Global Public- Private Partnership

The Global Public-Private Partnership (G3P) is a worldwide network of stakeholder capitalists and their partners. This collective of stakeholders (the capitalists and their partners) comprises global corporations (including central banks), philanthropic foundations (multi-billionaire philanthropists), policy think tanks, governments (and their agencies), non-governmental organisations, selected academic and scientific institutions, global charities, labour unions and other chosen “thought leaders.”

The G3P controls global finance and the world’s economy. It sets world, national and local policy (via global governance) and then promotes those policies using the mainstream media (MSM) corporations, which are also “partners” within the G3P.

Often those policies are devised by the think tanks before being adopted by governments, which are also G3P partners. Government is the process of transforming G3P global governance into hard policy, legislation and law.

Under our current model of Westphalian national sovereignty, the government of one nation cannot make legislation or law in another. However, through global governance, the G3P creates policy initiatives at the global level, which then cascade down to people in every nation. This typically occurs via an intermediary policy distributor, such as the IMF or IPCC, and national government then enact the recommended policies.

The policy trajectory is set internationally by the authorised definition of problems and their prescribed solutions. Once the G3P enforces the consensus internationally, the policy framework is set. The G3P stakeholder partners then collaborate to ensure the desired policies are developed, implemented and enforced. This is the oft-quoted “international rules-based system.”

In this way, the G3P controls many nations at once without having to resort to legislation. This has the added advantage of making any legal challenge to the decisions made by the most senior partners in the G3P (it is an authoritarian hierarchy) extremely difficult.

The G3P has traditionally been referenced in the context of public health— specifically in United Nations documents, including documents from UN agencies such as the World Health Organisation (WHO). The WHO’s 2005 document Connecting For Health, in noting what the Millennium Development Goals meant for global health, revealed the emerging G3P:

“These changes occurred in a world of revised expectations about the role of government: that the public sector has neither the financial nor the institutional resources to meet their challenges, and that a mix of public and private resources is required. [. . .] Building a global culture of security and cooperation is vital. . . . The beginnings of a global health infrastructure are already in place. Information and communication technologies have opened opportunities for change in health, with or without policy-makers leading the way. [. . .] Governments can create an enabling environment, and invest in equity, access and innovation.”

The revised role of governments meant that they were no longer leading the way. The traditional policy-makers weren’t making policy anymore; other G3P partners were. National governments had been relegated to creating the G3P’s enabling environment by taxing the public and increasing government borrowing debt.

This is the debt owed to the senior partners in the G3P. They are not only creditors, these same partners are also the beneficiaries of the loans. They use this comically misnamed “public investment” to create markets for themselves and for the wider G3P stakeholders.

In February 2000 researchers Kent Buse and Gill Walt of the George Institute for Global Health, wrote an official history of the development of the G3P concept. They suggested the G3P was a response to growing disillusionment in the UN project as a whole as well as an emerging realisation that global corporations were increasingly key to policy implementation. This correlates to the development of the stakeholder capitalism concept, first popularised in the 1970s.

Buse and Walt explained how G3Ps are designed to facilitate the participation of new breed of corporations. These entities recognised the folly of their previously destructive business practices. They were ready to own their mistakes and make amends. They decided they would achieve this by partnering with government to solve global problems. These existential threats were defined by the G3P and by the scientists, academics and economists the G3P selected and funded.

The two researchers identified a key Davos address, delivered by the UN’s then-Secretary-General Kofi Annan to the WEF in 1998, as marking the transition to a G3P-based global governance model:

“The United Nations has been transformed since we last met here in Davos. The Organization has undergone a complete overhaul that I have described as a ‘quiet revolution.’ [. . .] A fundamental shift has occurred. The United Nations once dealt only with governments. By now we know that peace and prosperity cannot be achieved without partnerships involving governments, international organizations, the business community and civil society. . . . The business of the United Nations involves the businesses of the world.”

Buse and Walt claimed that this shift signified the arrival of a new type of responsible global capitalism. But, as we shall see, that is not how the corporations viewed this arrangement. Indeed, Buse and Walt acknowledged why the G3P was such an enticing prospect for the global giants of banking, industry, finance and commerce:

“Shifting ideologies and trends in globalization have highlighted the need for closer global governance, an issue for both private and public sectors. We suggest that at least some of the support for G3Ps stems from this recognition, and a desire on the part of the private sector to be part of global regulatory decision-making processes.”

The conflict of interest is obvious. We are simply expected to accept, without question, that global corporations are committed to putting humanitarian and environmental causes before profit. Supposedly, a G3P-led system of global governance is somehow beneficial for us.

Believing this requires a considerable degree of naïveté. Many of the G3P’s stakeholder corporations have been convicted, or publicly held accountable, for the crimes they have commited. These include war crimes. The apparently passive agreement of the political class that these “partners” should effectively set global policy, regulations and spending priorities seems like infantile credulity.

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

With the arrival of G3Ps, we witnessed the birth of the process that formalised this relationship—that created a cohesive world order. The politicians didn’t write the script; they have simply stuck to the script ever since.

It is important to understand the difference between “government” and “governance” in the global context. Government claims the right, perhaps through a quasi-democratic mandate, to set policy and decree legislation (law).

The alleged Western representative democracies, which aren’t democracies at all, practice a model of national government where elected representatives form the executive branch which presents and ultimately enacts legislation. For example, in the UK this is achieved through the parliamentary process.

Perhaps the closest thing to this form of national government on an international scale is the United Nations General Assembly. It has a tenuous claim to democratic accountability and can pass resolutions which, while they don’t bind member states, can create “new principles” that may become international law when later applied by the International Court of Justice.

However, this isn’t really world “government.” The UN lacks the authority to decree legislation and formulate law. The only way its “principles” can become law is via judicial ruling. The non-judicial power to create law is reserved for governments, and their legislative reach only extends to their own national borders.

Due to the often-fraught relationships between national governments, world government starts to become impractical. Given both the nonbinding nature of UN resolutions and the international jockeying for geopolitical and economic advantage, there isn’t currently anything we could call a world government.

There is the additional consideration of national and cultural identity. Most populations aren’t ready for a distant, unelected world government. People generally want their nations to be sovereign. They want their federal representatives to have more democratic accountability to constituents, not less.

The G3P would certainly like to run a world government, but imposing such a system by overt force is beyond their capability. Therefore, they have employed other means, such as deception and propaganda, to promote the notion of global governance.

Former Carter administration adviser and Trilateral Commission founder Zbigniew Brzezinski recognised how to make this approach easier to implement. In his 1970 book Between Two Ages: Americas Role In The Technetronic Era, he wrote:

“Though the objective of shaping a community of the developed nations is less ambitious than the goal of world government, it is more attainable.”

The last 30 years have seen numerous G3Ps form as the concept of global governance has evolved. A major turning point was the WEF’s conspectus of multistakeholder governance. With its 2010 publication of Everybody’s Business: Strengthening International Cooperation in a More Interdependent World, the WEF outlined the elements of G3P stakeholders’ form of global governance.

Global Agenda Councils were established to deliberate and suggest policy covering practically every aspect of our existence. The WEF created a corresponding global governance body for every aspect of society. Nothing was left untouched: values, security, public health, welfare, consumption of goods and services, access to water, food security, crime, rights, sustainable development, global economic, financial and monetary systems.

WEF Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab spelled out the objective of global governance:

“Our purpose has been to stimulate a strategic thought process among all stakeholders about ways in which international institutions and arrangements should be adapted to contemporary challenges. [ . . .] [T]he world’s leading authorities have been working in interdisciplinary, multistakeholder Global Agenda Councils to identify gaps and deficiencies in international cooperation and to formulate specific proposals for improvement. [ . . .] These discussions have run through the Forum’s Regional Summits during 2009 as well as the Forum’s recent Annual Meeting 2010 in Davos-Klosters, where many of the emerging proposals were tested with ministers, CEOs, heads of NGOs and trade unions, leading academics and other members of the Davos community. [ . . . ] The Global Redesign process has provided an informal working laboratory or marketplace for a number of good policy ideas and partnership opportunities. [ . . . ] We have sought to expand international governance discussions [ . . . ] to take more pre-emptive and coordinated action on the full range of risks that have been accumulating in the international system.”

By 2010 the WEF had begun what it called a “Global Redesign” process, in which it defined the international challenges and proposed solutions. Fortunately for the G3P, these proposals meant more control and partnership opportunities. The WEF sought to spearhead the expansion of this international governance.

Here is one example: In 2019 the UK Government announced its partnership with the WEF to develop future business, economic and industrial regulations. The UK government was committed to supporting a regulatory environment created by the global corporations, who would then be regulated by the same regulations they had themselves designed.

The WEF does not have an electoral mandate of any kind. None of us have any opportunity to influence or even question its judgments. And yet it is working in partnership with our supposedly democratically elected governments, as well as with other G3P stakeholders, to redesign the planet we all live on.

Stakeholder capitalism lies at the heart of the G3P. Essentially, the G3P usurps democratic government (or indeed government of any kind) by placing global corporations at the centre of decision-making. Despite deriving authority from no one but themselves, the leaders of the G3P assume their own modern interpretation of the “divine right of kings” and rule absolutely.

In January 2021 the WEF spoke about how it views Stakeholder Capitalism:

“The most important characteristic of the stakeholder model today is that the stakes of our system are now more clearly global. [ . . . ] What was once seen as externalities in national economic policy making and individual corporate decision making will now need to be incorporated or internalized in the operations of every government, company, community, and individual. The planet is [ . . . ] the center of the global economic system, and its health should be optimized in the decisions made by all other stakeholders.”

The G3P will oversee everything. That includes every government, all business, our so-called communities (where we live) and each of us individually. Human beings are not the priority. The priority is the planet. Or so the WEF claims.

Centralised control of the entire planet—all its resources and everyone who lives on it—is the core ethos of the G3P. There is no need to interpret G3P intentions. We don’t have to read between the lines. It is stated plainly in the introduction to the WEF’s Great Reset initiative:

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

It should be noted that the WEF is just one partner organisation among many in the G3P. However, it has been perhaps the most influential in terms of public relations throughout the pseudopandemic. Contrary to the hopes of researchers Buse and Walt, we see an emergent global, corporate dictatorship that cares not one whit about truly stewarding the planet.

The G3P will determine the future state of global relations, the direction of national economies, the priorities of societies, the nature of business models and the management of a global commons. There is no opportunity for any of us to participate in either their project or the subsequent formation of policy.

While, in theory, governments do not have to implement G3P policy, in reality they do. Global policies have been an increasing facet of our lives in the post-WW2 era. The mechanism of translating G3P policy initiatives, first into national and then regional and eventually local policy, can be clearly identified by looking at sustainable development.

In 1972 the privately funded independent policy think tank Club of Rome (CoR) published The Limits to Growth. As we saw with the roll-out out of the pseudopandemic, the CoR used computer models to predict what it decreed were the complex problems faced by the entire planet: the “world problematique.”

The opinions offered by the CoR derived from the commissioned work of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT’s) system dynamic “World3 model.” This model assumed that the global population would deplete natural resources and pollute the environment to the point where “overshoot and collapse” would inevitably occur.

This is not a scientific “fact” but rather a suggested scenario. So far, none of the predictions made by the World3 model have come to pass.

The scientific and statistical to-and-fro on the claims made in The Limits to Growth has been prolific. However, ignoring all doubts, the World3 model was firmly planted at the centre of the sustainable development policy environment.

In 1983 the Brundtland Commission was convened by former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harland Brundlandt and then-Secretary-General of the UN Javier Pérez de Cuéllar. Brundtland was  a member of the Club of Madrid think tank and Pérez de Cuéllar a Club of Rome member. Based upon the highly questionable assumptions in the World3 model, they set about uniting governments from around the world to pursue sustainable development policies.

In 1987 the Commission published the Brundtland Report, also known as Our Common Future. Central to the idea of sustainable development, as outlined in the report, was population control (reduction). This policy decision to get rid of people won international acclaim and awards for the authors.

The underlying assumptions for these policy proposals weren’t publicly challenged at all. Though an academic and scientific debate raged, it remained almost completely unreported. As far as the public knew, what were no more than unscientific assumptions and speculations were proven facts. It is now impossible for any of us to question these unproven assumptions and obviously inaccurate models without being accused of “climate denial.”

From the Brundtland Report emerged the Millennium Development Goals, which in 2015 gave way to the United Nation’s full adoption of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Since then, these SDGs have been translated into government policy in country after country. For example, in 2019 the UK government proudly announced its Net Zero policy commitment to sustainable development goals.

SDGs had already been making an impact at the regional and local levels in counties, cities, towns and boroughs across the UK. Now nearly every council across the country has a “sustainable development plan.”

Regardless of what you think about the global threats we may or may not face, the origin and the distribution pathway of the resultant policy is clear. A privately funded, globalist think tank was the driver of a policy agenda which led to the creation of a global policy framework, which has been adopted by governments the world over, and which has impacted communities in nearly every corner of the Earth.

SDGs are just one among numerous examples of G3P global governance in action. Elected politicians’ role in this process is negligible. They merely serve to implement and sell the policy to the public.

It doesn’t matter who you elect, the policy trajectory is set at the global governance level. This is the dictatorial nature of the G3P and nothing could be less democratic.

ID