Vampire Pimps: Going Regional, Going Global

If you attended yesterday’s Botetourt Board of Supervisors meeting, you may have heard a representative of RVARC present on a “water supply planning program” which it has been appointed by the Commonwealth to oversee. What is this outfit? Why are they addressing Botetourt? It’s the “Roanoke Valley-Allegheny Regional Commission,” and they’re taking us straight to the devil.

RVARC is a “public-private partnership.” 3Ps put government at the table with other “stakeholders” such as corporations, universities, and special interest groups. This means that government policy is no longer the result of the public deliberations of elected representatives–it is the product of often clandestine stakeholder negotiations. The term “stakeholder” is perverse and a provocation: needless to say, residents are considered to hold no stake in their communities.

RVARC is only one in a huge network of 3Ps now coordinating corporate preferences across the world. Iain Davis’ “The Technocratic Dark State: Trump, AI, and Digital Dictatorship” provides an excellent introduction to this topic. The quotations that immediately follow are from chapter six, “Implementing Ideology”:

“Addressing the World Economic Forum (WEF) in 1998, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan spoke of a ‘quiet revolution’ at the intergovernmental level:

“‘The United Nations once dealt only with governments. By now we know that peace and prosperity cannot be achieved without partnerships involving governments, international organizations, the business community and civil society’

“Annan went on to describe the UN’s decided shift to a global public-private partnership (G3P) model of global governance. This model of “multistakeholder governance” resets and diminishes the role of governments. As partners of the private sector and of civil society organizations (CSOs), governments have the reduced role of merely facilitating what is called an “enabling environment.” The WEF describes the enabling environments as follows:

‘An economy’s enabling environment encompasses both formal and informal institutions; utilities and infrastructure such as transport, energy, water and telecommunications; as well as the framework conditions set by monetary and fiscal policy, and more broadly, public finances…[T]he quality of a country’s enabling environment will not only have to be assessed on its ability to support growth and productivity, but also on the ability to transform the economy to achieve environmental and shared prosperity targets.’

“A properly designed and centrally planned enabling environment ensures that multistakeholder partnerships–of which governments are partner members–can set policy and regulations to achieve their shared “targets,’ whatever they may be.”

To my mind “centrally planned enabling environment” is less descriptive and resonant than my term,“vampire pimping,” but both get the idea across. Public-private partnerships prepare communities for corporate exploitation; they locate the virgin blood, and open the door to the vampire.

Davis continues:

“A full blown stakeholder capitalist society would replace representative democracy with a network of so-called citizen assemblies. The propaganda pitch for these assemblies alleges they are designed to improve citizen engagement in policy making. Representative members of three sectors–public, private, and ‘civil society’–assemble to deliberate policy with the purported aim of decentralizing political power.

“But if we look more closely at the stakeholder capitalist assembly model, we see that the public-private partnership retains all the authority and controls the distribution of all resources, leaving not even a smidgeon of either in the hands of civil society.”

Don’t get the idea that this governance model was recently foisted upon the Commonwealth by the United Nations or World Economic Forum. This goes back more than 100 years. In David A. Hughes’ “Wall Street, the Nazis, and the Crimes of the Deep State,” we find:

“Despite strict antitrust legislation such as the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890) and the Clayton Antitrust Act (1914), the Webb-Pomerene Act (1918) legalized monopolistic and cartel practices by US export businesses, provided that such practices only applied to trade outside the United States and did not impact upon domestic trade and competition. This incentivized the early US multinationals to seek opportunities abroad, especially in Germany, where cartels were actively encouraged as a means of rebuilding industrial might after defeat in World War I…This facilitated the rise of ‘corporate socialism’ both at home and abroad.”

American corporations found the German cartel structure, and German politics, much to their taste. Hughes again (quoting Antony Sutton):

“[T]hose [who covertly funded the Nazi party] were ‘predominantly directors of cartels with American associations, ownership, participation, or some form of subsidiary connection.’ For example, whereas German General Electric (AEG) and Osram (with Gerard Swope and Owen D. Young holding influential positions in both) financed Hitler, Siemens, which was without American directors, did not.”

And after the war, the experience of the Nazi cartel structure would be brought to bear in reengineering the Virginia Code. You can read my article about that here:

The Water Authority: The Legacy of Fascism

There is at least a theoretical difference between Hitler’s cartels, and public-private partnerships. Iain Davis writes:

“The fascist doctrine sets the private sector free to innovate but limits private corporations’ authority to the circumscribed orbit defined by the political state and its institutions.

“Stakeholder capitalism, on the other hand, is designed to enable private corporations to utilize the power and authority of the political state through partnership agreements. These agreements tend to be heavily stacked in favor of the corporations, allowing them to achieve their own self-serving ends. Corporate boardrooms, not government courtrooms, legislative halls, or administrative offices, hold the balance of power in a multistakeholder system.”

Returning to RVARC, you will find some benign-sounding statements on its website. For instance:

“Virginia’s Water Supply Planning Program was created after the historic 2001–2002 drought and is a state mandated and routine process. Its goal is to ensure adequate and safe drinking water is available to all Virginians, while encouraging, promoting, and protecting aquatic life, recreation, and other beneficial uses. The water supply planning process is a long-term collaborative effort involving a variety of state and local stakeholders. The Regional Commission is coordinating the planning process, while local governments, water suppliers, and other participating entities provide information and help develop the regional plans.”

But we are now in a position to translate such statements. Here goes: RVARC will catalogue the region’s water sources, and create a plan for their corporate exploitation, relying on information provided by the following stakeholders:

You have no representation in this process, which amounts to nothing less than the quiet murder of popular sovereignty. Oh, and don’t doubt that RVARC would include data centers among the “other beneficial uses.”

Also in this series:

Delegate Terry Austin: A Primer on Evasive Political Flatulence

Vampire Pimps: In Their Own Words

Private Betrayal, Public Defiance: Botetourt’s Board of Supervisors

Vomitous Prattle & Statutory Conspiracy: The 2026 Comprehensive Plan

The 2026 Comprehensive Plan: Bend Over

The Botetourt Data Center, The Planning Commission, and Broken Promises

The Botetourt Data Center: Vampire Pimps

The Botetourt Data Center: The Legacy of Fascism

The Botetourt Data Center & the Lie of Freedom

If It’s Not Love, Then It’s the Data Center That Will Bring Us Together

The Botetourt Data Center: A Bad Deal with a Scammy Cherry on Top