The House Oversight Committee Discovers ESG
A Look at the Legal Arguments Forming Around ESG
(Table of Contents included; this article is absurdly long; it is meant as an information index; feel free to skip to the “Summary of Summaries” and only return to the details if interested in higher resolution information.)
Table of Contents
• Background — Leading up to these hearings
⬇
• Summaries of Regime Arguments, Distortions, and Lies — What you can expect to hear about ESG from Regime media once ESG can no longer be hidden through obscurity
⬇
• Summaries of Arguments Against ESG — The realities of ESG
⬇
• Attorneys-General Witness Summaries — Legal actions being taken against ESG
⬇
• A Closer Look at Key Arguments — How the Regime deceives, obfuscates, and delays
⬇
• Summary of summaries — Regime Celebration-Parallax list, key lies, issues ignored by Regime politicians, legal pathways cited
⬇
• Conclusions — Propaganda, logical inconsistencies, and economic warfare
Background
In Committee hearings which were intentionally buried by Regime media (and a thank you to Clint Russell for highlighting this on May 26th, 2023); the merits and demerits of Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) were argued on May 10th, 2023, and June 6th, 2023, in front of the House Oversight Committee.
• Full 3:30:11 video of Part I with Chairman Comey available via C-Span (here and above) and slightly cropped to 3:05:32 via Forbes.
• Full 2:36:05 video of Part II with Chairman Fallon available via C-Span (here and above) and cropped to 2:03:48 via Forbes.
This follows after BlackRock CEO Larry Fink in January 2023 appeared at the World Economic Forum in Davos and — when asked about Ron DeSantis and the politicization of BlackRock’s investing — casually and perhaps malevolently responded, “We are doing everything we can to change the narrative.”
(My brief Tweet/commentary here after a ZeroHedge article and the video of Fink below; Fink’s “narrative” comment is prompted at about 5:15).
This interview with Fink itself followed from a growing trend of ESG’s prevalence in the Zeitgeist, with most people becoming aware of it after January 2021 when the newly installed Biden began releasing Fact Sheets and Executive Orders with ESG imperatives attached, such as this January 2021 statement which had investors buzzing about ESG profitability under the Biden Regime and January 27th, 2021, Executive Order 14008, which gave weight to a “whole-of-government” approach and which directed “the flow of capital towards climate-aligned investments and away [from] high-carbon investments.” ESG had legs before Biden’s presidency (and this cannot be understated), but the Biden Regime’s pro-ESG executive actions meant that ESG asset managers were in a position to greatly expand their position in the market through government–corporation cooperation.
The May 10th hearing also follows after rare negative mainstream coverage by the New York Post of ESG which acted as a kind of position piece for presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy’s book Capitalist Punishment, which goes into high detail on ESG. I do not say this to promote the book but rather to point out that such negative publicity of ESG means that the asset managers are in a position wherein they must propagandize ESG as a positive since outright silence on the issue now begins to fail them. Their short strategy is to hide ESG from the public for as long as they can and propagandize it as a positive when the public becomes aware of it.
Those supporting ESG at the House Oversight Committee hearings were reading scripts filled with inaccuracies designed to keep low-information voters in the early stages of the Celebration Parallax. Regarding the Celebration Parallax (Michael Anton’s “That’s Not Happening and It’s Good That It Is”), Regime media has citizens acknowledge that something is happening only if they agree with it but are told that it is not happening if they disagree with it. At the Committee Hearing, political activists of the DNC argued both points of the Celebration Parallax simultaneously so that if this Committee hearing were to be publicized, then the talking points would be available and tailored to reach specific demographics who exist within their respective domains within the Parallax. Conflict between Regime assertions is only visible when people listen to multiple politicians or recognize moments of doublethink, but many citizens do not have the attention span for that or are otherwise kept from the information and thus do not notice these inconsistencies.
Below is an examination of the major arguments used in these six hours of hearings so that people can divide between the truth told versus the lies the Regime is preparing. The Regime’s lies are designed to allow the ESG anti-competitive pyramid scheme and protection racket to continue until its negative effects on the world are irreversible. For the refined bullet points, skip to the summaries at the end.
Summaries of Regime Arguments, Distortions, and Lies
The House Committee Hearing saw questions by the following pro-ESG representatives. Below each is a quick summary of their arguments.
• Michael Frerichs — Illinois State Treasurer (initial arguments pdf)
(Twitter | Treasury)
Frerichs attempts to use credentialism to legitimize his claims. He falsely claims that ESG is merely looking further into the future than normal investments, that ESG is just “data” and that there’s nothing wrong with “more data”, that pushback is “anti-free market”, that ESG is about “value, not values”, that opposition is merely “Astro-turfed”, that bringing ESG as a matter before Congress would limit “choice” in the market, that diverse boards are resistant to groupthink, and that ESG’s social factor indexes merely incorporate reputation-management.
• Shivaram Rajgopal — Columbia University Professor (initial arguments pdf)
(Twitter | Business)
Rajgopal starts with the “just data” deception, claiming that it merely gives more data to investors by asking for additional disclosures. He then parses some of these “just data” claims (e.g., planning for natural disasters, planning for industries affected by “climate-related physical and transition risks”, turnover in companies, lobbying efforts, hiring practices).
There is a certain irony in his mentioning climate “transition risks”, since ESG is forcing the very transition for which ESG evaluates risks. For example, ESG would undervalue a cruise-liner company (this is one of Rajgopal’s examples) because it intends to destroy cruise-liner companies due to their carbon impact.
That is, ESG is evaluating its own market manipulations.
This is a major point: ESG is not evaluating the risk of these businesses based on their actual performance, it is rating them based on whom ESG asset managers want to perform well; ESG asset managers artificially pick their own winners. And so it is fitting for Rajgopal to quietly mention this “transition risk” logic and then end his statement with the Regime’s “free market” lie.
• Jamie Raskin (Bolshevik, MD) (Twitter | House)
Raskin lies about ESG being a matter of a “free market” (a semantic manipulation) reacting to oil and gas causing environmental issues. He falsely claims that ESG is merely reacting to business costs, that corporations adopted ESG voluntarily to fulfill “a legal fiduciary duty” (another semantic manipulation), that ESG performs “better” than S&P 500 Energy (rather, ESG disguises losses for the false appearance of better performance), that ESG is not forcing investment decisions, and that ESG protects retirement funds (rather, it endangers them).
I take a closer look at Raskin’s arguments below.
• AOC (comically inept DNC useful-idiot, NY) (Twitter | House)
AOC’s back-and-forth with Frerichs looks comically scripted, like the work of theater actors whose performance limitations resign them to 10-seat shows. AOC repeats the claim that ESG is “just data”—it is not. ESG is an anti-competitive pyramid scheme and protection racket which uses lawfare, coercion, and deception to enact its goal of total economic control of the West. AOC also falsely claims that this “just data” is about warning people about harmful companies (e.g., harmful drugs sold by Pharma) and that anti-ESG proponents merely want short-term gains.
• Cori Bush (has no clue why she’s here, D, GA) (Twitter | House)
Bush makes an incredibly clueless pathos argument about ESG, prioritizing its “environmental” aspect and claiming that environmental issues most readily impact minority communities. This is ESG propaganda designed to mobilize useful voting blocs into a coalition by funding them artificially. This is also an extension of the “Global South” propaganda designed to send Western funding to BRICS and its affiliated nations.
In Part II, Bush floats more of the “data” narrative and repeats Regime lies about ESG being “free market”. She hilariously concludes her hearing remarks by saying, “Don’t speak about something you don’t know about.” She is speaking of “woke” in this statement, but the irony of her saying this during a hearing on a subject about which she has had to read a script to seem even semi-competent should not be lost on viewers and readers.
• Melanie Stansbury (“Sustainability” Commissar, D, NM) (Twitter | House)
Stansbury falsely claims that ESG narratives amount to “conspiracy theory” and that these Hearings are merely the right distracting with the “culture war” against “woke”, funded by “dark money”.
In Part II, she repeats her distortion that “most Americans” do not want government interference in investing, the deception here being that Americans are largely unaware that ESG is government–corporate interference in investing (i.e., Americans would largely not support ESG if they knew what it was). She also raises the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act as a proof of American concern for the climate, which is hilariously disingenuous since she must disregard that…
• the Act was falsely named to convince people that it had another goal, that false goal being inflation relief following COVID,
• it causes inflation, and
• it is actually an example of ESG infiltration of United States governance; the Inflation Reduction Act was used to merge the distinction between ESG asset manager activity and government policy via the same “sustainability” programs.
• Shontel Brown (D, OH) (Twitter | House)
Brown falsely claims that ESG is “free market”, that ESG reflects fiduciary responsibilities, that ESG is a “win-win” of smart investing and social responsibility (it is neither; it is a lose-lose), that “marginalized communities” are key to corporate success (they are not, competence is the key to success, and this very phrase is a semantic distortion via its passive language), that ESG fixes systemic racism (it does not; it creates it), and that high-performing businesses have higher diversity (this is a market manipulation; ESG ratings falsify businesses as “high performers” if they have diversity; i.e., ESG’s diversity quotas do not actually result in higher performance, they merely result in greater investments for businesses compliant with the pyramid scheme).
As a metaphor, ESG investments are like paying stray cats to make ice cream, ignoring the actual ice-cream product, and claiming that cats make the most profitable ice cream because ESG stakeholders invest in businesses with cats in leadership positions. It is a false appraisal of causality.
In Part II, Brown adopts the fallacy of relative privation rhetoric used previously by Crockett and Moskowitz, claiming that the hearing is a “waste of time”. She also floats the “gas-lighting on gas stoves” narrative which was disproved to her deficit (i.e., regulators are indeed banning gas stoves albeit in stages rather than at the initial level of federal policy). She also uses the “conspiracy” thought-terminating cliché and floats the false claim of anti-ESG proponents wanting to “ban data”.
• Katie Porter (Resentful Marxist, CA) (Twitter | House)
Porter falsely claims that ESG is “democracy”, “choices”, “options”, “free market”/“freedom”, and “capitalism” and that the Labor Department is not putting forth a “mandate” and that therefore there is no coercion. This is the “stakeholder capitalism” lie the Regime tells of ESG, as described as a merger of Marxism and capitalism by Sustainability Commissar Jem Bendell on behalf of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and also here by WEF Chairman Klaus Schwab. Porter is directly citing the semantic distortions of these global-governance managers. The key tell here is that people should recognize that Marxists such as Porter did not suddenly become pro-capitalism while capitalists suddenly want to destroy the free market; in reality, these groups are acting consistently with regards to ESG; Marxists see ESG for the anti-free-market scheme that it is and embrace it, and free-market backers see the same and oppose it.
In both Parts I and II, Porter insists on using a bad metaphor of choices in car purchasing. She claims that ESG merely gives more choices, but this is false. Under ESG, the car-purchase “choice” would strictly limit consumers to “green” vehicles, and auto manufacturers attempting to make anything else but these “green” options would have their investments pulled by the asset managers. Entire industries are sunk by this method (e.g., oil, gas, auto, aviation, agriculture). She also claims that the result of anti-ESG policies is that consumers would not know whether or not a vehicle is “green”, but this is false both literally and metaphorically (i.e.; ESG does not un-hide vehicle emissions-ratings from consumers, and ESG is not “just data”). Porter also floats a comical deception, claiming that ESG shows people whether or not a product is sourced from China. This is, again, false, with ESG disguising that it sources rare-earth materials from China, allowing companies to merely pollute if they pay China to do it on their behalf while the West calls its finalized products “green”.
In Part II, Porter also floats a major deception, claiming that if people feel that ESG companies are violating fiduciary duties then they can just be sued, so “Why are we here [in this hearing]?” In order for her to float this narrative, she has to disregard a massive amount of counter-claims, such as lawsuits already in progress on that exact fiduciary issue, ESG violating anti-competitive laws, being a pyramid scheme and protection racket, ESG causing national security threats, and ESG violating national laws for international interests — all being illegal activity which require Congressional oversight. For her to float this “Why are we here?” narrative, she must be incredibly deceptive or learning disabled.
• Robert Garcia (D, CA) (Twitter | House)
Garcia attempts to poison the well by blaming the Heritage Foundation, “dark money”, and conservative lawyer Leonard Leo for there even being any resistance to ESG. He then echos the false claim that anti-ESG proponents oppose the “free market”. He hilariously admits to be unable to define “woke” but then draws on tribalism to create a friend/enemy distinction between himself and those who oppose “woke” (i.e., he does not know what “woke” is, but he supports it).
• Maxwell Frost (D, FL) (Twitter | House)
Frost falsely claims that anti-ESG proponents are merely on an anti-”woke” witch hunt to bring a “campaign of environmental negligence, social oppression, and incompetent governance to the national level.”
This quotation is peak projection, given that ESG merely re-locates pollution under China’s unregulated oversight, causes massive social oppression via the economic and social formation of a totalitarian state, and is designed to incorporate incompetent leadership into positions of power via diversity quotas.
• Becca Balint (D, VT) (Twitter | House)
Balint repeats the false claim that ESG supports fiduciary duties, but she tries to re-phrase this lie in a way that she thinks will reach even more gullible audiences than those that the others have attempted to reach so far. She also repeats the lie of ESG increasing client “choice”; she calls it “absurd” to oppose choice, but the true absurdity is calling the restriction and narrowing of choices into ESG investments “choice” when ESG moves against shareholder wishes and instead works on behalf of asset-managers-as-oligarchs. In other words, the asset managers and oligarchs have “choice” but no one else.
A similar strategy is represented in the way “choice” is treated by the Regime regarding abortion. The short version is that collectivist oligarchs are not actually interested in choice as choice is antithetical to the collectivist’s aversion to individual freedom; truly, when Regime collectivists say, “choice,” they mean, “compliance with the Regime and annihilation”.In Part II, Balint turns her demeanor into rage, and, in accusatory fashion, Balint asks — without allowing for an answer — Mandy Gunasekara why Gunasekara “believes” that ESG “[promotes] gender transitions for children.” Hilariously, Balint adopts both sides of the Celebration Parallax’ doublethink in the same questioning, asking Gunasekara if she really believes such “garbage” while simultaneously saying, “or do you just use it as another opportunity to beat up on children?" (I.e., “[It’s ‘garbage’ to say that it’s happening, but if it is happening, it’s a good thing since surgical emasculation helps children!]”)
In the routine fashion of the DNC at these hearings, Balint seems to either be wholly ignorant of the issue or is committing deceptive omissions. The reality is that ESG does indeed apply “trans” surgery incentives. A particular mechanism of this is ESG’s Corporate Equality Index as managed by the Human Rights Campaign, which gives ESG-compliant corporations “points” (these translating to additional investments from asset managers) for providing health care plans which include surgical emasculation and pharma regimens (e.g., for up to 25 points, “transgender-inclusive healthcare benefits” should include items such as “hormone replacement therapy” and “surgical procedures” such as “facial feminization surgeries” (HRC Benefits Guide)). This is explored separately in an April 2023 NY Post article.
In a broader scope, ESG funds these “trans” surgeries by making demands of insurance companies, health-care providers, and businesses, the latter being coerced into choosing insurance plans which provide these procedures. Thus, it is entirely dishonest and incorrect for Balint to claim that the discussion of “trans” issues has no “place in this Hearing on investments” — a distortion which Gunasekara begins to contradict, necessitating that Balint cut her off to stop the airing of truth.
• Summer Lee (D, PA) (Twitter | House)
Lee falsely claims that anti-ESG positions are just “fear-mongering”. She repeats the lie that ESG is just “more data” which merely includes risk factors such as companies having to pay out for industrial accidents. Frerichs then lies about anti-ESG positions “[denying] information”, and Lee lies about ESG merely holding corporations accountable while anti-ESG proponents are merely helping their “corporate buddies’ interests”. She also drops the lie of anti-ESG positions being “conspiracy theories”, a popular thought-terminating cliché, the use of such clichés being a good marker of discourse by proponents of a totalitarian regime (see Lifton).
In Part II, Lee pivots to the “it’s a good thing!” portion of the Celebration Parallax, saying that the “climate crisis” is the priority and that these issues are more important than oil profits — another admission that “climate” concerns are more important than fiduciary duties as well as this being a repeat distortion which ignores that ESG will merely re-locate and increase world pollution by outsourcing pollution to nations without environmental regulations or oversight.
• Jasmine Crockett (D, TX) (Twitter | House)
Crockett plays the “climate change” angle, which at this point is merely an admission that ESG can forgo fiduciary responsibilities if it’s “for a good cause”. She then also uses the fallacy of relative privation to say that this hearing should not even be taking place when there are other, more important issues (more important than trillions of dollars under management which have the power to move the entire world economy?). She then falsely claims that “ESG is not radical or ‘woke’”; and while the first point (“radical”) could be given space as opinion to some degree, the second is outright false, since ESG directly supports slave morality in its hiring practices, its social imperatives, and its very existence as an apparatus of serfdom (I point out these connections here). Crockett then reiterates Regime lies about ESG merely being “data” for “long-term investing”. Lastly, she points out that Fox News posts ESG reports, which she thinks is a “win” for her argument but which is actually proof that the Regime uses Fox News as controlled opposition and/or is otherwise infiltrating Fox News’ governance frameworks.
• Jared Moskowitz (D, FL) (Twitter | House)
Moskowitz repeats the lie of the “free market” being opposed by anti-ESG proponents. Again, this semantic deception relies on people believing that “free market” means the same to Marxists such as Moskowitz as it does to, say, Milton Friedman economists. Moskowitz is not suddenly for a free market, he is simply labeling a totalitarian economic framework “free market” to obfuscate and deceive. He then uses a transparent red herring and a fallacy of relative privation by saying that the real political priority should be stopping mass shooters. Moskowitz claims that he would support the right not to invest, but, contrary to Moskowitz’ claim, this is not what ESG does. ESG forces investment along its specific political lines. Moskowitz’ entire speech is projection and deception.
• Eleanor Norton (D, D.C.) (Twitter | House)
Norton claims that Republicans are spreading “disinformation” to support “big oil”, she then — ironically or just out of ignorance — mentions that “ESG has wide-reaching support, from climate activists to the investment industry to investors.” The deception here is that ESG asset managers fund that “support” and force ESG-compliant businesses to do the same. ESG asset managers do this by intentionally funding activist NGOs, political organizations, brokers, and investors to Astro-Turf support, creating a self-perpetuating death spiral of economic waste. This funding strategy is not “conspiracy theory”; this directing of wealth is a founding principle of ESG investment, elucidated clearly on page 11 of the asset manager mission statement for ESG (this chart shows how asset managers move their funds to effect ESG policies at all levels of the market and societies).
• Ro Khanna (D, CA) (Twitter | House)
Khanna spends his entire argument trying to float false and loaded statements, projecting ESG’s faults as the faults of anti-ESG positions. His primary means of doing this is attempting to get AG Marshall to say whether or not Marshall would endorse investments in Chinese genocide schemes if it were profitable (i.e., he tries to get Marshall to draw a line between fiduciary duty and social imperatives, which itself is Khanna’s admission that ESG sacrifices its fiduciary duty for its social imperatives). Marshall escapes this rhetorical fallacy by explaining that asset managers are required to make those social schemes a public part of its investment strategies so that people can evaluate them. Khanna uses the Regime’s “free market” distortion, and he simultaneously admits that it is “these companies” that decide where to invest — rather than investors such as “you or I”. The irony here is that these asset managers are indeed investing in totalitarian strategies, with their final payoff being to control the debt when the West is destroyed, giving themselves lofty bonuses for the trouble. A cynical interpretation of Khanna’s hidden position, then, is that totalitarianism is acceptable if driven by asset managers.
• Seth Magaziner (D, RI) (Twitter | House)
Magaziner floats the same Regime distortion that ESG is fiduciary responsibility and that ESG merely incorporates environmental risks (“data”). As examples, he cites the Deepwater Horizon BP spill, Volkswagen’s emissions scandal, Norfolk Southern, and Purdue Pharma. The flaws in this argument are the non sequitur between “environmental” risks and the mistakes of these companies as well as that ESG is not some new way to evaluate these kinds of risks; those companies did indeed take losses for their errors, as Magaziner himself said, and received poor evaluations even without ESG. His actual point is that through governance capture of these businesses their losses would be subsidized if they follow ESG principles (e.g., if BP were a solar cell manufacturer and suffered a catastrophic environmental failure, the question of bailouts would only be whether or not their G-Index were high).
Further, ESG’s DIE hiring promotes managerial failure across industries, resulting in industrial accidents due to managerial incompetence. Its priority of divesting from particular (non-ESG) industries also means that those industries will suffer their own mismanagement, they having to cut costs in a market controlled by asset managers who oppose their existence and success. Magaziner also makes pharma protection appear to be a consumer-side benefit of ESG in pharma, but the reality is that ESG’s work with hospitals and pharma results in the over-prescription of harmful but socially incentivized pharmaceutical regimens, such as surgical emasculations (“trans” surgeries), hormone prescriptions, and overall Lysenkoism since asset managers are placed in a position wherein they can dictate public health policy along the lines of funding “equity”. Magaziner then reiterates the lie of the “free market” and “choice” driving ESG investment — rather than the reality of coercion and market manipulation. He ends with fallacious arguments of credentialism and “dark money”.
Summaries of Arguments Against ESG
• James Comer (R, KY) (Twitter | House)
Comer has Reyes point out examples where ESG has people choose between responsible investment and social priorities. Reyes mentions racial audits (which do indeed occur under ESG; they are called “racial equity audits”), de-banking over religious liberties, and inflation. Comer mentions that this is not just investing but banking and insurance as well (i.e., not just “data”).
• Clay Higgins (R, LA) (Twitter | House)
Higgins reiterates that a coalition of 21 attorneys general have warned about ESG legal violations at the state and federal level, wherein asset managers and proxy advisors “channel funds for political objectives.” These funds represent trillions under management and cast about one quarter of S&P votes. Higgins also attaches Louisiana AG Landry’s statement on ESG, which may be this document from late 2022 or this statement from early 2023, which detail why these AGs are suing.
• Paul Gosar (R, AZ) (Twitter | House)
Gosar asks Reyes to push back on the “just data” lie by Frerichs, with Reyes pointing out that the data is being priority-manipulated as an incidental so that asset managers can achieve their pre-figured Net Zero goals (i.e., ESG-compliant initiatives take precedence over financial return decisions). Gosar then points out a statement by former BlackRock CIO Tariq Fancy for Medium which confirms that BlackRock was cutting rates and “tilting underlying investments towards companies with lower carbon emissions footprints” (i.e., BlackRock was artificially under-cutting market rates and falsifying returns to lead people into their preferred investments). Gosar also notes an alternative in the “Fisher Investments” strategy of “When our clients do better, we do better,” indicating that this ethic should be re-adopted and/or not abandoned. He also points out that ESG’s “green” transition is out-pacing available energy alternatives, resulting in widespread energy shortages. This is notable because this means that asset managers are investing in technologies which have no track record of paying off, which means that their risk assessments are likely corrupted and based on false energy projections. More specifically, they are counting on emerging technologies which their market manipulations may prevent from ever emerging.
• Kelly Armstrong (R, ND) (Twitter | House)
Armstrong explains via questioning that preferred societal values are being mass-produced by ESG, that Robo-voting via proxy-advisor services such as ISS and Glass Lewis automatically favors ESG asset managers’ leading votes (i.e., the proxy services vote on behalf of entire captured markets, representing a market share of about 97%), and that this proxy service has specific goals in mind which, again, exceed all other priorities (e.g., priorities such as fiduciary duty). Per AG Marshall, this latter case may be a violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act of Alabama’s Consumer Protection Law (other states have similar Acts under Consumer Protection Law) as well as anti-trust laws.
• Glenn Grothman (R, WI) (Twitter | House)
Grothman asks for examples of ESG policies, with those including that ESG directly affects agricultural production (e.g., food available to the market, fertilizer that is allowed), bank loans granted or boycotted based on coercive ESG priorities, discriminatory hiring practices (e.g., hiring draw-downs of men under racial audits of businesses under Trillium Asset Management, likely in violation of anti-discrimination laws), abortion policies, and political affiliation discrimination for employees and corporate boards (I covered ESG/DIE hiring practices here).
In Part II, Grothman asks for sources on ESG rankings, and Isacc refers to Charles Schwab ESG reporting (this Schwab link requires account creation to access) and points out that a Chinese coal company was rated higher than a U.S.-based mineral company on these metrics.
• Lauren Boebert (R, CO) (Twitter | House)
Boebert points out that “woke” businesses lose wealth, has Reyes and Marshall point out that ESG causes businesses to violate their fiduciary duties, that horizontal agreements bypass shareholders in favor of stakeholders, that these Net Zero alliances are being investigated (which includes peripheral issues such as JP Morgan’s quiet purchasing of SVB assets), and that the Biden administration is attempting to force businesses to consider ESG investments to be fiduciary responsibilities (per a DOL ruling).
• Russell Fry (R, SC) (Twitter | House)
Fry points out that asset managers must put clients first, but ESG violates that fiduciary duty. He cites AG Reyes’ letter to 53 asset managers (letter itself here), who were contacted to warn the asset managers that they are violating this duty. ESG violates state laws, puts retirement dollars at risk, and, through Biden rules, has no requirement to warn people that assets under management are being directed to ESG.
• Gary Palmer (R, AL) (Twitter | House)
In the single most important point of the Hearing, Palmer points out that ESG initiatives hurt nationwide and state-specific industries including agriculture, timber, auto/aircraft-manufacturing, and energy; impacting consumer choice and increasing the cost of energy and supplies. ESG discriminates against farmers via cattle imperatives, energy producers, and auto markets — limiting choices across all markets. ESG is a major strategic and national security threat, allowing China to hold a resource monopoly over the United States. This reliance on Chinese energy is causing global energy crises but is being sold as the solution to the same. He further points out that while the West draws down its energy production on the Paris Accord timeline, China [and other BRICS+ nations] are simultaneously increasing energy production on the same timeline, transparently holding a goal of global domination.
• Tim Burchett (R, TN) (Twitter | House)
Burchett reiterates that over 300 asset managers — including BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard — signed on to the “Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative” (NZAM), representing over 59 trillion dollars in assets and with a goal to end emissions by 2050 (i.e., that is their primary goal). He points out also that ESG forces investors to choose between social-responsibility investments and fiduciary responsibilities, with the two rarely aligning.
• Pat Fallon (R, TX) (Twitter | House)
Fallon reiterates that ESG is a violation of fiduciary duty and points out that Raskin’s chart regarding ESG investments is false, with ESG-rated businesses under-performing per a Bradford Cornell report. This Cornell report further elucidates that ESG does not hedge against the possibility that its core assumptions are false. Reyes then quotes Vanguard CEO Tim Buckley, who pulled out of NZAM, stating, “We cannot state that [ESG] investing is better performance wise than broad index-based investing”. (Details on this NZAM Vanguard-action were pointed out also by former money-manager Genevieve Roch-Decter on Twitter in March.)
In Part II, Fallon further points out that ESG rating agencies are only consistent about 54% of the time versus traditional rating agencies that are consistent about 99% of the time, meaning that even if these ratings are valuable, the “just data” argument does not function when that data is not even reliable. Sadly, as chairman, Fallon is derailed in his closing arguments by the name-calling committed by DNC politicians as well as Raskin’s bait on racial issues. There needed to be a better speaker in the chairman seat.
• Anna Paulina Luna (R, FL) (Twitter | House)
Luna reiterates that average investors and many citizens are not being properly warned that their investments are being redirected by these asset managers into left-wing projects. She then gives the floor to Reyes, who points out three priorities:
1) A Department of Labor (DOL) Rule which amended ERISA, changed investment responsibilities, and forced ESG across the market is currently being opposed (see BallotPedia).
2) ESG needs to be considered by the SEC for violating discrimination laws, in particular via ESG using pressure from proxy services.
3) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), NZAM, and Climate Action 100+ need to be considered “holding companies”, since they are owners of multiple utilities and are overstepping legal requirements that they remain passive.
• Lisa McClain (R, MI) (Twitter | House)
McClain opens by saying, “ESG is a politicization of investing and continues to be weaponized by the radical left.” McClain reiterates that asset managers under ESG can spend investor wealth on political projects without the knowledge or consent of their investors. She points out the clear hypocrisy here: pro-ESG arguments at the Part I Hearing have been that ESG is merely “more data”, yet that mere “data” and ESG’s political alliances are being hidden from citizens whose assets are under management. Frerichs chimes in here claiming that his office does its duty in this regard by publishing on the Treasurer website for Illinois, which is hilariously similar to the Hitchhiker’s Guide metaphor that these documents “have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri.” The Regime deception here is that they can claim “transparency” while having a total media blackout on ESG, obfuscating ESG’s reach, and thus leaving citizens largely unaware that their very wealth is being used for their undoing.
In Part II, McClain reiterates that asset managers are hiding activities, that there needs to be more transparency, and that the client should be deciding the direction of political investments — not the asset managers. She also points out the obvious deception by the DNC, wherein they are suddenly supporters of “free-market capitalism as soon as it benefits their agenda” — but she identifies that ESG is not “free market” or “capitalism”, since it is anti-competitive and has asset managers colluding with climate activists and the government. She also has to spell out what a free market is to push back against the Regime’s semantic deception, explaining that ESG does indeed force compliance.
• Nick Langworthy (R, NY) (Twitter | House)
Langworthy points out that ESG investment strategies intentionally undervalue entire sectors of the American economy, with ESG causing failures in those sectors and resulting in significant job losses. He reiterates the national security threats posed by ESG, such as defense contractors having their supply lines strategically severed by ESG imperatives. He and Marshall also point out that the direct consequence of these energy initiatives include energy shortages and rolling blackouts. ESG is pushing towards investments in alternate energy strategies which “do not exist”. He also points out that ESG puts direct reliance on Chinese-owned rare-earth minerals.
• William Timmons (R, SC) (Twitter | House)
Timmons points out that under-staffing requirements and litigation risks for pharma are not necessarily ESG-specific imperatives. These were touted by Frerichs as ESG “data”, but these are already within investment data (i.e., Frerichs was using these benevolent claims as a false-front for ESG’s actual functions). Timmons also points out that ESG is not a merit-based system and its DEI hiring undermines the merit systems which would increase returns. Frerichs responds by again distorting, saying, “ESG is data.” Timmons points out that the inevitable result of this is failed banks asking for bailouts, citing SVB. Frerichs claims that SVB’s failure was due to a lack of ESG risk management.
This is partially true; SVB had a low ESG governance index, the G-Index representing compliance with the ESG pyramid scheme and protection racket. SVB was allowed to fail as an excuse for the government to claim that more ESG-compliant banks would not have failed; this is how the asset managers capture more assets: destroy non-compliant organizations, purchase them at reduced cost, and hide the losses of compliant organizations.
Frerichs then distorts again about DIE hiring increasing performance. Raskin then chimes in with an Axios propaganda article on SVB.
• Eric Burlison (R, MO) (Twitter | House)
Burlison reiterates that asset managers pushing their values over those of their own shareholders is negligent. He also notes that Frerichs is playing a game of “wag the dog” — where privileged voters (“stakeholders” as opposed to traditional shareholders) are using their positions to change the direction of society for their own benefit all on the backs of asset-holders whom they claim to represent. Burlison points out that Illinois’ deficit under ESG requires further taxation on its citizens; that is, the losses that ESG hides ultimately become the debts and burdens of citizens — not of the oligarchs and asset managers. This is consistent with the scheme in 2008: when the market collapsed, asset managers and CEOs received major payouts and citizens experienced hyper-inflation and asset loss. Burlison also points out that the “more data” claim is not being met in the sense of warning clients that their assets are managed by ESG managers.
• Andy Biggs (R, AZ) (Twitter | House)
Biggs pushes back against the “oil and gas” industry claim (i.e., that they alone oppose ESG), calling it an outright fabrication. Briggs points out that ESG follows from Obama-era tactics such as Operation Choke Point, which used the powers of the DoJ to penalize banks involved in firearm-dealer lending, making banks into state-actors, and shutting down the accounts of customers who were not acting in accordance with White House politics — all under the guise of pretending to stop predatory lenders. Biggs also pushes back against the “corporate socialism” claim made by pro-ESG proponents, with Marshall saying that he is for corporate independence, which is being bypassed by these asset managers under the UN’s imperatives. Marshall also points out that the UN stated that the definition of ‘fiduciary duty’ must change to reflect its ESG imperatives. That is, the UN and its asset manager coalition want to change what it means to have a fiduciary duty so that they can operate independently of losses posted to its shareholders.
Biggs raises a 2020 Stanford Law article on this question of “mixed-motive investing”, saying that ESG may be in violation of the “sole interest rule” of trust fiduciary law. In essence, this means that asset managers who use the wealth of their investors to act as they please under ESG are in direct violation of fiduciary law. Reyes backs this up by saying that the ultimate purpose of ESG investors is Net Zero compliance — not fiduciary duty.
• Jake Laturner (R, KS) (Twitter | House)
Laturner points out that the Biden administration enabled the expansion of ESG against the wishes of voters, and he raises the issue of anti-trust law regarding proxy-voting organization ISS and Glass Lewis (GL). Of note, in this hearing, the focus was on these two proxy-voting organizations (ISS and GL), but the WEF strategy includes a third: Hermes EOS.
Attorneys General and Witness Summaries
• Sean Reyes — Attorney General, Utah (anti-ESG) (initial arguments pdf)
(Twitter | AG)
ESG undermines U.S. checks and balances by bypassing Congress, captures corporations, is anti-competitive, breaches fiduciary duties (e.g., violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)), threatens retirement funds, increases energy prices, threatens energy independence and national security, makes the U.S. reliant on Chinese energy, manipulates international trade, violates anti-trust laws, distorts data for its ends, and empowers unelected asset managers.
• Steve Marshall — Attorney General, Alabama (anti-ESG) (initial arguments pdf)
(Twitter | AG)
ESG forces the Paris goals without Congressional approval using horizontal agreements, forces governance-level changes through collective market power under a single syndicate, harms shareholders, presents an undemocratic tax, enables Chinese monopolies on rare-earth minerals, improperly influences energy companies via asset-manager leverage, violates anti-discrimination laws, violates fiduciary rules, and is a national security threat.
• Mandy Gunasekara — Director of Center for Energy and Conservation, Heritage Fellow, Independent Women’s Forum (IWF) (initial arguments pdf)
(Twitter | IWF)
Gunasekara begins, “ESG manipulates markets, as well as access to markets, in order to advance a leftist political agenda.” She explains that the results of ESG are higher energy cost, unreliable grids, an undermining of environmental progress, enrichment of asset managers at the expense of citizens (managers are shielded from their decisions), forced engagement with political projects (e.g., de-fund movement, surgical emasculation (“gender transitions”)), causes workplace division, and falsifies “diversity” as a racial imperative rather than cultivating diversity of thought. ESG prefers energy technologies that cannot match current demands “much less future energy growth”, ignores that American oil and gas is a world leader in emission reduction, and prefers instead the growth of unregulated and high-pollution Chinese companies. ESG is also used to penalize “politically-disfavored companies” (e.g., firearms, animal agriculture) and threatens the savings of retirees and pensioners.
Gunasekara is also the first speaker to point out that the market is rejecting ESG’s social policies as in the case of Target, Budweiser, and American Girl [and Disney as well] — this showing that the pro-ESG proponents were falsifying ESG’s supposedly unanimous popularity and not protecting against social risks in the market. This follows also into her point that ESG is being used to force DNC political positions that could not be achieved through government alone. She also points out that ESG adopters are paying into the scheme to get higher scores, undermining its claims of “progress” (note that this is part of the pyramid-scheme logic of ESG).
• Jason Isaac — Director of Life:Powered (initial arguments pdf)
(Twitter | Business)
Isaac points out that Sri Lanka was an adopter of ESG principles, and these ESG-based decisions caused economic calamity. Despite Sri Lanka’s reliance on agriculture, the president passed Executive Orders which disallowed certain nitrogen-based fertilizers, reducing yield, increasing costs, and collapsing the national economy.
(Aside, I mention a key point of that in this Tweet and have written articles off of SubStack/Twitter about the deeper reasons for Sri Lanka’s failure due to ESG. The short version is that Sri Lanka attempted to use executive action to compensate for ESG’s inability to infiltrate Sri Lankan governance on the required timeline.)Isaac explains Texas’ divestment from BlackRock following its malicious investment strategies in the state and points out ESG causing higher energy prices most largely impacts the poor, who subsequently face energy insecurity. Isaac also boldly points out that this is the “China ESG Agenda” — that is, ESG serves China, not the United States [and not the West]. ESG fosters anti-American energy policies and coerces investors into compliance, largely through ISS and Glass Lewis proxy-voting.
• Stephen Moore — Fellow in Economics, Heritage Foundation (initial arguments pdf)
(Twitter | Heritage)
Moore states that ESG is widespread across the entire market, having trillions of dollars under management, with proxy voting allowing the asset managers to make decisions which outright violate the will of clients (Moore cites this study, summarized by NY Post here). He reiterates that ESG funds under-perform the market by limiting the number of possible investment options, points out that oil production and income have decreased due to ESG costs, and reiterates that this weakened energy position is helping opposition nations. He also raises the point that ESG positions ignore shale gas, which has “dramatically reduced greenhouse emissions”, though this last point almost sounds like Moore plugging a sponsor.
Under questioning by Laturner, Moore does not make strong points concerning ESG as an option, floating the mistaken point that ESG should be allowed but that there merely needs to be transparency. This is a rhetorical failure to separate between ESG as “data” (the Regime’s talking point) and ESG as intentional market manipulation. By not differentiating between the two, Raskin, who made a statement after Moore, was left with the ability to treat these items as the same thing and dismiss all opposing arguments through a rhetorical deception.
A Closer Look at Key Arguments
I will spend time here with Raskin because he is the only one who knows enough to know that he is being deceptive; he begins with outright distortions, deceptions, and semantic manipulations:
“But the same Big Oil and Big Gas companies that suppressed for decades their own scientific understanding of climate change, now want to deploy government power to block the ability of other private companies and asset managers to fulfill their fiduciary duties by planning around the risks and costs of climate change, which has already cost businesses, government, and consumers trillions of dollars. Amazingly, the carbon Kings want Big Brother to march in and stop the free market from responding to the climate crisis that the carbon Kings created. I hope we will bring in real businesspeople, other private asset managers, and investment advisers to testify about how outrageous and indefensible this is.”
I consider Raskin an Inner Party Bolshevik for exactly this degree of deception.
• He begins by leveraging “climate change” as an absolute imperative, which immediately signals a friend/enemy distinction in the Regime’s listeners (regardless of your thoughts on the subject of climate change, notice the rhetorical strategy).
• He then claims that asset managers are merely fulfilling “their fiduciary duties”, which is false, since ESG is a direct rejection of fiduciary duties given its intentional destruction of Western economies in order to comply with the extreme goals of the UN’s SDGs and “Net Zero” goals. Worse, this revisionism of the meaning of “fiduciary duty” requires the total disregard of how opposition nations such as Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) are managing their economies outside of ESG as direct competitors.
• He also floats the inflated-numbers claim wherein non-compliance with ESG has “cost … trillions”. This distortion is based on the assumption that natural disasters such as hurricanes were preventable and that costs associated with disaster damages are 100% the fault of non-compliance with ESG. This is something which was false even before the industrial revolution but which has now become the dogma of oligarchs longing for serfs, since ESG managers can blame losses on non-compliance with ESG rather than on natural events whose severity cannot be accurately measured in relation to a null hypothesis wherein they were lesser in humanity’s absence.
• He then pulls a reversal/projection by claiming that it is others who want government to step in to stop the “free market” — a deception so overt that it demands that people who agree with his position somehow rationalize that corporation–asset-manager–government mergers are anything other than totalitarian in principle and in design. I.e., a totalitarian state which controls all levels of the economy and society is considered a “free market” in Raskin’s world.
• He then uses the Regime’s strategy of credentialism wherein the word “real” (itself a no true Scotsman fallacy) qualifies various professions in order to deceive people into believing that the only true “experts” are those who agree with himself as a spokesman for the Regime — a strategy which is all too familiar for anyone with a memory of government expansions during COVID-19.
And Raskin continues:
In fact, the proof is in the pudding. Over the last decade, Bloomberg’s ESG index performed dramatically better than S&P’s traditional, fossil-fuel based index. Consider this remarkable contrast.
This is yet another deception, this time from logic-laundering. The scheme here is that the reason that businesses on the ESG index did “better” is because they were artificially funded by…
1) asset manager funds,
2) assets seized from corporations taking part in the pyramid scheme, and
3) subsidies from government.
In other words, it is not that they are posting greater gains on the consumer-side (i.e., they are not actually selling more product or delivering more services), it is that they are being elevated by the pyramid scheme’s re-directing of wealth from seized markets. For example, as Target takes losses for consumer dissatisfaction after its LGBTQ2S+NAMBLA merchandise, it will be fed asset manager and government subsidies to cover its losses, allowing it to continue with its faulty business practices. This allows ESG indexes to claim better performance despite overall market losses. It is a matter of “seen” forces (consumer losses) versus “unseen” forces (artificial propping-up of failed ventures). ESG disguises losses across the market.
Raskin’s claims then devolve further into poorly backed smears, such as more friend/enemy distinctions:
The new right-wing campaign against what Tocqueville called the enlightened self-interest of American businesses comes dressed as an attack on “woke capitalism,” the same epithet used by Governor DeSantis in his attack on the Disney Corporation for its pro-LGBTQ policies.
Although every other word coming out of their mouths these days is “woke,” our friends have proven famously unable to define what they mean by it.
Raskin, naturally, pretends that woke cannot be defined by the right, but it is quite simply slave morality. Slave morality is not about “enlightened self-interest”; it is a formula for subservience, and it is being sold by ESG’s “stakeholder capitalism”, itself deceptively named given that it only allows “capitalism” for the oligarchs — they being the true “stakeholders” elevated above the din of “shareholders”.
Raskin, however, goes on to a specious etymological argument that would cause a grad student grading papers to roll his or her eyes. Raskin tries to say that “woke” is connected to ESG via “vigilance” about market conditions, which, etymological absurdity aside, is a falsehood. In reality, ESG manipulates market conditions by placing all of the market under, for instance, Larry Fink’s Aladdin A.I. asset-management program. The entire Western market under the singular roof of one governance strategy that is beyond the reach of citizen watchers—what could go wrong!?
Responsible Investing principles – including ESGs – have been freely chosen by America’s companies and employed by asset managers and pension fund managers for decades.
This is false. ESG has been forced by market manipulation, having 8 central frameworks to effect total market control (via UN):
ESG funds Analysts and Brokers, getting them to incorporate ESG into their evaluations of ESG businesses (i.e., the evaluators are encouraged to positively evaluate based on ESG criteria).
ESG rewards investors and asset managers for integrating ESG into their corporate frameworks and punishes those who do not.
ESG supports and funds politicians, managers, multilateral agencies, and pension trustees who mandate and/or adopt ESG principles.
ESG funds regulators, stock exchanges, and governments that implement ESG reporting standards.
ESG funds NGOs that carry the social imperatives of ESG (i.e., they pay for activist organizations that will create “grassroots” (read, “Astro-turfed”) movements that support their goals. This scheme can be traced to nearly all of the recent climate activists, for instance.
ESG funds consultants who support ESG, give ESG positive evaluations, and conduct research for ESG industries.
ESG funds educators and accountants to “train” people to think in terms of ESG and to standardize the goals of ESG. This means ESG-funding of education.
And last but not least, ESG funds companies that adopt ESG governance. The key note here is that this is the virus giving itself a mechanism of replication. Every corporation becomes a clone working on behalf of the asset-manager imperatives. This is everything from corporations offering food, beverages (e.g., Budweiser), entertainment (e.g., movies, streaming), gaming (e.g., computer, console), computing (e.g., Microsoft), media (e.g., Fox News, CNN, Facebook), clothing and home goods (e.g., Target), and nearly any other imaginable service. All become factories which replicate the ESG virus.
Without even getting into the details of Blackrock CEO Larry Fink backing board members to undermine Exxon’s governance, asset managers using their stolen power to vote against Chevron’s own interests, or Fink working with Zelensky to capture the wealth flowing into Ukraine (for “sustainability” in the rebuilding phase, of course!); the general “stick” (negative enforcement mechanism) of ESG is complete divestment from anti-ESG businesses — as well as the use of NGOs-as-activist-networks to attack those businesses — and the “carrot” (positive enforcement mechanism) is total and artificial investment into pro-ESG businesses. Companies that do not want to adopt ESG find that they are frozen out of the market, and companies that do invest secure an early spot in the pyramid scheme.
Summary of Summaries
All said, the Regime’s narratives exist as a scale from “early” in the Celebration Parallax (“It’s not happening!”) to “late” (“It’s a good thing!”) roughly along these lines:
Anti-ESG narratives amount to “conspiracy theory”.
(gas-lighting; thought-terminating cliché)Anti-ESG narratives only exist due to “dark money” groups.
(false; ESG visibility is increasing because it is becoming increasingly pervasive)ESG is “just data”; it just gives investors more details for informed investing
(false; ESG is a whole-of-market and whole-of-society governance strategy).ESG is necessary as reparations for “marginalized” communities.
(this begins to admit the scheme, which it re-evaluates as “good”)ESG replaces white people on boards, but there are a lot of those anyways.
(slave morality’s repressive tolerance scheme on full display)ESG — whatever its consequences — is necessary to address “climate change” for a “sustainable” and “green” future.
(the final admission that fiduciary duty is not the priority of ESG)
Additionally, these are key lies told by the Regime:
Lack of diversity in boards creates groupthink
(false, ESG’s DEI expands groupthink since it standardizes social/political perspectives)ESG reflects fiduciary responsibility
(false, it subverts it, violating fiduciary duty in service of UN Net Zero goals)ESG is “free market” / “voluntary” / “choice” / “democracy” / “options” / “freedom” / “capitalism”
(false, ESG is anti-free-market, anti-competitive, reduces choice, suppresses freedoms, is a pyramid scheme, is overtly Marxist in practice and in origin)
These issues, presented by anti-ESG proponents, were wholly ignored by the Regime’s politicians:
ESG…
Causes major National Security issues
Displaces world pollution to China and Africa resulting in an increase in world pollution due to the decreased use of clean production options and market capture
Increases reliance on foreign energy
Violates discrimination laws
Forces an inability to meet energy demands during or after “green” transition
Is wildly unpopular, as demonstrated by boycotts
Uses proxy voting to align the entire market, creating a total-market vulnerability which subjects world markets to a massive and simultaneous collapse
Gives political power to asset managers rather than to their clients
Destroys Western energy while empowering China’s energy in an absolute strategic military and political failure
ESG violates the law under at least three primary umbrellas:
ESG is an anti-competitive scheme
Businesses and governments that do not adopt ESG are targeted for destruction by the asset managers (e.g., via NGO activism, board replacements, proxy voting, compliance and regulatory fines, refusal to deal), and those that do adopt the scheme are given exclusive dealings (e.g., support for Chinese technology monopolies, horizontal mergers, artificial investments, market security). ESG engages in price fixing by falsifying the true cost of “green” substitutes.ESG is a pyramid scheme
ESG requires a growing amount of wealth under management to fund its market losses. It siphons wealth through government subsidies, horizontal agreements, corporate participation/compliance fees, proxy wars and conflicts (e.g., Ukraine), international money laundering, and strategic market manipulation. Red flags are that ESG managers specifically reward “companies that take early action”, and companies pay into ESG to “earn” higher scores and expanded benefits.ESG is a protection racket
ESG positively evaluates its own market manipulations. ESG protects businesses from its own attacks if these businesses adopt ESG compliance. Asset managers sell ESG as a protection from the market while they themselves manipulate market conditions in favor of ESG.
The main legal pathways cited to oppose ESG:
“Racial equity audits” and DEI policies violate discrimination laws and for this can be prosecuted by the SEC (via Reyes).
ESG’s proxy-voting constitutes a market monopoly and violates the Deceptive Trade Practices Acts of various states (via Marshall).
ESG violates fiduciary duty in favor of chasing Net Zero goals; these violations can be prosecuted under ERISA (via Reyes) and possibly the “sole interest rule” of trust fiduciary law (see Biggs above).
H.J.Res.30 of the Congressional Review Act is under review to change a Department of Labor ruling which overstepped via a change to ERISA, a move which enabled ESG in violation of fiduciary duty (via Reyes). After passing in the House and Senate, Biden vetoed this resolution in March 2023, with the resolution likely facing revisions for another attempt.
FERZ, NZAM, and Climate Action 100+ should be assessed as “holding companies”; they are owners of multiple utilities and are overstepping legal requirements that they remain politically passive (via Reyes and see Luna)
ESG presents an extra-governmental tax which may violate the line between corporatocracy and government sovereignty; Congress may have a legal obligation to bring ESG’s “taxation” scheme to a vote. ESG may also represent a “legally binding international treaty” which bypasses Congressional approval (Marshall).
ESG violates anti-competitive law under the Sherman Act (via Marshall and FTC).
Attorneys General are investigating Net-Zero Banking Alliance and its members, Climate Action 100+, and Morningstar Investment Management (Marshall).
Attorneys General are demanding S&P not make ESG a part of credit ratings (this S&P strategy pre-figures a Chinese social-credit system) (Marshall).
Additionally, on July 6th, 2023, Jim Jordan expanded the Judiciary Committee’s inquiry into ESG asset managers.
Conclusions
A major alarm of these hearings is how much the Regime lied.
The clear Regime imperative here was to win a propaganda victory, with none of the pro-ESG figures concerning themselves with the consequences of a major market manipulation which creates a system-wide vulnerability that directly benefits Chinese interests. In Part II of the Hearing, many GOP politicians did not even attend, allowing Regime figures to set an unproductive narrative by not allowing anti-ESG witnesses the time to defend themselves. (Examining the reasons for these absences is its own story.) If there were any measure of good-faith curiosity from the DNC, then DNC figures would have at least asked AG Reyes or Marshall to expand on the issue of ESG as a national security threat and a Chinese benefit. The lack of such curiosity shows political myopia, blind tribalism, or perhaps even outright capture by foreign interests.
Worse, however, is the near total silence on ESG following these hearings. Regime media published very few articles on the story, such as a low resolution article on Heat Map and a hit piece from The Hill — both of which attempt to make ESG into a non-issue and which incentivized readers to adopt the conclusions of their headlines. In early July, a Fox News contributor published an opinion piece on ESG in general (i.e., not focusing on the Hearing), but very little video coverage exists of the hearing itself beyond dutiful Forbes YouTube clips. The biggest ripple in the pond came from Larry Fink’s June 25th comments at the 2023 Aspen Ideas Festival (an interview which the Aspen Institute does not provide in its catalog), wherein Fink says, “I'm not going to use the word ESG because it's been misused by the far left and the far right,” and instead he uses language such “decarbonization … governance … or social issues” (via Axios). Some speculate a re-branding in the works (e.g., Lotus Eaters), but ESG’s “sustainability” governance has already been codified across laws and corporate frameworks internationally, so, more likely, Fink is merely indicating boardroom obfuscation efforts which use ESG’s existing language but without its title.
Breaking these pond ripples, social media fascinations centered on a woman having issues at a NYC bike station, Trump charge sensationalism, and a side show on Dr. Peter Hotez’ unwillingness to debate his COVID-19 policy positions on the Joe Rogan Experience. While all stories arguably have their place, the boosting of these signals versus the near complete silence on the movements of the world’s wealth demonstrates the power of those who own the propaganda apparatuses. The magic show has hidden its mechanisms from the wider audience with effective distractions.
And there are major issues afoot.
Frerichs claims that ESG’s social factors are merely about considering the reputational risks that corporations may bring upon themselves, but, if this were so, would not the ESG managers push for social imperatives which are popular in their respective consumer-bases, cities, states, and nations? For instance, would it not make the most sense for Budweiser to appeal to red-blooded Americans rather than self-emasculated narcissists, given that its greatest reputational risk is with the former? ESG does not, of course, concern itself with the reputational risks of individual businesses and instead forces a one-size-fits-all Marxist social imperative across all businesses, all cities, all states, and all Western nations. Their concern is not risks to reputation but the forcing of a totalizing social standard.
Frerichs claims that ESG protects from issues such as the Enron collapse and Purdue Pharma’s opioid profiteering, but this forgoes the realities of another 2008 market crash, of Solyndra repeats, and of ESG’s support for specific medical outcomes. That is, is it “responsible” medical investment to actively fund and incentivize the specific hospitals that adopt “transition” services or which otherwise prescribe services based on ESG’s “equity” principles? I.e., is Purdue Pharma’s opioid profiteering merely displaced with ESG’s “trans” profiteering? And what happens when 1,000 “Solyndras” are simultaneously supported for their “green” initiatives, they mismanage, fail to make true profit from sales (i.e., not just investment “profit”), and they all require subsidies and bailouts at once? With the government adopting these “sustainability” policies simultaneously, will the government be in a position to bail-out these businesses or even itself when its own undifferentiated investment strategies suffer the same losses?
Frerichs pushes the claim of “more data”, which is echoed by many of the DNC figures. But, if “more data” is all that ESG is (it is not), then should not investors consider the extra “data” of ESG making the West vulnerable to economic warfare? That is, if ESG is a pyramid scheme, as indeed it is, then should investors not be concerned with what happens to their investments when the pyramid scheme runs out of wealth to shuffle around to cover its losses, all businesses fail simultaneously, and the entire Western economy collapses? Is it “responsible” investing to short-sell the West while betting on BRICS? Perhaps to the asset managers it is!
Many speakers make the claim that ESG is “free market” and “choice”, but is this choice for individual clients? The speakers seem to believe that people can merely choose to invest in ESG or not, but the reality is that most clients do not have a choice — their employer makes that decision for them via an already selected 401(k) or investment plan. If individual clients were to have a choice in the matter, they would be able to select investment options which place their wealth in plans directly competing with ESG. This is most often not happening within ESG-captured businesses; the choice is not offered to employees, and the pro-ESG decision already made is hidden from them. Workers must instead find non-ESG employers that do not hold wealth in ESG asset managers, and, given ESG’s market domination and its strategy of destroying non-ESG businesses, this reduces employment options.
Regarding national security, should it not interest investors to know that ESG asset managers are pushing for “green” solutions which are merely directing Western wealth into Chinese Belt-and-Road nations, making the West reliant on Chinese rare-earth minerals? (Incidentally, the World Economic Forum held a 2023 Summer session in China wherein, on June 27th, speakers praised the utility of China’s Belt-and-Road initiative in “green” planning.) That is, regarding future investment risk-planning, would investors not be concerned with what happens to Western investments when the West has no substantial oil, gas, or nuclear energy but must instead purchase the bulk of its energy from China? Would China, possessing such a monopoly, not have an incentive to drastically increase the prices of rare-earth minerals to maximize the debt that it holds over the West? And should it not concern Western nations that China’s activities in Belt-and-Road nations with high birth rates and healthy population pyramids are causing those nations to mass-migrate to Europe? That is, paying for this Chinese energy is simultaneously causing migration crises in Europe, and payments to the “Global South” (an ESG and “sustainability” imperative) is merely building the infrastructure for Chinese mining operations.
Additionally, if ESG is truly concerned with decreasing overall world pollution to slow or prevent “climate change”, does it make sense to displace world pollution to China and Africa, where there are fewer emissions standards, lower E-Indexes (i.e., lower environmental compliance), and any mined resources must subsequently be transported around the world in a logistics inefficiency? Would it not make sense to mine these minerals locally in the West with conservationist practices and no additional transport pollution? Of course it would, but this is the difference between the “seen” and “unseen” market hands of ESG. The West gets to appear green (“seen”), but the “Global South” bears the costs of pollution out of sight (“unseen”).
In a proper and good faith strategic context, much like nuclear disarmament, nations truly committed to climate goals would unanimously participate in a phased standdown of heavy-carbon industries. This is not happening. The ESG West is dismantling its energy while paying Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and others (BRICS+) to expand their energy production. The direct and obvious consequence of the West having little energy production and BRICS+ having accelerated energy production is that BRICS+ can dominate the West in production wars. Worse still, with ESG and “sustainability” governance allowed to expand further and as this power imbalance between the West and BRICS+ reverses, the economic incentive to engage in controlled proxy wars increases. At the level of governance-as-theater, the West can claim that it must attack China via Taiwan or Africa because of China’s attempt to seize resource monopolies, yet the West is helping to establish these monopolies. Behind the scenes, this would mean the West intentionally drawing itself into proxy wars to justify the additional siphoning of Western wealth to BRICS, with conflict merely being a means of justifying the control of post-conflict debt by the asset managers. If it is indeed the asset managers overseeing this, then there is something to be said about provoking the East and West into a profitable conflict.
Could it truly be that such an obvious oversight is beyond all of the oligarchs of the West? I think not. Our destinies are being written by people who have no allegiance to sovereign nations.
In summation
ESG initiatives promise to address “climate change”, but they actually increase worldwide pollution. ESG forecasts investments for a “green” future, but it is projecting for its own market manipulations and the assumption that those manipulations have value. ESG promises a reduction in mismanagement and groupthink, but its “pay gap” and DIE hiring practices increase mismanagement and groupthink by placing incompetent, compliant, and politically homogeneous people into positions of power. ESG withdraws Western nations from oil and gas, but it simultaneously incentivizes BRICS+ oil, gas, coal, and nuclear expansion. ESG creates a scenario for a post-economic, resource-based economy which BRICS+ manages through its resource monopolies. The West, meanwhile, is enslaved to debt and subjected to immense economic, social, food, and energy calamities.
ESG, quite shortly, is the economic engine of an expanding world totalitarian state sponsored openly by the UN, WEF, a coalition of asset managers, and the West’s own oligarchs; enacted at the behest of BRICS+, duplicitous nations, and nefarious political actors. Its pure market power and its political motives are reflected in the rotten fruits of its social imperatives as well as via the near total silence that it commands in the public via its capture of the governance structures of corporations, politicians, NGOs, trustees, educators, regulators, brokers, and nearly every major news apparatus. Unsurprisingly, it turns out that all that is required to rule the world is the infiltration of the institutions that manage the world’s wealth — everything else can be bought afterwards.
