By Stephen Poole
Posted on Freedom Advocates on August 15th 2011
If you’ve read Part 1 one of this series, you’re filled in on all the basic aspects of SB 26, the “North Carolina Benefit Corporation Act.” For those who might have stumbled upon this part without seeing the original post (and who don’t want to spend time clicking on the above link), here’s a quick recap.
- SB 26 allows the creation of or transition to “benefit corporations.”
- A benefit corporation must have as one of its corporate purposes the creation of a “general public benefit.” It has the option to have “specific public benefit purposes,” as well as other non-benefit purposes.
- A general public benefit is “a material positive impact on society and the environment, taken as a whole, as measured by a third-party standard, from the business and operations of a benefit corporation.” The specific public benefits, on the other hand, must confer a particular benefit on society or the environment. Note the difference between the two, and as opposed to or.
- Corporate directors are not required to act upon the interests of the corporation shareholders, giving them freedom – but not the requirement – to sacrifice profits for the achievement of the “general public benefit.”
Any reasoning citizen is bound to ask why there is a third-party standard, and who creates it? After all, corporations are under the bailiwick of the Secretary of State – so why isn’t the Secretary of State responsible for creating the standards for the corporations they are licensing? Because the entire scheme is just another “public-private partnership” so cherished by the globalist, Agenda 21-loving crowd intent on wealth distribution not only inside countries, but also among countries – and public-private partnerships play an integral role because they bypass free-market competition. To get to the truth, it’s important to realize this legislation – though sponsored by our elected officials – was written by a non-profit group in Pennsylvania. Bankruptcy attorney Jeremy Browner points us to the culprit in his Durham Herald Sun article.
“Unlike the L3C concept, the benefit corporation legislation does not require social goals to outweigh a profit motive. Rather, it requires that the benefit corporation make a material positive impact on society and the environment as measured by a third-party standard. One of the parties that audits that standard is B Lab Corporation.”
Wait…where did I read about “B Lab Corporation” before? Ahh, yes…in the fawning Raleigh News & Observer story on the legislation.
“The bill has been in the works for more than a year by the B Lab, a Pennsylvania group that promotes socially responsible entrepreneurship. Nationwide, 381 companies have incorporated themselves as B corporations, with 13 in this state… The B stands for ‘benefit’ and requires member companies to commit to serving a public interest and submit to audits measuring governance, accountability, community service, environmental stewardship and other public benefits. The concept runs counter to the well-established principle that the sole purpose of a corporation is to generate wealth for shareholders.”
So B Lab Corporation, the company that wrote the legislation calling for auditing of B corporation standards is “one of the parties that audits that standard.” This begs the question: are there any other companies that audit that standard? Taking it a step further, I’m a little fuzzy on how a standard is audited. In the News & Observer article, the writer correctly points out that it’s companiesthat submit to audits — which makes sense because standards are created, not “audited.” So this much we know:
- B Lab Corporation has created an “Impact Assessment” companies must complete as part of “the terms for certification as a B Coporation™” Please note the trademark: this is not a governmental standard.
- B Lab Corporation audits B Corporations according to the standards it has created.
- As far as can be discovered, B Lab Corporation is the only “entity” auditing B corporations.
- No B Corporation that underwent audits in 2008 and 2009 failed.
It’s unclear whether B Lab would qualify as the entity developing the standard under SB 26: the legalese is so tortured and convoluted it’s hard to say for certain. But I consider it highly unlikely that B Lab would write legislation disqualifying it from creating standards or performing audits when it appears it is the only game in town when it comes to performing that task.
Which brings us to our first big question: Just who is behind the “non-profit” B Lab Corporation? Not only its founders, but also its funders? And what is the agenda of both groups?
Three Stanford graduates founded B Lab: Jay Coen Gilbert, Bart Houlahan, and Andrew Kassoy. (Stanford has produced so many one-worlders that it should be given honorary membership in the Ivy League. In fact, many people do wonder whether the Cardinal is part of the Ivy League.) Gilbert and Kassoy are fellows at the Aspen Institute (full title: Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies), a think tank perhaps more notorious than the Brookings Institution or Council on Foreign Relations for its slavish intent to create a one-world governmental system ruled by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and administered though public-private partnerships. The Aspen Institute is largely funded by foundations such as the Carnegie Corporation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Ford Foundation – organizations that have been clearly and unambiguously documented to promote a one-world, socialist society. (A Google search for the exact phrase “public-private” within the domain aspeninstitute.org reveals 722 occurrences; a search within that domain for the word “globalization” yields nearly 1,600 results.) A clearer explanation of the organization’s drive for one-world order can be found in its description of its Global Interdependence Initiative:
“The GII [Global Interdependence Initiative] envisions an interdependent world moving toward improved global health, equitable and sustainable economic development and good governance through peaceful cooperation. GII envisions the United States as a good global citizen, providing ethical and effective leadership to help achieve this vision.”
The concept of “Benefit Corporations” is entirely in keeping with the Aspen Institute’s globalist gestalt, and the triumvirate of Gilbert, Houlahan, and Kassoy are obviously enthusiastic conspirators. But in contrast to their newfound fervor that corporations should provide “benefits to society,” Gilbert and Houlahan became immensely wealthy on the backs of ultra-cheap labor as the heads of AND1, a shoe and apparel company that outsourced its manufacturing to China. Kassoy made his immense fortune in the private equity business, not exactly renowned for its “public benefits.” These three scoundrels are using the same modus operandi as Al Gore, who got rich through his affiliation with Occidental Petroleum before baring his teeth on the fossil-fuel industry as he created a carbon-exchange market and maneuvered to domineer the “green energy industry” that would replace traditional energy sources.
But their hypocrisy doesn’t mean they aren’t true believers in the Aspen Institute’s GII Dream; in fact, any company that wants to become a B Coporation™ must sign a “Declaration Of Interdependence.”*
It merely means they’ve now reached oligarch status and can stifle competition by creating rules for a new game — a game in which they have not only a head start, but in which they will also decide the winners and losers. This system of using crony capitalism to achieve socialist goals is at the heart of Agenda 21, and as you look at the funders of the “non-profit” B Lab Corporation you’ll find a host of companies, foundations, and government entities dedicated to either the implementation of that U.N. plan or the lining of their own pockets. Here’s a rundown of the top contributors:
- Rockefeller Foundation: This champion of a one-world socialist order has been exposed thousands of times,** originally (and quite scathingly) in the book Foundations: Their Power and Influence. In case you’re still in doubt, I’ll let David Rockefeller speak for himself: “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalist’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it” (Memoirs, p. 405).
- Deloitte LLP: The auditing giant is obviously looking to create a new market for their services and is happy to let B Lab handle audits for the time being.
- Halloran Philanthropies: This philanthropy’s “vision statement” could easily be used as the introduction to the original Agenda 21 document. Like so many involved in pushing the Green Agenda, Harry Halloran made his fortune on filthy petroleum as Chairman and CEO of American Refining Group before switching horses and riding the incentives-laden green-energy boondoggle. He now serves as CEO and founder of Frontier Wind, which coincidentally was launched the same year (2006) B Lab Corporation was founded.
- USAID: One of the most despicable agencies in our government, USAID has been involved in spreading “democracy” around the world through the illegitimate intrusion in the affairs of sovereign nations. Most recently it played a crucial role in the toppling of the Mubarak regime in Egypt through its support of another non-profit organization known as Freedom House. If you doubt the globalist aims of B Lab Corporation, ask yourself this: why is the United States Agency for International Development funding a non-profit whose presumptive aim is to create “benefit corporations” inside the 50 states that make up our union?
- Panta Rhea Foundation: Like Halloran, Panta Rhea is firmly committed to the “ideals” embodied in Agenda 21. It was established in 2001 “as a private foundation devoted to researching issues and analyzing the operations, goals and potential of organizations committed to building a more just and sustainable world.” “Just and sustainable” is one of the buzz phrases of the Green movement. (Interesting tidbit: the foundation’s Web site says “The name Panta Rhea captures, in Greek, the understanding that ‘change is the nature of all things.’” However, an online Greek dictionary says that “Panta” means “always” or “ever,” which would lead you to deduce that “rhea” translates as “change.” But the only translation I can find for “rhea” in online Greek dictionaries is “one of the Titans, mother of Zeus and other major Greek gods.” Very fitting, considering how many in the Green movement worship “Gaia,” or “Mother Earth.”)
Now we know who is behind the Benefit Corporation stratagem and what motivates them. In Part 3 we’ll examine what companies must do to become a benefit corporation, how the system is ripe for corruption, and why the passage of this legislation could mark the beginning of a classical fascistic economic order.
*Interestingly, historian Henry Steele Commager wrote a parody of our the Declaration of Independence in 1975 for the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia. His “Declaration of INTERdependence” held our country’s sovereignty in utter contempt and urged that we usher in a “new world order.” In Architects of Conspiracy: An Intriguing History (pp. 314-324), author William P. Hoar says that “Shamefully, this altered Declaration was signed by more than one hundred members of Congress on the two hundredth anniversary of the proclamation of American independence.” Walter Cronkite was a huge supporter of a one-world government and was honored by the World Federalist Association before he died.
**Those unaware of the evil intentions of organizations such as the Rockefeller, Ford, and Carnegie Foundations should watch this interview that reveals their ultimate aims.
As a graduate of Wake Forest University, Stephen Poole emerged from that institution as a zombified collectivist incapable of critically analyzing the socialist shibboleths with which he’d been indoctrinated. After awakening to the untenable nature of his “beliefs,” he’s now a an individualist who believes in truly free markets, Constitutionally limited federal government, the eminence of personal liberty, and unalienable rights granted by God.
“Benefit Corporations: Expansion of the Public-Private Fascist State, Part 2” by Stephen Poole
This article contains links to outside sources not controlled by Freedom Advocates and therefore are subject to change.