Despite the continuing relevance of studying such a political phenomenon as the Council for Inclusive Capitalism at the Vatican, especially against the background of the escalation of coronavirus hysteria, there is an extreme lack of information on this topic in the media and the expert community. This is especially true for analytics, which, after more than six months from the date of the presentation of the Council, is limited to a few publications. The event is either understated or deliberately hushed up by the system of taboos on what can be mentioned, and attention is diverted from it.

Meanwhile, we are talking about an extraordinary phenomenon – the entry into public politics of previously closed, shadowy trends in the world establishment, as well as the confirmation of the previously known link of large oligarchic business with the Vatican. Considering the new papal Council through the prism of attempts to legalise the private power of the so-called “deep state”, it is necessary to note its close connection with the project of the “great reset”. Published a few months earlier, it is based on the concept of “sustainable development” turned into the ideology of globalisation, introduced into global politics with the help of “Development Goals”.

Over the three decades of its existence, this concept as guiding principles has been deeply integrated into the activities of a system of institutions engaged not only in the cardinal reorganisation of the world order, but also in the introduction of a new concept of man, which denies him a Divine interpretation of origin. By levelling the spiritual and social components, it reduces matters to the biological level. And it divides people by impenetrable barriers into isolated castes of higher and lower, turning into the basis of the policy of social segregation and apartheid, which was especially clearly manifested during the pandemic.

Reflecting the interests of a narrow upper stratum of Western elites, where non-Western elites are trying to “fit in” after them, the project of the “great reset” seeks to overcome the comprehensive crisis of modern capitalism. And it achieves this by preserving itself for eternal times, hoping to get ahead of and prevent the truly democratic changes that are overdue.

Lenin and Kautsky: a modern round of historical polemics

A little more than a hundred years ago, against the background of the beginning of the “suicide of Europe” – the First World War – the famous polemic of V. I. Lenin with the prominent German Social Democrat K. Kautsky took place. Before proceeding to the coverage of the essence of the issue, it makes sense to agree on the terms, especially given that they are very distorted today, a third of a century after the end of the Soviet era. The main term that interests us is imperialism. Today, it is often used as a synonym for the imperial policy of centralised multinational “superstate” conglomerates.

From the point of view of scientific methodology, this does not correspond to reality, because in the original reading, imperialism is quite another thing, namely, the monopolistic phase of the development of capitalism. In the work “Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism” (1916), the leader of the future October Revolution gradually reveals the process of monopolisation of capitalism. And he points out that the transition from the competitive phase to the abolition of competition by dividing the world between unions of large capitalists (oligarchs) was accompanied by their “privatisation” of states, which consequently begin to pursue an imperialist policy of redistributing the already divided world in the interests of their own and allied monopolies [1].

This is exactly the mechanism of unleashing the First World War, according to Lenin; three wars – the Spanish-American (1898), the Anglo-Boer (1899-1902), the Russian-Japanese (1904-1905) – marked the completion of the formation of imperialism.

In 1914, Kautsky wrote a book “Imperialism”, in which he suggested that the concentration would not end with this monopolistic phase that had developed within the framework of individual states, but would reach the global level as a result of the war. And he predicted “the transfer of the practice of cartels to foreign policy” with “the subordination of national imperialisms to the strongest of them”, calling it “ultra-imperialism”, which is also the current globalism. According to Kautsky, a world monopoly power will be established [2].

Putting forward this project, he proceeded from the highest level of interdependence of the modern world, which he pointed out and proved, except that he did not use the term “globalisation”. Lenin, realising not only the essence of this project and its colonial character for our country, but also the readiness of Western social-democracy to unite with the bourgeoisie around the idea of exploiting the rest of the world, with his “Imperialism as the highest stage…” declared a fight against it.

He broke with the European Social Democrats, branded them as “opportunists” and declared that the established imperialism is the highest and last stage of capitalism, and that the war will lead not to the formation of ultra-imperialism, but to the destruction of imperialism itself by the world socialist revolution.

History has judged 50-50. On the one hand, the task of destroying national empires by the First World War was successfully solved; the League of Nations, as a result of Versailles, was to become the central link of world power. On the other hand, there was a systemic failure – October in Russia, which levelled the project of the League of Nations, which the United States refused to join. Next to capitalism, an alternative, socialist world-system appeared. It took the advocates of globalism a century to replay the suddenly interrupted game, which included the Second World War and the Cold War.

The collapse of the USSR brought the global situation back to the results of Versailles; everything was heading to the logical conclusion of the ultra-imperialist project under the new name of globalism, but a Russian-Chinese alliance was formed, the threat of which the Z. Brzezinski had warned about at the time [3].

The situation was fixed at a stage reminiscent of 1914-1916. Only in nuclear conditions a “hybrid” war being waged. And in order not to miss the initiative again, the globalists risked playing ahead of the curve, presenting the project of “inclusive capitalism” to the world as openly as Kautsky and Lenin presented their projects a hundred years ago.

In the “conceptual” environment associated with the “deep state”, for a long time there were disputes about what exactly to proclaim – capitalism or socialism. The Vatican, which became the centre of “inclusion”, or rather, the Jesuit order that seized power in it, shook up the leadership of the other Catholic orders after the arrival of Francis, for a long time promoted a “liberation theology” – something like Christian socialism built on the ideas of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), which proclaimed the reunification of Catholicism with the pre-Christian Jewish Messianic “birthright”.

Francis’ rhetoric is also conditionally “socialist”; political regimes that the Jesuits managed to impose and keep in power in some countries have always been associated with a specific form of socialism. However, in the context of the unfolding clash between the United States and China, where the Communist Party is in power, the fear of the term “socialism” itself turned out to be the decisive argument in favour of capitalism, even if it is interpreted not according to Lenin as communism, but according to Kautsky as opportunistic social-democracy.

As was rightly pointed out by the famous economist E. Veduta, the way out of the crisis into which the world has been plunged by capitalism is connected with the choice of two mobilisation options related to the use of the achievements of digitalisation: in the interests of the peoples and in the interests of the elites. Therefore, the application for the capitalist content of “inclusion” means that an elite choice has been made in favour of a system of totalitarian management of people, covered by the demagogy of supposedly “noble” goals of eliminating penury and poverty, reduced to the ideology of “sustainable development” [4].

The Club of Rome and the “sustainable development” agenda

The sequence of steps, including the history of the issue, is as follows. Long before the proclamation of the “inclusive” project, since the 1960s, there was a preparatory stage associated with the activities of the Club of Rome, which presented a “road map” of global changes formulated in a series of reports.


Main reports: “The Limits to Growth” (D. Meadows group, 1972), “Humanity at a Turning Point” (M. Mesarovich – E. Pestel, 1974), “Reshaping the International Order” (J. Tinbergen, 1976), “Goals for Mankind” (E. Laszlo, 1977), “Energy: The Countdown” (T. de Montbrial, 1978), “Beyond the Limits to Growth” (E. Pestel, 1987), “The First Global Revolution” (A. King – B. Schneider, 1990 G.).

The development of certain areas was entrusted to the joint commissions of the UN and the Social International.


Commissions: on International Development (V. Brandt, 1970), on Disarmament and Security (U. Palme, 1980), on Environment and Development (G. H. Bruntland, 1983).

The liquidation of the USSR moved the project to the next stage. First, using and maximally inflating the myth of “global warming” (now – “global climate change”), based on the principles of the market, opposed to the plan, they brought the economy and the social sphere under the environment, combining them with the theme of “sustainable development”.

To promote it, they proclaimed the consolidation of governments, global “civil society” (NPOs and NGOs) and global business on the basis of the UN. They established the Institute of UN Conferences on Environment and Development (1992), in the context of which they packed the institute of framework conventions (there are about a dozen of them, the main one is the UNFCCC on climate change), as well as a number of new commissions related to them.


Commissions: on Sustainable Development (1992), on Global Governance and Cooperation (1995), on Globalisation (2001).

Secondly, at the UN platform and on the basis of regional organisations, primarily the EU and NATO, they advanced “sustainable development “into the sphere of political governance, establishing “peace-building” institutions in the UN structure – the office, the commission and the fund. The task of peace-building has become the settlement of internal crises, which is carried out by their internationalisation and the actual transfer of conflict territories under the external control of international institutions.

Having formalised the peace-building system in 2005, they transferred patronage over it to the The Sustainable Development Goals Summit, created in parallel with the above-mentioned Conferences on Environment and Sustainable Development. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) approved by the first such Millennium Summit (2000), derived from Agenda XXI adopted in 1992, thus linked the ideology and institutions of “sustainable development” and “peace-building”, serving as the foundation of the emerging system of global governance [5].

Thirdly, at the Fourth World Summit (2015), “Agenda-XXI” was re-formed into the “Agenda 2030″. At the same time, the MDGs turned into the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), calculated until 2030 [6]. In order to preserve the ideological integrity of the project, the Kyoto Protocol, which did not contain quantitative obligations of “decarbonisation”, was replaced in the same 2015 by the Paris Agreement, which contains not only obligations, but also tools for monitoring their implementation.


The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997 by the 3rd Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in Kyoto; the Paris Agreement – in 2015 by the 21st Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in Paris. The first attempt to introduce commitments was made by the 15th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in Copenhagen (2009), but ended in failure due to a counter-demarche by China, led by the “Group of 77” developing countries that supported it.

The “Great Reset” against China and Russia

With the beginning of coronavirus hysteria, the current stage of the project was launched. It has all the signs of a decisive one. The “deep state” seems to have gone all-in. The ideology of “sustainable development” was combined with the plans of the so-called “great reset”, according to the title of the book of the same name by the founder and director of the Davos WEF, K. Schwab, released in the summer of 2020. Having formed the conceptual part of the plan, they soon announced the institutional part, presenting the aforementioned Council for Inclusive Capitalism at the Vatican in November-December of the same last year.

Speaking about this, it should be borne in mind that the connection of the Holy See with the world oligarchy is not something new. It has been carried out for a long time, with the help of joint participation in banking alliances and networks, as well as the involvement of Western banks in the management of the Vatican Bank, whose official name is the Institute of Religious Affairs (IRD). Three banks are associated with the Vatican, which are part of two European networks – the private Inter-Alpha Group of Banks (it is believed that it is controlled by the Rothschild clan) and the European EFSR (European Financial Services Roundtable): Spanish Santander, Italian Intesa Sanpaolo and French Crédit Agricole.

The plan of the “great reset” adopted by the pontifical “inclusive” Council includes an apologia for the SDGs, demanding their unconditional implementation by 2030, as well as the accelerated introduction of digitalisation. Its tool is considered to be a pandemic that encourages remote, digital formats of any public and even political participation (most bilateral and multilateral international meetings and negotiations are now held online). However, the main task that seems to be set for the pandemic, given the emerging American roots of the coronavirus, is to reduce the population.


Since 1952, the Population Council, jointly established by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation (associated with the UN Economic and Social Council), has been engaged in research in the field of demography. It is known about the participation of the Ford Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in the development of this topic. Provisions on demographic control are contained in a number of official documents. These are the report to the Club of Rome “The Limits to Growth” (1972), the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992), as well as some other sources.

On the one hand, the milestone of 2030 is conditional. It is possible that if the “great reset” fails, the SDGs will either be prolonged or re-formed into regular Goals until 2045. On the other hand, however, the Western expert community believes that at the current pace of development, China will completely overtake the United States and become the first power in the world by 2028, after which the “great reset” will lose its relevance, and the West will find itself in a completely different, much worse reality for it.

Looking ahead a little, we note that representatives of China and Russia are completely absent from the structures of the Pontifical Council, and in all its links, which indicates its anti-Russian and anti-Chinese orientation. At the same time, in the main global banking network formed in 2015, just six years ago – thirteen participants of the London gold fixings – China is represented by three state-owned banks – Bank of China, Bank of Communications, China Construction Bank.

From this, we can conclude that China’s break with the globalist project occurred already under the rule of Xi Jinping and roughly coincided with the beginning of the war of US-Chinese tariff sanctions in May 2018. In addition, at about the same time, among the pilot projects of the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation, the South China project was renamed “China”. This indicates a possible change in its content [7].

It cannot be excluded that the original plan included the separation of the south of the People’s Republic of China and the creation of a new global oligarchic centre on the territory of the Great Gulf (Guangdong – Hong Kong – Macau). The authors of separate leaks to the media claimed that the content of this project is the creation of a temporary, distracting world centre South China-Singapore-Australia, which will be designed to ensure the transit of the present world centre from the disintegrating United States back to the UK [8]. And then these plans were changed as being unworkable.


By the way, such dynamics may be at the heart of the Hong Kong events of 2014 and 2019-2020. The mechanism of unrest, which was inflated by Western funds and diplomatic missions, as well as the authorities of Taiwan, was involved when the plan to spread the Hong Kong order to the entire south of the country collapsed. And the opposite turned out: the autonomy was “pressed into service”, turning it from a source of creeping separatism into a southern outpost of the People’s Republic of China.

“Inclusive” Council: guidelines, structure, membership

In 2006, a book was published by a “modern Kautsky” – a major ideologist of globalism J. Attali, the former head of the EBRD and, by the way, the teacher and mentor of the current French President E. Macron on the Rothschild Bank and the reform committee under President F. Mitterrand. It is called “A brief history of the future: the world in the next 50 years”, and it reveals a plan consisting of five stages, in order of priority:

– the weakening of the United States and the loss of the status of a superpower;

– the confrontation between the EU and China in the struggle for global leadership;

– creation of an alliance of multinational banks and companies and their formation of the corporate world;

– a major war that solves the mentioned “problem” of population reduction;

– the onset of the post-war unified world order in the form of a “golden age” (“cosmopolis” according to G. Wells, “the end of history” according to F. Fukuyama, “brave new world” according to O. Huxley, etc.) [9].

During the presidency of D. Trump, Attali, by the way, mentioned that the first stage is already in full swing and is nearing completion. It seems, however, that the second stage has also been passed. By turning against China, the United States is openly putting pressure on its allies, demonstrating to them its “return” and, consequently, America’s leadership under J. Biden. Europe is being strongly encouraged to follow Washington’s anti-Chinese fairway.

Well, the third stage obviously becomes decisive, and it is noticeable that Attali’s logic is literally copied from Lenin: we are talking about the same sequence in which the corporations that divided the world, trying to remake it, push the states they control against each other; Kautsky himself, a hundred years ago, anticipating Attali’s revelations, intuitively “peeped” at the very last stage, only he did not foresee that there could be new wars, much more destructive than the First World War.

The prototype of the corporate alliance of oligarchs, which claims to embody global leadership, a kind of oligarchic centre and at the same time the headquarters of a global “party” uniting the right-left heritage of the Liberal and Socialist internationals, is precisely the Council for Inclusive Capitalism at the Vatican, which is why it is interesting.

The corresponding manifesto, published simultaneously with the announcement of the creation of the Council (although in reality it appeared earlier), states the mission of u-turning the private sector to the people in order to create a “more inclusive, sustainable and reliable economic system”. It is proposed to adapt capitalism to the conditions of the 21st century in order to reduce the current contradictions of economies and societies and improve the standard of living [10].

These are words that will not be followed by deeds. The above-mentioned E. Veduta draws attention to the fact that the economy of capitalism is built on chaotic connections, and the fulfilment of its goals requires strategic planning, which capitalism is incapable of [11]. This is not quite true.

The structure of the capitalist economy, closed to a narrow pool of beneficiaries of asset management companies, is quite amenable to planning. However, the real u-turn to the interests of the people will always be hindered by the class interests not even of these beneficiaries, but of the managerial hierarchy built by them.

The creators of the Council understand this perfectly well and are hypocritical precisely because they hide their unlit plans behind declarations, the main one of which is a radical reduction in the population. This is done to reduce consumption, stop technological progress in order to preserve the environment for the “chosen ones” while directing the efforts of science to maximise the extension of their physical life.

The first “guiding principle” of the Council – “Promote” – reveals the connection between “institutions and individuals”, covering it with “the good of humanity”. To understand what we are talking about, we should refer to a number of other UN documents, the most revealing of which is the report “Our Global Neighbourhood”, presented in 1995 by the Commission on Global Governance and Cooperation under the chairmanship of I. Carlsson.

“Governance is the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs. It is a continuing process through which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and co-operative action may be taken. It includes formal institutions and regimes empowered to enforce compliance, as well as informal arrangements that people and institutions either have agreed to or perceive to be in their interest.” [12].

State institutions are summoned here to “common affairs” with private “people and institutions” with the help of “informal”, that is, behind-the-scenes agreements. This is the process of “privatisation” of the state by the oligarchy that Kautsky and Lenin, discussing with each other, nevertheless “amicably” laid in the foundation of imperialism. This phrase – “people and institutions” – or similar in meaning is found in a number of documents of the Club of Rome, as well as in the UN Copenhagen Declaration on Social Development (1995). Therefore, this is not a coincidence.

Information about the staff of the Council appeared in the media in a one-sided form: it was reported about some “27 guardians” who headed it. Although in May, the Council, which already had a website with a volume of information quite sufficient for analysis and conclusions, regularly updated, indicated the presence of 26 “guardians” in it. This number did not include, as it does not include now, the 27th, or rather the first in importance, figure of Pope Francis, who stands alone, above the rest of the leadership.

And it is clear that we are dealing with a model of a theocratic organisation headed by a spiritual leader, which in a certain sense resembles the political system of Iran. This is not a claim for a political fight, but for power in its purest form. At the same time, since the figure “27”, which does not correspond to reality, bypassed a lot of media at that time, it seems that someone either brought it out of thoughtlessness, or it was deliberately thrown in to disorient the public and discredit the expert community.

In addition to the “guardians”, the structure of the Council includes the “stewards” who have remained in it (these are also not only “stewards”, as they are often called, but also “managers”). The media did not report anything at all about them in the spring, as well as about the “allies”, who already make up the fourth, if we count from above, floor of the Council’s organisation: “spiritual leader” Francis – “guardians” (business owners) – “stewards” (top business management) – “allies” (the lured “public”).

Before proceeding to the subsequent dynamics, we will affirm: in front of us is an ordered organisational structure of a hierarchical type, built on totalitarian grounds. “Guardians” are appointed by the “leader”, that is, the “spiritual leader”; “stewards” offer themselves to the leadership, for which they submit relevant statements, but not from themselves, but from business structures that are headed in the status of CEO. As for the “allies”, “like-minded people” from NPOs and NGOs join the Council in this and only in this capacity. “Leader” – “politburo” – “Central Committee” – “public” mass.

A clear gradation: with all the ostentatious “democracy”, big business is at the top, its circle is elitist closed, it dictates the rules of the game; the public is below it. “Stay on your own side of the fence”. What is this, if not a party-type organisation, only a global one? But at the same time, it is built not according to the horizontal, traditional-party, but according to the principle of business management, more characteristic of the “Fuhrer”, leader-type parties. Or sects, considering the “(quasi)spiritual” type of leadership.

If we go through the party functions, as they are prescribed, for example, by the classic of the theory of parties M. Duverger [13], then there are three out of four: social (representation of the class interests of the oligarchic bourgeoisie), ideological (“sustainable development”), personnel (business management implementing personnel policy). Only the electoral function is in question, because an association of this type is able to function effectively only in an extremely comfortable one-party regime, controlling the entire political space and cutting off any disloyalty at a very far distance from the ballot boxes.

The Council also has a bureaucratic “apparatus”: the board of directors represented by the chairperson, four members/directors in certain areas, a senior adviser, IT specialists, as well as program managers. The level of communication of the head of the board of directors within the organisational structure is working with “stewards” and “allies” [14].

Everything that concerns the former “guardians”, whose list has since expanded, and their status has changed, are now members of the “steering committee”, this is the exclusive prerogative of the “leader”, he is also the”spiritual leader”. These are business celestials endowed with the exclusivity of Egyptian priests. In general, between May of this year and the present, the structure of the Council has been streamlined.

The four mentioned links (or “floors”) are grouped into two groups. The first – “advisers” – includes the above-mentioned “steering committee”, which has six co-chairs and again three “advisers”, whose positions in this case can be interpreted as “consultants”, but in fact, looking ahead, they are “overseers” [15].

Personally, there are 30 people in the “steering committee”, most of them are leaders of large and super-large oligarchic business in the largest companies. Represented by Mastercard, Allianz, Dupont, Salesforce, Motorola, Brunello, EY, TIAA, Merck, Estee Lauder, Calpers, Johnson and Johnson, Visa, BP, Boston Consulting, Bank of America, State Street, Capital Partners, Ayala Corp.

The rest are closely related to politics, and they should be listed by name:

– L. de Rothschild (wife of the retired former head of the I. de Rothschild clan from the British branch, represents the NGO “Inclusive Capitalism Partners”);

– M. Carney (former Director of the Bank of England, now the UN Special Representative for Climate and financial adviser to the British Prime Minister at the upcoming conference of the parties to the UNFCCC in Glasgow);

– Sh. Barrow (International Trade Union Confederation);

– A. Gurría (ex-Secretary General of the OECD);

– F. Ma (California State Treasury, USA);

– H. Mizuno (UN Special Envoy on Innovative Finance and Sustainable Investments);

– The presidents of the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations R. Shah and D. Walker,

– T. Thiam (UN Special Representative for Covid).

The naked eye can see the closest intertwining of the oligarchy with the UN system. The six co-chairs of the “steering committee”, together with L. de Rothschild and M. Carney, include the heads of Allianz, Salesforce, EY and Bank of America – O. Bäte, M. Benioff, K. Di Sibio, B. Moynihan, respectively [16]. The trio of “overseers” (concerning why they are “overseers” – in the next part) – R. Ferguson (TIAA), R. Lesser (Boston Consulting), M. Weinberger (EY) [17].

Please note: the pontiff is not “noticed” anywhere, except for the advertising headpiece of the site and its name – Council for Inclusive Capitalism. However, the “spiritual” nature of his leadership, as if sanctifying the activities of the Council, is emphasised in every possible way.

The second group in the structure of the Council is “members”: 103 “stewards” and 46 “allies”. An important nuance: all thirty members of the “steering committee” are “stewards” at the same time; it remains to be established whether they perform the functions of control from above or perform some additional tasks in this capacity.

Another point: R. Sousou from Capital Partners, mentioned in the list of the “steering committee” and, accordingly, “stewards”, for some reason is absent from the general list of “advisors” (members of the “steering committee”, its co-chairs and “supervisory consultants”). The easiest way to explain everything is a banal typo; however, the business structure that he represents is included in the exclusive list of asset management companies, that is, in the world’s “supertops”. What is behind this absence is unclear.

The third nuance, perhaps shedding light on the organisational principles of the management system being built. A separate list includes “organisations” – the mentioned NPOs and NGOs managed by “allies”. But not only that. The general list of 144 participants also includes business structures whose management is represented in the “advisors” and “stewards” lists.

That is, we are talking about the end-to-end control of business over “public figures”, and the author of these lines can testify that this was not observed in May. Moreover, now on the list of “allies”, in contrast to the composition of less than six months ago, it is business structures that are in the absolute majority, and NPOs and NGOs are in a clear minority. Did they not justify the “high trust” of the oligarchic “masters of the world”?

The main page of the “inclusive” website reports on the scale of the Council’s influence on the world: $10.5 trillion of assets under management, 2.1 trillion of market capitalisation, 200 million employees, offices in 163 countries and territories of the world (a list of which is not given) [18]. It seems, however, that only the first two indicators are of serious importance; everything else is dust in the eyes in order to create the illusion of global coverage, which is absent. For, once again, there is not a single “advisor”, “steward” or “ally” from Russia and China in the Council, and in general, Americans and Europeans frankly dominate.

In fact, the Council is not a “global consolidation” around the Sustainable Development Goals; let us repeat, it is a global “party”, an instrument of the fight for the power monopoly of the large oligarchic bourgeoisie against any alternative ways and projects of world development to capitalism. First of all, against China and Russia. We are talking about the top of the global world system and the principles of global governance, which must be modified and finally “cemented” for eternal times in the interests of the current global oligarchic bourgeoisie. And everything that prevents it from doing this, roughly speaking, must die so as not to get in the way.

A pontiff under the “spiritual” control of bankers?

Considering the pontiff as the “spiritual” leader of the Council, it’s time to ask the question: why exactly is he nominated for this role, and is it connected with the Vatican as an institution, or is it about the figure of Francis as a protege of the Jesuit Order?

The answer to this question, by the way, is able to shed light on some “delicate” circumstances of the “castling” of 2013, when, it turns out, certain forces “got tired of waiting” for the former Pope Benedict XVI to “go to the Lord” and “hurried” him with the lifetime liberation of the Holy See, because the project was subject to implementation, and this required direct Jesuit control.

The 1970s were marked by a whole spectrum of fundamental changes in the world situation – from the “golden default” and the Club of Rome’s entrance to the arena to the unconstitutional change of power in the United States and presenting the concept of future global changes to the public in the sensational “The Crisis of Democracy” report of the Trilateral Commission [19].

Against this background, another event remained almost unnoticed. We are talking about the appearance in 1978 of the largest association of bankers – the “Group of 30”, whose full name is the “Consultative Group on International Economic and Monetary Affairs”. The website of the “30” contains an amazing explanation of its origin in terms of frankness:

“The Group is a non-for-profit organization. It was founded with a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. The Group receives tax deductible contributions from firms, institutions and individuals who support its mission. At present approximately one hundred public and private bodies from across the globe support our work through small contributions. The maximum contribution permitted by any one institution/person is $30,000 per year; the average is about $10,000.” [20].

In general, there is nothing to comment on here, everything is already clear, including the order of the amounts that the group operates with. The list of “supporters” who “support” the “30″ finally clarifies the situation. It is here, and do not be lazy, reader, to open it; it is worth it [21].

If you dig into the structure and functions of the “30”, it turns out that it has a common “Steering Committee” with Bilderberg – a globalist association of North American and European elites, and control over the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, functioning in the structure of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).

After receiving research orders from Bilderberg, the group subsequently sends them to Basel as recommendations for execution. The mentioned BIS, in turn, is, firstly, closely connected with the IMF and the World Bank Group. And together with them, it forms a kind of collective “world central bank”, in the structure of which the latter two perform a representative function and can be seen in public, and the BIS – a conceptual one, therefore it does not attract attention to itself.

Secondly, with the help of the Basel Club, the BIS controls the central banks of the absolute majority of states, with the exception of Cuba, the DPRK, Syria and a number of small countries (Russia has been a member of the Basel Club since 1996: it was necessary to “somehow” elect Yeltsin).

The “central bankers” receive their recommendations both directly in Basel, where each of them has apartments, and where they come several times a year for “meetings”, and through the instructions of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. Including in the form of agreements on the procedure and rules of reservation, known as Basel 1, 2 and, now, 3.

This committee is also, in fact, a single entity with a Financial Stability Board (FSB), which annually draws up a list of “systemically important” banks, “too big to fail”. The “trick” is that the FSB, as, by the way, the IMF and the World Bank, are part of the very “Group of 20”, which is considered a “collective club” for managing the world economy. And this “financial council” was created in 2009, just by the London summit of the “20”.

Why do we need this information? Here is the composition of the “Group of 30”, which includes 31 members, eight “senior members” and 18 “honorary members”. “Senior” and “honorary” members intersect with the current composition and are included in the leadership of the “30” [22]. Let’s list some names, most famous for their wide involvement in the oligarchic globalist project:

J. Frenkel, J-C. Trichet (ex-head of the EBRD), J. Caruana, W. Dudley, T. Geithner (ex-head of the US Treasury), G. Häusler, P. Krugman (Nobel laureate), K. Rogoff, L. Summers (ex-deputy head of the US Treasury), J. Yellen (ex-director of the Federal Reserve), M. King (ex-director of the Bank of England), M. Draghi (acting Prime Minister of Italy), S. Fischer (ex-the head of the Bank of Israel and the former deputy head of the Federal Reserve), as well as well-known in Russia L. Balcerowicz and D. Cavallo.

There are two more surnames in this “well-known” list, which are already well known to us: another ex-director of the Bank of England, M. Carney, and R. Ferguson, associated with the TIAA company, whom we have already seen in the Council for Inclusive Capitalism. They are, of course, “advisors” there, but at the same time M. Carney is one of the co-chairs of the “steering committee”, and R. Fergusson is one of the three “supervisory consultants”.

The circle is complete: the influential members of the 30″, it turns out, are delegated from it to the papal “inclusive” Council to direct its activities and exercise oligarchic supervision over it.

It turns out that Pope Francis, if he is a “spiritual” power, is by no means a monopoly, but shares it with the top of the banking community, covering its leading role in this entire structure with the “spiritual” authority of the Roman Catholic Church headed by him. Here it’s time to remember about the euphemism of “mammon” – the “golden calf”, personifying the new “religion of money” that replaced Christianity in the West.


First. A long-term project of the tops of Western elites, the essence of which is to involve digitalisation and artificial intelligence in managing the number of humanity and reducing it in their own bourgeois-class and corporate interests, with the creation of the Council for Inclusive Capitalism at the Vatican, is entering a new, possibly decisive phase.

The introduction of the appropriate style and terminology of globalism into the public context, its rooting, accelerated by the current pandemic, has been going on for a long time and is associated with the concept of “sustainable development”, the proclamation of which was prepared by the developments of the Club of Rome and timed to the final stage of the liquidation of the USSR.

For these purposes, for several decades, an extensive, hierarchical system of institutions has been created, in whose activities, with the adoption of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000, “sustainable development” does not so much serve to promote the fight against “global climate change”, as it represents a specific globalist ideology.

With the help of “sustainable development”, the myth of the alleged lack of alternative to controlled global changes, implemented by consistently subordinating the ecology of all other spheres of public life, is introduced into the public consciousness. The introduction of ecology as an imperative in them erodes the foundations of state sovereignty, sovereign ways of ensuring economic, social, political, information, and military security.

Second. The main provisions aimed at using “sustainable development” to complete globalisation according to the corporate-globalist version were published in the summer of 2020 at the Davos EEF. To this end, a “great reset” project has been put forward, designed to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030, which replaced the MDGs in 2015, by deterring China and preventing the emerging Russian-Chinese alliance from intercepting the global initiative in the fight for the future of humanity.

This project is directed against the opponents of the West, primarily against Russia and China. Subordination to it explains the content of all the main governing documents of the United States and NATO in the field of security, directed against our countries, which are accused of “revisionism” and violations of certain world “rules”. This is confirmed by the absence of representatives of Russia and China, Russian and Chinese business structures, NPOs and NGOs in the system of institutions of the Council for Inclusive Capitalism.

Third. The structure of the Council for Inclusive Capitalism is built in such a way as to ensure the end-to-end control of large oligarchic capital over public activities, ensuring its development in its own interests. The Council has created a hierarchy that includes several levels:

– the “(quasi) spiritual” leadership of Pope Francis, who was taken out of the framework of a specific representative status and placed above the rest;

– the institute of “advisers” is an “steering committee” consisting of 30 members, two-thirds of which represent the world’s largest corporations, and the remaining third are oligarchic funds and international organisations and missions controlled by them, including those associated with the UN, which acts as a “junior partner” of the oligarchy;

– the institute of “members”, which includes intertwined business structures and NPOs and NGOs funded by them, represented by their leaders as part of 103 “stewards” and 46 “allies”. At the same time, control over the latter is carried out by the inclusion of all “advisers” in the list of “stewards”, as well as the control of the latter, together with “allies”, to the bureaucratic apparatus of the Council.

Fourth. The proclamation of the Council for Inclusive Capitalism at the end of last year, on the one hand, testifies to the emergence from the shadows of a number of important processes in world politics, including the disclosure of the corresponding role of the Holy See in it, which in ordinary life is pharisaically hiding behind political “non-participation”.

On the other hand, it is designed to cover up the activities of the “top” of the world banking community, which in reality manages it through its own representative office, personified by two figures who are simultaneously part of the leadership of the “steering committee” of the “inclusive” Council, and part of the “Group of 30”, which unites the world’s largest bankers. These are the former director of the Bank of England, M. Carney, who is the UN special representative for climate, and R. Ferguson, who is associated with the TIAA company.

Both private and central banks of states are represented in the “30”. The main function of the group is to prepare reports with recommendations, which are sent to the Bank for International Settlements and included in the draft decisions of the interstate “Group of 20”. Therefore, there is every reason to consider the Council as an analogue of the executive body under the “Group of 30”, and also to recognise that the pontiff shares “spiritual” leadership in it with the top of the banking community.

Thus, the Council for Inclusive Capitalism appears as an intermediate authority that ensures the promotion of the globalist project, and also serves as a platform where the oligarchic banking capital exercises control over industrial capital and through it – over public activities.

And fifth. Taking into account the fact that the Vatican is currently headed by a protege of the Jesuit Order, who in 2013 brought him to power in an “abnormal”, unconventional way, with the help of the lifetime abdication of his predecessor, there are reasons to believe that the highest authority personifying the merger in the “(quasi)spiritual” globalist leadership of the Roman Catholic Church with the oligarchy is precisely the Jesuit elite. Pope Francis, apparently, is controlled by the Jesuits and acts in their interests, for the implementation of which the Council is intended as a public body that covers their closest connection with the bankers of the “30″.

Pin It on Pinterest