flourishing and political power of the larger North Tulsa community–will be the subject of my next piece in this series.


Stakeholder Capitalism and the Soft Coup d’Etat: a “Golden Opportunity,” Part I

The World Economic Forum
that it is time for a
‘great reset.’


The declaration of the Covid-19 pandemic in the spring of 2020 brought the world’s economic systems to a near-standstill, decimating small and independent businesses and creating catastrophic hardships on working people everywhere.  In June of 2020, the World Economic Forum (WEF)—an elite think tank representing global corporations, government officials, academia, the media, and social policy influencers—in partnership with the United Nations, announced a plan to address the systemic economic and social injustices that the pandemic revealed or magnified—things like “gaps” in access to goods and services, the fragility of supply chains, and the environmental impact of daily activities such as driving to work, for example.


Covid 19 presents “a golden
for inaugurating
the transition to stakeholder


“The Great Reset,” as the plan is called, aspires to “seize something good” from the crisis by using it as the “golden opportunity” to implement “stakeholder capitalism” on a global scale.  Executive chairman and CEO of the WEF, Klaus Schwab, has long argued for a new global socio-economic order that is equitable, inclusive, resilient, and sustainable — “a new social contract that honours the dignity of every human being.” In order to accomplish this,Schwab argues,businesses and corporations across the globe must adopt the governance principle (i.e. a framework establishing a corporation’s strategic operations toward a mission or purpose) known as Stakeholder Capitalism.


Schwab claims that the realities of life in the twenty-first century—especially the constellation of technological, societal, and economic factors associated with The Fourth Industrial Revolution, or 4IR, such as automation, robotics, digital technologies, globalization, nanotechnology, bioengineering, etc.)—reveal the fundamental interconnectedness of people and planet and, as a corollary, the need to move beyond the outdated paradigm of prioritizing the self over the community.  Harmony among people and with the planet that we share is possible if we can set aside our attachment to individualism / individual rights. These must be tempered by reference to the common good, which looks toward the needs and preferences of the global public. Schwab’s reflection on the mentality guiding Germany’s post-WWII recovery captures the heart of Stakeholder Capitalism, viz. that “one person or entity could only do well if the whole community and economy functioned.”



Klaus Schwab describes the contours of 21st
century Stakeholder Capitalism



Schwab’s vision is a Communitarian one. Noted
researcher, author, and founder of the
Anti-Communitarian League, Niki Rapaana,
unpacks Communitarian theory in her
extensive blog and books, which are available  here. 



Stakeholder Capitalism is distinguished from two familiar economic models, both of which have a narrow vision of whose interest corporations are to serve:

1) Shareholder Capitalism, the standard model for most Western businesses, which sets profit maximization for corporate shareholders (i.e. equity investors) as its primary criterion of economic success, as well as

2) State Capitalism, a system in which the state dictates the structure and direction of the economy as a whole and requires individual corporations to conform to it. The primary example of this model is China.  

Where shareholder capitalism prioritizes the economic success of individual corporations and their investors – oftentimes at the expense of the economic success of the community as a whole, state capitalism seeks to maximize the economic benefits to the community as a whole – even if that leads to diminished returns for the corporate entities that drive the economy. 

By contrast, Stakeholder Capitalism seeks to harmonize the interests of the individual and the interests of the community. This “third way” is accomplished by evaluating competing interests through a forward-looking or long-term moral perspective that envisions people and planetary balance as the ultimate economic goal.  Or, in other words, sustainable development.  


That is the core of stakeholder capitalism: it is a form of capitalism in which companies do not only optimize short-term profits for shareholders, but seek long term value creation, by taking into account the needs of all their stakeholders, and society at large.           

– Klaus Schwab, “What Is Stakeholder Capitalism?”


In an article in TIME Magazine Schwab explains that as “stakeholders of our global future,” government, business, and civil society all “have a shared responsibility to shape the world in collaborative ways.” For Schwab, who has written about the intersection of economics, management, and mechanical engineering, shared responsibility and collaborative approaches are not ends in themselves. Rather, they must still promote the optimization of the pursuit of the well-being of all.  And this is where we begin to see the threat that Stakeholder Capitalism poses to traditional political institutions and, indeed, to the stability of constitutional order itself.  For representative government as established by the U.S. Constitution is designed not to optimize the pursuit of some new proposal claiming to promote the health and safety of the people.  The system of checks and balances at the heart of the Constitution is a mechanism for de-optimizing the process of innovation in order to deter the passage of unjust laws by encumbering the legislative process with multiple opportunities for deliberation and many requirements for consensus-building.


Report: “Measuring Stakeholder
Capitalism Towards Common Metrics
and Consistent Reporting of
Sustainable Value Creation,” WEF, 2020.


The “golden opportunity” presented by the declared Covid-19 pandemic consists in the revelation of the sub-optimal ability of representative governments to respond effectively to a traumatic and disruptive global crisis.  Governments were slow and ineffective in their efforts to contain the spread of the disease and to make timely public health recommendations.  By contrast, the private sector – especially technology and pharmaceutical companies – proved its ability to innovate, adapt, and collaborate to deliver a quick and effective solution to an immediate need.*  Just a few months prior to the pandemic declaration, Schwab wrote , that “Stakeholder capitalism … positions private corporations as trustees of society, and is clearly the best response to today’s social and environmental challenges.”  In this model, private corporations, which are able to optimize operations in response to pressing global problems, assume the place and powers heretofore assigned to representative government.



The Great Reset plan attempts to reconfigure almost every feature of society.  Its launch of Stakeholder Capitalism, which positions private corporations to assume responsibility for the programs and powers of governments that (in principle, at least) were designed to be accountable to the electorate, is one of the most radical and consequential of its innovations. The governmental functions to be privatized under Stakeholder Capitalism include the administration and oversight of public services such as health and education services, housing, safety, transportation, and cultural events; and they also include executive, legislative, judicial, and regulatory powers.  In the stakeholder model, these functions are delegated to private or quasi-governmental corporations, often through a public-private partnership, or “P3.” 


Source: Edelman’s 2021 Trust Barometer


Absent the unprecedented economic devastation caused by close to a year of lockdowns, the likelihood that the people of Western nations would readily adopt the WEF’s “new social contract”  is questionable.  But with rising unemployment and decreased consumer spending come lower tax revenues and, subsequently, severe budget deficits that will prevent public agencies from fulfilling their public service obligations – and at a time when more and more people find themselves in need of this assistance.  Covid 19 is just the sort of crisis that’s needed if one wishes to launch a “new social contract” quickly and without the hassle of consulting the public. It is indeed a “golden opportunity.”

As we saw earlier, Stakeholder Capitalism sets up private corporations as “trustees of the social good.”  How well a corporation lives up to that responsibility will become the basis of its reputation capital score – that is, its value as brand – and that will be the key to securing a competitive edge in the radically-altered 4IR post-Covid economy. What better way to earn a reputation for social responsibility than to partner with cash-strapped public agencies in order to support public relief efforts with a variety of grants, expert research and development services, and operational support?  Through these partnerships, private companies – in contrast to the people or their representative government – will acquire the means to drive social progress and to act as guardians of entire “ecosystems” of people, places, things, and ideas.  Government administration is, in effect, outsourced to some private corporation that made a deal that couldn’t be refused.


In my next post on this topic, I’ll explain how The Framework for Inclusive Capitalism, executes the Great Reset through a strategy of corporate management of workers.


*I’m simply glossing the optics of the response to the pandemic, not making a statement about quality of that response or suggesting that it was a spontaneous, uncalculated one.  



The Shift host Doug McKenty discusses the rollout of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and its effects on higher education with Julianne Romanello, Ph.D. Drawing on her experience of the corporate takeover of the University of Tulsa and on the concepts elaborated by 20th-century political philosopher Eric Voegelin, Dr. Romanello discusses topics including the constriction of traditional university curriculum in favor of STEM training, the formation of public-private partnerships for the purpose of advancing the Great Reset, and the wholescale transition to a pedagogical model aimed at social change-making. 

The Shift with Doug McKenty: Episode 74: Sophistry and Technocracy

Audio only:


United: Solidarity Across the Pond

Livestreaming from the U.S. and the U.K.

March 11,2021 

9pm GMT/ 

4pm EST/ 

3pm CST  

Duration:1hr  15min 



A gathering of outspoken truth activists from the United Kingdom and the United States (and Poland)


To encourage international solidarity and share ideas for resistance and rebuilding


A group of ordinary individuals engaged in an extraordinary battle for the soul of humanity


Yvonne Rutkowski: NYC, US. Activist in NYC, update on the situation in one of the world’s most iconic cities, using photography to capture the crisis of our times, lessons from Poland.

Yzabelaah Samahra Rose: Devon, UK. Designer at AEVA Magazine, a woman-focused exploration of spiritual, intellectual, and natural health, building sacred spaces for individual growth and genuine relationships.

Kilgore Rand: Atlanta, US. resistance efforts on the doorstep of the CDC and beyond – lawsuits, rallies, publicity campaigns, etc.

Radoslaw Kaliszuk: London, UK. Documenting the emergence of and resistance to the police state in the United Kingdom, with a keen eye for the magnitude of the current crisis and the humane beauty of authentic resistance efforts.  Protests in London and across the UK.

Darren Smith: Manchester: UK. Defending Truth and freedom through relationships, music, graphic arts, the press, etc. New Free Trade app and The Great Resist.

Julianne Romanello: Tulsa, OK, US. Building local and international resistance communities in person and online. Tulsa as a pilot program. Social impact finance.