2021-06-28
I think it was in the days of Tony Blair that I first heard the term "stakeholder" applied to corporate / political affairs. I didn't properly understand it then because it was not an obvious fit with the standard shareholder - employer - employee - customer - lender paradigm, and it wasn't until later that I came to assume that that was the point - it permitted the elites to waffle on about various things political and financial (ie: our future) without most of us having the understanding to challenge their "argument".
Together with the acquiescence (or worse) of the journalists of the time, this helped them get on and do whatever they wanted without the associated inconvenient popular outcry.
Now that the idea of a greedy-minded elite is gaining ground (certain large banking organisations being openly known as "giant vampire squid" since at least 2011) it may be that the term stakeholder may ultimately be repurposed to take on a new meaning - someone who holds the means to bring those who indulge such allegedly vampirical practices to book. But I digress.
Terms such as "stakeholder" have aspired to bring the earlier Blair's Newspeak to ever more exalted levels of respectability since Tony Blair's days as PM, and are now in fashion within such as the World Economic Forum, global social media corporates (whose ambition to impose "the truth" as declared by their own fact-checkers is only exceeded by their stupendous arrogance) not to mention all the other "think tanks" NGOs "philanthropists", and quasi-governmental bodies such as the UN that are even now readying themselves selflessly to "assume power" over the rest of us.
I am indebted to National Review | Capital Matters for a useful article that brings us up to date with the latest situation. It's worth reading.
"The agenda’s objectives are in fact already being enforced, not primarily by legislation but by the application of non-governmental — that is, non-democratic — pressure"
And indeed it's no accident that Mark Carney is centre stage - who else but the financiers and bankers-who-make-the-rules are in a position to dictate to national governments and global / national corporates alike?
Did you never wonder what exactly Theresa May was on about when she kept talking about the "rules-based order"? Perhaps she took her warnings from the UN Association to heart.
The key word here is of course non-democratic.
Democracy here in the UK has recently been exposed as never before (firstly by the Brexit shambles and now the "pandemic" shambles) as being - well, a sham. No political party of any consequence has dared challenge the official UN narrative. All competing narratives have been ignored / sidelined / suppressed.
We now live under the de facto One World Order.
Or more accurately, all national governments of any consequence now operate under the One World Order.
It is still open to "we the people" to refuse our compliance, and choose a different path.
