Who Really Runs the World? The Chabad Investigation Part 9 of 9

Watch this on Rumble: https://rumble.com/v7fq87c-who-really-runs-the-world-the-chabad-investigation-part-9-of-9.html

Part 9 — Who Really Runs the World?

Opening — Back to Those Two Guys on the Podcast

Nine episodes ago, this investigation started with two guys on a podcast making a claim I couldn’t get out of my head. They were talking about Chabad as though it wasn’t simply an influential religious movement with powerful friends, but something much larger. The implication was that if you really wanted to understand who runs the world, you needed to understand Chabad. I remember thinking, how could I have spent all these years researching power, secret societies, banking families, political organizations, intelligence networks and international institutions and somehow completely missed this?

I didn’t believe them. In fact, when we started this investigation, I expected the claim to fall apart once we began checking it. I thought we would find the usual pattern where somebody sees a photograph with a president, discovers a billionaire donor, finds several politicians attending the same events, draws lines between all of them and eventually turns access into control. That happens constantly in this kind of research, and I didn’t want to do it here.

But then we started digging, and something unexpected happened. I didn’t find proof that Chabad runs the world, but I also didn’t find nothing. I found enough documented evidence that I couldn’t dismiss the original claim without continuing the investigation.

We found a worldwide religious network. We found extraordinary relationships with political leaders. We found presidents honoring the Rebbe and Congress recognizing the Seven Noahide Laws in legislation connected with his birthday. We found that the Rebbe openly believed the Noahide Laws were intended for all humanity and encouraged their promotion outside the Jewish community. None of that proved control, but it meant there was something real underneath the rumor.

Then the trail moved beyond Washington. We found the Institute of Noahide Code inside the United Nations system with consultative status, and we found its own documents discussing global ethics, parliamentarians, model legislation and the eventual codification of certain principles into national law. We followed those efforts through international conferences and political institutions, and eventually we followed them into education.

That was where this investigation became even more interesting. We found people openly discussing model curricula, culture-of-peace education, sustainable development, international cooperation and even mandatory education. We found meetings involving parliamentarians and international institutions. But when we looked for evidence that the complete Noahide Code was secretly being inserted into children’s classrooms, we didn’t find it. The material we could actually document was much broader and generally presented in the language of peace, ethics, human rights, social responsibility and global citizenship.

Then in Part 8, we finally opened the traditional Noahide Code itself. That was important because I didn’t want to keep talking about seven simple moral principles without asking what those principles actually mean inside classical Noahide jurisprudence. Once we did that, the picture became considerably more complicated.

We found murder and theft, which present relatively little religious-liberty difficulty at the level of the basic prohibition. But then we reached idolatry, and suddenly the government would potentially be judging worship. We reached atheism and discovered the difference between behaving morally and accepting those commandments because they came from God. We reached Christianity and found genuine disagreement among Jewish authorities about how Christian worship should be classified for gentiles. We tested other religions, examined blasphemy and sexual morality, and finally reached dinim, where Maimonides describes courts responsible for judging violations of the other Noahide commandments.

That was significant evidence, and I don’t want to minimize it. The classical Noahide tradition contains real jurisprudence, including severe penalties in major authorities. If someone attempted to impose that complete classical system literally through a modern government, there would be serious conflicts involving religious freedom, speech, privacy and criminal justice.

But then we asked the question that had to be asked. Is that what modern Chabad is actually trying to implement?

After eight episodes, I still haven’t found the bridge.

I found the theology, and I found the advocacy. I found the relationships, international access, legislation discussions and educational initiatives. I found classical Noahide jurisprudence containing provisions that would concern me enormously if someone attempted to make them modern criminal law. But I have not found the government statute criminalizing idolatry, the Noahide blasphemy law, the court prosecuting people for violating classical Noahide sexual law, or the authenticated directive showing Chabad leadership secretly ordering governments to implement Maimonides’ complete legal system.

That matters because this investigation was never supposed to prove a theory. It was supposed to test one.

And now we are finally back where we started.

Those two guys on the podcast said Chabad was essentially behind the people running the world. After eight episodes, I can no longer dismiss everything they were pointing toward because some of the relationships and influence we uncovered were absolutely real. But I also cannot make the leap they appeared to be making because influence and control are not interchangeable words.

A person can know a president without controlling the president. A religious organization can receive recognition from Congress without controlling Congress. An NGO can participate at the United Nations without controlling the United Nations. A billionaire can donate money without controlling every organization receiving it. A religious movement can believe its moral teachings should spread throughout humanity without secretly governing humanity.

At the same time, powerful relationships matter. Access matters. Money matters. Networks matter. The ability to put ideas in front of presidents, legislators, diplomats, billionaires and international institutions matters. Pretending none of that matters would be just as irresponsible as pretending it automatically proves control.

So tonight, we’re going to do something different.

We’re going to take everything we discovered over the previous eight episodes and stop looking at Chabad one relationship at a time. We’re going to pull the camera back and look at the structure of power itself. We’re going to look at governments, international financial institutions, Davos, wealthy donors, political networks, religious organizations and the people who move between those worlds.

Then we’re going to ask where Chabad actually fits.

Maybe the original allegation survives.

Maybe part of it survives.

Maybe what survives is something very different from what those two guys thought they were describing.

But after eight episodes, I’m not interested in making the evidence fit the rumor. I’m interested in finding out what remains after everything that couldn’t be proved has been stripped away.

Because before we can answer who really runs the world, we need to know exactly what survived the investigation.

Investigation 1 — What Survived the Investigation?

After eight parts, I think the fairest way to begin tonight is to separate what survived from what didn’t. We started with an extraordinary allegation: that Chabad wasn’t simply a successful religious movement with political connections, but somehow stood behind the people and institutions running the world. If we’re going to take a claim that large seriously, then ordinary evidence isn’t enough. A photograph isn’t enough. A meeting isn’t enough. A proclamation isn’t enough. Even influence isn’t enough. The evidence has to become stronger as the claim becomes larger.

The first thing that survived is Chabad’s universal religious mission. This isn’t something critics invented. Chabad’s own material says the Rebbe launched a campaign to teach the Noahide Code beyond the Jewish community, presenting the Seven Laws as a universal moral code for humanity. Another Chabad explanation says Jews have a responsibility to influence the non-Jewish world toward observance of these laws. Whatever conclusions someone draws from that theology, the underlying mission is documented.

The second thing that survived is political access. We didn’t have to manufacture a Washington connection because Congress put one into the public record. Public Law 102-14, enacted in 1991, designated the Rebbe’s birthday as Education Day, U.S.A., described the Seven Noahide Laws as historical ethical principles, praised the Lubavitch movement for promoting them throughout the world, and honored Schneerson as its leader. That is remarkable language to find in an act of Congress, and pretending it isn’t there would be dishonest.

But something else survived our examination of that law: what it doesn’t say. The operative portion designates Education Day and asks the president to issue a proclamation. It doesn’t create Noahide courts, establish Noahide offenses, prescribe Noahide penalties, or authorize the government to enforce the classical Noahide legal system. So the Washington evidence survived, but the claim that this particular law secretly enacted the Noahide Code as American criminal law did not survive reading the document itself.

The international connection survived too. United Nations records identify the Institute of Noahide Code as an organization following the teachings of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson and encouraging the Seven Laws of Noah. The Institute obtained ECOSOC consultative status in 2011 and was reclassified to General consultative status in 2021. That gives us something much stronger than somebody merely claiming online that a Noahide organization reached the United Nations. It did. The United Nations’ own records establish it.

But once again, the limitation survived with the evidence. Consultative status isn’t membership in the United Nations, and it doesn’t give an NGO governmental authority over member states. UN records explaining the system say organizations with consultative status can attend meetings and circulate statements, while organizations with General status receive additional participation privileges. That is meaningful access, but access and authority are two different things.

Something else survived that I think deserves more attention than the mere existence of UN status. The Institute’s current UN civil-society profile says its mission proposes a strategic alliance with the United Nations’ post-2030 agenda to promote codification into national legislation of UN resolutions involving the culture of peace, environmental ethics and social justice. That isn’t language somebody dug out of a conspiracy website. It appears in the organization’s UN profile.

That changed the investigation because now we weren’t simply looking at religious people telling other people how they believed they should live. We had entered the world of public policy. Once an organization begins discussing parliamentarians, model legislation, national legislation and international institutions, it becomes completely reasonable to investigate exactly what it wants governments to enact.

But another limitation survived that investigation too. What we found being discussed in those policy efforts wasn’t a proposed statute saying governments should criminalize idolatry, punish Noahide blasphemy or establish classical Noahide courts. The documented legislative language we followed centered on culture-of-peace education, environmental ethics, social justice and related international-policy goals. That doesn’t erase the organization’s Noahide identity, but neither can I silently replace the legislation we actually found with the legislation I expected to find.

The same thing happened when we followed the education trail. We found international efforts involving education, model curricula and the language of culture of peace and sustainable development. That deserved investigation because whoever helps define what children are taught can exercise real influence over the next generation. But the strongest version of the allegation would have required us to uncover the complete traditional Noahide legal framework being slipped into classrooms under another name. We didn’t find that evidence.

Then came Part 8, and something very important survived there. The Seven Noahide Laws aren’t merely seven modern slogans about being a good person. Classical Noahide jurisprudence goes considerably deeper, and some interpretations raise serious questions if someone proposed using them as the criminal law of a modern pluralistic state. Idolatry, blasphemy, sexual conduct and courts aren’t imaginary additions invented by critics. They belong to the historical legal discussion surrounding the Noahide framework.

But the bridge still didn’t appear. We found the classical religious law on one side and modern advocacy on the other, but we didn’t find evidence connecting the two into a contemporary governmental program to impose the complete classical penal structure. After eight episodes, that missing bridge has become evidence too. It doesn’t prove nobody somewhere wants such a system, and it doesn’t tell us what every Noahide advocate privately believes. It tells us something narrower and more important: we cannot claim to have proved what our evidence doesn’t establish.

Even the scrutiny surrounding the Institute’s United Nations application complicates the idea that everything simply moved through international institutions without resistance. UN records show representatives of China, Egypt and Cuba questioning the organization during the application process, including questions about its activities, sustainability and the U.S. congressional recognition of the Noahide Laws. Years later, Cuba again requested information when the Institute sought reclassification. That looks less like an organization secretly commanding the institution and more like an NGO being questioned by governments inside the institution.

So what survived?

A worldwide Chabad movement survived. A documented universal Noahide mission survived. Political relationships survived. Congressional recognition survived. International access survived. An explicitly Noahide organization with General ECOSOC consultative status survived. Advocacy involving global ethics, education and national legislation survived. Classical Noahide jurisprudence survived. Enough survived that I cannot dismiss the entire subject as two guys on a podcast connecting random dots.

But something equally important did not survive.

The evidence we have examined so far doesn’t establish that Chabad commands the United States government, controls the United Nations, secretly enacted the classical Noahide Code as American law, controls international education, or possesses a demonstrated chain of command over world governments. After eight parts, we have documented access, relationships, advocacy and examples of influence. We have not documented global command authority.

And that distinction may be the most important discovery of the entire series. Because if we’re going to use the words “runs the world,” then we need to decide what those words actually mean. We need a standard that would allow us to distinguish an organization with extraordinary relationships from an organization capable of directing governments, financial institutions and international bodies.

That is where we go next. Before asking whether Chabad runs the world, we have to establish what evidence would be necessary to prove that anyone does.

Investigation 2 — What Would “Running the World” Actually Mean?

Before we go any farther, we have to define the accusation. Saying somebody is wealthy, connected, influential or welcomed by powerful people is not the same thing as saying they run the world. If we’re going to test the claim that Chabad sits behind global power, then “running the world” has to mean something measurable. Otherwise, every piece of evidence can be interpreted as proof, and the theory becomes impossible to disprove.

Real control should leave fingerprints. If I control an organization, I should have some ability to determine what it does. I might appoint leadership, control its money, issue binding instructions, approve major decisions, punish disobedience or determine policy. I don’t necessarily need to perform every action myself, but somewhere there should be a mechanism connecting my wishes to the institution’s behavior. Without that mechanism, we may be looking at influence rather than control.

This distinction becomes clearer when we examine institutions whose governing structures are public. The United Nations General Assembly currently consists of 193 member states, and each member state has one vote. Important questions generally require a two-thirds majority of members present and voting, while other questions are decided by majority vote. Whatever informal influence may exist around diplomacy, the formal mechanism through which General Assembly decisions are made is documented.

The International Monetary Fund provides another example. The IMF doesn’t operate on the General Assembly’s one-country-one-vote model. Voting power is connected substantially to member-country quotas, and the IMF says its Board of Governors is its highest decision-making body. Its Executive Board conducts day-to-day business, with directors elected by member countries or groups of countries. The United States currently possesses about 16.49 percent of IMF voting power, while Japan and China each possess a little over 6 percent. Those numbers demonstrate something important: institutional power can actually be traced.

That gives us a much better standard for this investigation. If someone claims Chabad controls the IMF, showing me that a Chabad rabbi met an IMF official wouldn’t establish it. Showing me that an IMF official attended a Chabad event wouldn’t establish it either. I would need evidence connecting Chabad to the actual mechanisms through which IMF decisions are made. Who appoints the people? Who possesses the votes? Who controls the resources? Who gives the instructions? Who can make somebody comply? The IMF’s own governing documents identify where its formal authority resides.

The same standard should apply everywhere else we go. A photograph demonstrates proximity. A meeting demonstrates access. A donation demonstrates financial support. A speech demonstrates advocacy. A politician adopting an idea can demonstrate influence. Repeated adoption of policies promoted by the same network can justify deeper investigation. But none of those things, by themselves, establishes command.

There is another complication. Power doesn’t always operate through written orders. Powerful people can influence decisions through relationships, money, information, reputation, lobbying, campaign support, philanthropy or access. Somebody doesn’t need legal authority over a president to influence a president. A corporation doesn’t need to own a government to influence legislation. An NGO doesn’t need a vote at the United Nations to place ideas before diplomats. That kind of influence is real, and dismissing it simply because it isn’t formal control would be a mistake.

But we cannot solve that problem by calling every form of influence “control.” If we do that, the word becomes meaningless. A religious leader who convinces a politician of something has exercised influence. A donor who gets a meeting has gained access. A lobbyist who helps shape legislation may have influenced policy. Control requires another level of evidence showing that the person or network can reliably determine outcomes rather than merely advocate for them.

That means the original allegation now has a much higher mountain to climb. To demonstrate that Chabad actually runs world institutions, we would expect evidence of command authority, financial control tied to obedience, personnel control, binding directives, ownership, enforcement capability or documented decision chains showing institutions acting because Chabad instructed them to act. If those mechanisms exist, they should become the center of this investigation.

And if they don’t exist, we have to count that too. We cannot begin with photographs and relationships, discover access and advocacy, and then simply rename those things “control” because we reached the final episode. After eight parts, our standard has to become stricter, not weaker.

So from this point forward, every connection gets tested against the same question. Does this show presence, relationship, access, advocacy, influence, policy adoption or actual control? Those are very different levels of power, and confusing them is exactly how a real investigation turns into a conspiracy theory.

Now that we have a standard, we can finally test the size of the network itself. We know Chabad reaches far beyond Brooklyn, but how far does it actually reach, and what does that reach allow it to do?

Investigation 3 — How Far Does the Network Actually Reach?

Now that we have defined the difference between influence and control, we can ask a simpler question: how large is Chabad’s network? This is one place where we don’t need rumors because Chabad publishes its own numbers. Chabad’s current materials describe thousands of institutions operating across more than 100 countries and territories, while Chabad-Lubavitch World Headquarters describes an international network of more than 5,000 centers. Different Chabad pages count centers, institutions and emissary families somewhat differently, but the basic conclusion is difficult to dispute: this is an enormous international religious network.

And the network isn’t confined to synagogues. Chabad operates religious centers, schools, social-service programs, youth programs and university ministries. Chabad’s published statistics say its campus network serves students and faculty at approximately 500 campuses, with hundreds of permanent campus centers. Merkos 302 says its CTeen network reaches more than 120,000 teenagers through 630 chapters in 61 countries, while its children’s network reaches more than 25,000 children in over 500 cities. That gives Chabad something many religious movements would love to possess: relationships that can begin with children, continue through college and remain available through adulthood.

Geographically, the reach is equally impressive. Chabad-Lubavitch World Headquarters currently lists nearly 1,500 institutions in the United States alone, with additional networks throughout Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean. Chabad centers also operate throughout Europe, Israel, South America, Asia, Africa and Australia. In some places, particularly where Jewish communities are small or isolated, a Chabad emissary may provide one of the few organized forms of Jewish religious life available.

But here is where this becomes important for our investigation. A network that large can create extraordinary access without requiring a secret command structure. If thousands of emissaries live permanently in communities around the world, eventually some of those communities will contain presidents, prime ministers, billionaires, bankers, diplomats, professors, corporate executives and people working inside international institutions. Relationships with powerful people can therefore emerge partly because Chabad has deliberately placed representatives almost everywhere Jewish life exists.

The structure also complicates the idea of a pyramid. Chabad has central institutions in Brooklyn, including Merkos L’Inyonei Chinuch, Machne Israel and other organizations supporting the worldwide shluchim system. The Shluchim Office describes itself as a central hub serving emissaries and their families with resources, logistical support and connectivity. So it would be wrong to describe Chabad as thousands of completely unrelated organizations that merely happen to use the same name. There is a shared religious identity, common mission, institutional infrastructure and continuing devotion to the teachings of the Rebbe.

But the opposite description would also be misleading. Chabad’s own Merkos mentoring material says each individual Chabad House operates independently. Local centers commonly raise their own money, develop their own relationships and respond to their own communities while remaining connected to the larger movement. That looks less like a corporation where headquarters owns every branch and more like a distributed religious network held together by shared teachings, identity, training, resources and mission.

That distinction becomes extremely important when we see a Chabad rabbi standing beside somebody powerful. Which Chabad organization are we talking about? Is the relationship local or international? Did headquarters arrange it? Is the rabbi representing a specific institution, the broader movement or himself? Does the relationship produce policy influence, or is the rabbi simply serving a Jewish person who happens to possess political or financial power? Those questions have to be answered before the relationship becomes evidence of anything larger.

At the same time, we shouldn’t underestimate what a distributed network can accomplish. Centralized command isn’t the only way organizations become influential. Thousands of people sharing the same worldview and maintaining relationships within thousands of communities can spread ideas without receiving daily instructions from headquarters. The shared mission itself can create coordinated-looking behavior because people have already been trained toward similar goals.

That may explain something we have repeatedly encountered during this series. Chabad’s reach is unquestionably real, but its structure doesn’t neatly resemble the hidden pyramid imagined in many theories about global control. It appears much more like a worldwide network of locally operated institutions connected by common theology, common identity, central support organizations and the continuing influence of Schneerson’s teachings.

And that means geographic reach alone cannot answer our question. Having thousands of centers across more than 100 countries demonstrates extraordinary organizational success, but a pin on a map isn’t evidence that Chabad controls the government sitting underneath that pin.

The next step therefore becomes much more interesting. If Chabad really occupies a meaningful position inside global power networks, we should eventually encounter connections not merely with politicians and local communities, but with the institutions repeatedly accused of shaping the international economic system.

That takes us directly into the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, Davos and the international elite.

Investigation 4 — World Bank, IMF, Davos and the International Elite

If there really is a network operating above ordinary politics, this is where we should expect to encounter it. The World Bank, International Monetary Fund and World Economic Forum constantly appear in discussions about global power because they bring governments, finance, corporations and policy leaders into the same international environment. But these institutions are not interchangeable, and before connecting Chabad to any of them, we have to establish what each institution actually does and who possesses authority inside it.

The IMF is a real center of financial power, but its governing structure is public. Its highest decision-making body is the Board of Governors, with one governor and alternate appointed by each member country, usually a finance minister or central-bank governor. Day-to-day operations are handled by a 25-member Executive Board. Voting isn’t equally distributed among countries; it is substantially quota-based, meaning countries with larger quotas possess greater voting power. As of September 2026, the United States holds 16.49 percent of IMF voting power, followed by Japan at 6.14 percent and China at 6.08 percent.

The World Bank operates through another documented governmental structure. Its Boards of Governors consist of representatives appointed by member countries, while Executive Directors conduct the Bank’s general operations and decide matters including loans, credits and policy. Voting power is connected to shares held by member countries. Whatever criticisms someone may have about how much influence wealthy countries possess within this arrangement, the formal decision-making machinery is visible.

That matters because during this investigation I have not found evidence showing Chabad controlling the votes, appointing the governors or directors, determining lending decisions, or issuing instructions to either institution. If somebody claims Chabad controls the IMF or World Bank, that missing evidence is critical. Connections to bankers or government officials would establish relationships. Control would require evidence connecting Chabad to the machinery through which these institutions actually make decisions.

Davos is different because the World Economic Forum isn’t a bank or government. It is a place where political leaders, corporate executives, financiers, academics, religious leaders and other influential people meet. And here, we do find documented Chabad connections that deserve attention.

One particularly interesting figure is Rabbi Berel Lazar, the Chabad-affiliated Chief Rabbi of Russia. Chabad reported that Lazar participated repeatedly in the World Economic Forum and was a member of its Council of 100, an initiative bringing together business, political, religious, media and opinion leaders. Chabad’s own reporting said the 2008 gathering was Lazar’s sixth Davos forum and that Lev Leviev, then president of the Federation of Jewish Communities of the CIS, also participated.

There is another Chabad connection through Rabbi Avraham Berkowitz. A Jewish community publication describes Berkowitz as a Chabad figure involved in international missions who had led the annual Shabbat dinner connected with the Davos gathering for approximately twenty years. That means Chabad-associated figures weren’t simply visitors passing through Davos once. There has been a continuing religious and social presence around the gathering.

That is worth investigating because Davos is built around relationships. Formal panels are only part of what happens when political leaders, billionaires, corporate executives, financiers and religious figures occupy the same small Swiss town. Meals, introductions and private conversations can create relationships that later matter. A religious leader who repeatedly participates in that environment can become connected with people possessing enormous political and financial influence without possessing formal authority over any of them.

And this is exactly where an investigation can either become more precise or completely lose its way. Finding Chabad at Davos is evidence of access. Finding a Chabad rabbi participating repeatedly is evidence of sustained access. Finding relationships formed there can demonstrate networking and possibly influence. None of those things, however, establishes that Chabad controls the World Economic Forum, much less the World Bank or IMF.

The distinction is especially important because international elites really do interact across institutional boundaries. Finance ministers who participate in IMF governance can attend Davos. Corporate executives meet political leaders there. Central bankers, philanthropists, academics and religious figures can enter the same social environment. You don’t need a secret organization to explain why influential people know other influential people; institutions like Davos deliberately create those connections.

But that doesn’t make the connections meaningless either. Networks can matter precisely because relationships cross formal boundaries. A person can move between government, finance, philanthropy, religion and international conferences, carrying relationships from one environment into another. That may produce influence without anything resembling a hidden chain of command.

So after examining these institutions, something survives again. Chabad-associated figures have reached Davos and participated among international elites. What I have not found is evidence that Chabad possesses institutional control over the World Bank, IMF or World Economic Forum.

That leaves us with a more interesting question than simply asking who attended Davos. If power moves through overlapping relationships rather than one organization commanding everything from the top, then we need to identify the people who repeatedly move between those different worlds.

That takes us to Investigation 5: Who Connects These Worlds?

Investigation 5 — Who Connects These Worlds?

If power works through networks rather than one giant pyramid, then the most interesting people may not be the ones sitting officially at the top. They may be the people who can move between different worlds: religion and business, philanthropy and politics, local communities and presidents. When we look at Chabad through that lens, several documented relationships become important, but we have to resist turning every connector into evidence of a conspiracy.

Russia gives us one of the clearest examples. Rabbi Berel Lazar is a Chabad emissary who became one of Russia’s chief rabbis and chairman of the Chabad-affiliated Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia. His relationship with Vladimir Putin has been extensively documented. Jewish Telegraphic Agency described the relationship as mutually beneficial: Putin’s government helped create conditions in which Chabad expanded dramatically across Russia, while Chabad maintained a working relationship with the Russian government.

That is a genuine bridge between Chabad and political power. Lazar isn’t merely somebody who once shook Putin’s hand. He has occupied a religious leadership position in Russia for decades while maintaining access to the country’s highest political leadership. But even here, access doesn’t automatically tell us which direction influence travels. A president may cultivate a religious leader because the relationship benefits the government just as much as the religious organization benefits from presidential access.

Then money enters the picture through Lev Leviev. Leviev became one of Chabad’s most important financial supporters in the former Soviet Union and served as president of the Federation of Jewish Communities of the former Soviet Union. Contemporary reporting described how Leviev provided substantial financial backing for Chabad’s expansion while also maintaining relationships with political leaders. Lazar himself described Leviev offering to finance expansion beyond the community’s existing budget.

Now we have three worlds touching each other: Chabad religious leadership, billionaire philanthropy and political leadership. That is exactly the kind of intersection we said we would look for. It demonstrates that Chabad’s growth in the former Soviet Union wasn’t simply a collection of isolated rabbis independently opening synagogues. Wealthy supporters supplied resources, religious leaders built institutions, and political relationships created an environment in which those institutions could expand.

But another major connector shows us how this can happen without government involvement. Sami Rohr and later his son George Rohr became extraordinary financial supporters of Chabad’s worldwide expansion. Chabad’s own account says the Rohr family’s philanthropy helped establish and support Jewish communities across the globe, particularly through the Chabad emissary network. George Rohr later became a principal benefactor of major Chabad educational initiatives and a major supporter of Chabad on Campus.

George Rohr is especially interesting because he is both an investor and philanthropist. Chabad reported in 2022 that his family had helped spearhead Chabad’s growth on six continents, while Rabbi Moshe Kotlarsky, one of the central figures responsible for expanding Chabad’s international emissary network, had worked closely with Rohr for decades. Kotlarsky himself led or chaired major Chabad programs involving campuses, young professionals, teenagers, children and adult education.

That is a real network. There is no reason to pretend otherwise. Religious organizers know wealthy donors. Wealthy donors finance institutions. Those institutions create new communities. Religious leaders build relationships with politicians. Politicians attend events and recognize religious organizations. International conferences introduce those same people to additional political, financial and religious leaders.

But notice what we still haven’t demonstrated. We haven’t shown that these people constitute a secret governing committee. We haven’t shown Leviev ordering Putin to make Russian state policy. We haven’t shown George Rohr directing governments through his Chabad philanthropy. We haven’t shown Chabad leadership commanding international financial institutions. What we have demonstrated is something less dramatic but much easier to prove: people with considerable wealth and political access have helped Chabad build an extraordinary international network.

And there is another side we cannot ignore. Powerful people may be connecting themselves to Chabad rather than Chabad strategically placing itself above them. A billionaire may support Chabad because he believes in its religious mission. A politician may cultivate Chabad because it represents an important community. A rabbi may know presidents because his congregation includes influential people. Those relationships can become mutually beneficial without either side secretly controlling the other.

This changes the picture considerably. Instead of discovering one mysterious individual connecting the World Bank, IMF, Davos, governments and Chabad, we find multiple overlapping relationships. Different people connect different parts of the network. Some provide money. Some provide religious leadership. Some provide political access. Some build institutions. Some create introductions.

That may be much closer to how influence actually works.

A network doesn’t necessarily need somebody sitting in a room giving orders. People sharing relationships, interests, beliefs and institutions can create enormous influence without centralized command. But if money is one of the forces allowing that network to grow, then we need to follow it carefully rather than merely pointing at billionaires.

That takes us directly to Investigation 6. What role does money actually play?

Investigation 6 — What Role Does Money Actually Play?

If we are investigating power, eventually we have to follow the money. But this is also where investigations can become careless, because the existence of wealthy Jewish donors is not evidence of Chabad control, and Jewish wealth itself tells us nothing about who runs anything. The relevant question is much narrower: how is Chabad financed, what has that money allowed the movement to build, and can we document money being used to command political or international institutions?

The first thing we discovered in the previous investigation is that wealthy benefactors have played an important role in Chabad’s expansion. Sami Rohr and his son George Rohr became major supporters of Chabad institutions and emissaries around the world. Lev Leviev provided substantial support for Chabad’s growth throughout the former Soviet Union. Money clearly matters because rabbis cannot establish buildings, schools, campus centers, youth programs and international operations on goodwill alone.

But Chabad’s financial structure is important. We are not looking at one worldwide corporation receiving every donation in Brooklyn and distributing one central budget to every Chabad House. Local Chabad institutions commonly operate as separate nonprofit organizations and raise money from their own communities. That means a donor supporting a Chabad center in one city isn’t automatically financing every Chabad institution around the world.

Public nonprofit filings give us a glimpse of how this works. One Chabad-affiliated organization in Indiana, for example, reported approximately $1.15 million in revenue for its 2023 fiscal year, with roughly $941,000 coming from contributions. Earlier filings show the same organization repeatedly receiving a substantial portion of its income through contributions. That doesn’t tell us everything about Chabad financing, but it demonstrates something important: individual Chabad institutions can depend heavily upon donors while maintaining their own identifiable finances.

This decentralized structure makes the money trail harder to reduce to one number. Asking, “How much money does Chabad have?” may actually be the wrong question because thousands of legally distinct institutions can own property, receive donations, employ people and operate programs independently. The movement can therefore possess enormous combined resources without there necessarily being one central treasury controlling every dollar.

That actually makes wealthy benefactors more interesting, not less. A major donor doesn’t need to control Chabad headquarters to transform part of the network. Funding can establish a new Chabad House, support an emissary, build a school, create a campus program or allow expansion into another country. Over decades, repeated philanthropy can turn religious conviction into physical infrastructure. Money becomes buildings, staff, programs and relationships.

But we have to apply the same standard we established earlier. Funding isn’t control unless we can demonstrate the mechanism connecting the money to command. If a billionaire gives millions because he believes in Chabad’s mission, that demonstrates support. If the donor receives influence over programs, appointments or priorities, that would demonstrate something more. If money were then used to force governments, banks or international institutions to follow Chabad directives, that would be much stronger evidence still.

So far, we haven’t established that final step.

And this is where the original theory faces another problem. If Chabad secretly controls the World Bank, IMF, governments or United Nations through financial power, we should eventually find a financial mechanism. We should find ownership, conditional financing, coordinated donations tied to decisions, financial threats, institutional dependency or some documented method through which money produces obedience. Simply finding wealthy Chabad supporters doesn’t establish any of those things.

There is another possibility, however, that deserves serious consideration. Money may produce influence indirectly. A wealthy donor can finance institutions that create relationships. Those institutions can bring together business leaders, politicians, academics and religious figures. Those relationships can create access, and access can create opportunities to advocate ideas. In that model, money doesn’t buy the government. Money builds the network that gains access to people inside the government.

That distinction may explain much of what we have encountered throughout this series. The Rebbe supplied the religious mission. Emissaries carried that mission around the world. Donors supplied resources. Local Chabad institutions built communities. Those communities developed relationships with business leaders and politicians. Some Chabad-associated figures reached presidents, billionaires and international conferences. None of that requires a secret treasury controlling world events.

But it does produce something powerful.

It produces infrastructure.

A movement with thousands of institutions, wealthy supporters, dedicated emissaries and relationships extending across generations possesses something more durable than a political campaign. Politicians leave office. Governments change. Companies disappear. But a religious network can remain embedded in communities for decades, continuously building new relationships.

That is real power, but we have to name it correctly. Money has clearly helped Chabad expand, sustain institutions and increase its reach. What our investigation has not established is that Chabad’s money constitutes a hidden financial command system controlling governments or international institutions.

And maybe that is telling us something about the model itself. Perhaps we keep looking for a pyramid with somebody sitting at the top when the structure of modern influence looks completely different.

That takes us to Investigation 7: What if power doesn’t look like a pyramid?

Investigation 7 — What If Power Doesn’t Look Like a Pyramid?

For years, when I heard somebody ask who runs the world, the picture was almost always a pyramid. Governments were somewhere in the middle, banks and corporations were higher, and somewhere above them supposedly sat a small group directing everything underneath. It is an attractive model because it gives an incredibly complicated world a simple structure. Find the top of the pyramid, and you have found the people responsible for everything below it.

But after eight parts of this investigation, I am beginning to wonder whether that model is part of the problem. What if enormous influence can exist without one person or organization sitting at the top? What if modern power looks less like a pyramid and more like overlapping circles, where governments, corporations, banks, international organizations, foundations, universities, media organizations, religious movements and wealthy individuals constantly interact?

Davos gives us a useful example because the World Economic Forum openly describes itself in network terms. It says it brings together leaders from business, governments, international organizations, academia, civil society, media and faith communities. Its current stakeholder information says it partners with more than 900 businesses while also engaging government officials, NGOs, trade unions, religious leaders, academics and other groups. Its stated purpose is public-private cooperation and bringing different sectors into continuing relationships.

That doesn’t mean Davos secretly controls everybody attending it. It means an infrastructure exists where people possessing different kinds of power can meet one another. A corporate executive brings capital. A finance minister brings governmental authority. A central banker brings monetary influence. An academic brings expertise. A media organization brings communication power. A religious leader brings communities and moral authority. None has to command all the others for their relationships to affect what happens afterward.

The Forum itself describes these relationships as continuing beyond annual meetings. Its institutional material discusses year-round communities, initiatives, dialogues and collaboration across business, government, international organizations and civil society. Whether somebody approves of those initiatives is a separate question. The important point for this investigation is structural: influential people can coordinate around shared objectives without becoming one organization or submitting to one central commander.

Now apply that possibility to what we have discovered about Chabad. Chabad itself resembles a network more than the pyramid we originally expected to find. Thousands of emissaries operate around the world with a common religious mission, shared teachings and supporting institutions, yet local Chabad Houses can maintain substantial operational independence. The Rebbe died in 1994, but the emissary system continued expanding into more than 100 countries. Shared mission can therefore produce continuity without somebody issuing daily orders from the top.

That may be an important clue.

Suppose a wealthy businessman supports Chabad because he believes in its mission. Through Chabad he knows rabbis, other donors and community leaders. One of those rabbis knows a president. Another regularly attends international gatherings. Another works with university students who eventually enter government, finance or business. Nobody needs to receive an order saying, “Build a global network.” The relationships themselves accumulate over decades.

But we have to be extremely careful here because this is also where almost anything can be turned into a conspiracy. If two people know the same person, that doesn’t mean they are coordinating. If three organizations share a donor, that doesn’t mean the donor controls them. If politicians, bankers and religious leaders attend the same conference, that doesn’t mean they have secretly agreed upon an agenda. A network becomes evidence of coordinated action only when we can demonstrate coordination.

Still, networks can produce power. Someone who can make introductions between people who normally occupy different worlds possesses a form of influence. An institution capable of bringing political leaders, corporate executives and philanthropists together possesses convening power. A donor who can finance organizations possesses financial power. A government possesses legal and coercive power. A religious organization can possess cultural and moral influence. These forms of power overlap without necessarily becoming one command structure.

This might explain why our investigation keeps producing connections while failing to produce the headquarters of the conspiracy. We found Washington. We found the United Nations. We found wealthy supporters. We found international conferences. We found Davos connections. We found educational and legislative advocacy. Yet every time we asked where the binding command structure was, the evidence became much thinner.

Maybe that isn’t because the network is hiding its pyramid particularly well. Maybe there isn’t a pyramid.

That possibility doesn’t make the investigation less important. In some ways it makes it more important because distributed influence is harder to see than formal authority. When a government passes a law, we can identify the legislature. When a court issues a ruling, we can read the decision. But when an idea moves through donors, conferences, NGOs, religious communities, academics and policymakers before eventually appearing in public policy, tracing exactly who influenced whom becomes much harder.

So perhaps the question isn’t whether Chabad occupies the top of a secret pyramid. Perhaps we should ask where Chabad sits inside a much larger network of relationships, what doors those relationships open, which ideas move through those doors, and whether we can demonstrate actual outcomes.

That is a different investigation from the one those two guys on the podcast gave us.

And now we finally have enough evidence to attempt it. Instead of asking whether Chabad sits above the network, we can ask where Chabad actually fits inside it.

Investigation 8 — Where Does Chabad Fit Into That Network?

Now we can finally place Chabad inside the picture we have been building. Not above the network, because we haven’t established that. Not outside the network either, because after eight episodes there is too much documented access, organization and international reach to pretend Chabad is simply a collection of neighborhood synagogues. The evidence points toward something more specific: a remarkably durable religious network capable of maintaining relationships across geographic, economic and political boundaries.

Start with the physical infrastructure. Chabad-Lubavitch World Headquarters currently describes an international network of more than 5,000 centers in more than 100 countries. Another current headquarters page describes more than 5,000 full-time emissary families directing thousands of institutions with a workforce numbering in the tens of thousands. That gives Chabad something extraordinarily valuable in a networked world: permanent human presence. These aren’t representatives flying into countries for conferences and leaving. Emissaries relocate, raise families and sometimes remain in the same communities for decades.

That matters because relationships compound over time. A businessman who meets his local Chabad rabbi today may become a major donor ten years from now. A university student involved with Chabad may later become a lawyer, banker, executive or government official. A politician may first encounter Chabad through a local ceremony and later develop a personal relationship with its leadership. None of those possibilities proves political coordination, but they demonstrate why a permanent international network can accumulate connections naturally.

Chabad’s structure makes this even more interesting. Headquarters provides institutions, resources and a common mission, and Chabad describes its shluchim as representatives of Lubavitch and emissaries of the Rebbe. Yet Chabad also says individual centers are responsible for their own activities, including hiring staff, while historical headquarters material describes the Rebbe as empowering emissaries to act independently in their local missions. This is neither complete centralization nor complete independence. It is a distributed system united by theology, identity and mission.

And we now know that mission extends beyond serving Jewish communities. Chabad’s own historical account says that in 1983 the Rebbe expanded his outreach campaign beyond the Jewish community and instructed his followers to introduce humanity to what Chabad describes as Torah’s universal principles. His teachings explicitly say Jews should work to encourage all peoples to observe the Seven Noahide Laws. That doesn’t establish governmental control, but it means Chabad’s interest in the wider world isn’t something critics invented. It is part of the movement’s documented religious mission.

Now combine those pieces with everything we uncovered earlier. Chabad possesses international infrastructure. It has wealthy supporters. Its representatives have relationships with political leaders. Chabad-associated figures have appeared at gatherings such as Davos. Congress has honored the Rebbe and referenced the Noahide Laws. A Noahide organization explicitly connected in UN records to Schneerson’s teachings obtained consultative access within the United Nations system. Noahide advocates have discussed parliamentarians, legislation, global ethics and education.

That places Chabad somewhere inside the network of international influence. But describing exactly where requires discipline.

What we can document is religious influence, social capital, relationships, access, philanthropy, institutional longevity and an unusual ability to establish communities almost anywhere. Chabad also possesses something politicians and corporations often don’t possess: continuity. Governments change every few years. CEOs retire. Political coalitions collapse. An emissary family can remain in the same city for thirty or forty years while maintaining the same fundamental religious mission.

But when we apply the control test from Investigation 2, the picture changes. We haven’t established that Chabad appoints IMF directors, controls World Bank votes, selects national leaders, commands the United Nations, owns the World Economic Forum or possesses enforcement authority over governments. We haven’t uncovered authenticated instructions showing those institutions taking orders from Chabad leadership.

That missing evidence matters just as much as the connections.

Perhaps the best description emerging from this investigation is that Chabad functions as a highly successful relationship network with a religious mission. Its structure allows local independence while preserving a powerful common identity. Its donors can finance expansion. Its emissaries can build lifelong relationships. Its religious leadership can communicate common objectives without micromanaging every local organization.

That gives Chabad influence without requiring Chabad to “run the world.”

And there is an important warning here. None of this should be transformed into a theory about Jews collectively. Chabad is a specific Hasidic movement with specific institutions, teachings and leaders. Jewish politicians, bankers, billionaires or executives aren’t evidence of Chabad influence merely because they are Jewish. If we cannot document the relationship, it doesn’t belong on our map.

After nine episodes, then, I think we can finally see approximately where Chabad fits. It isn’t invisible. It isn’t insignificant. And based on the evidence we have examined, it also isn’t sitting at the top of a demonstrated global command pyramid.

It is embedded.

That may actually be more interesting than the original allegation because embedded networks can exercise influence without owning the institutions around them. They can carry ideas, build relationships and remain present while political administrations come and go.

But before we make our final conclusion, we need one more safeguard. We need to ask what evidence could prove us wrong.

That takes us to Investigation 9: What Evidence Would Change the Verdict?

Investigation 9 — What Evidence Would Change the Verdict?

Before we answer the question this series began with, I want to make the investigation vulnerable to being proven wrong. That is important because a theory that explains every possible result can never really be tested. If finding a Chabad connection proves control, but failing to find one also proves Chabad is hiding its control, then we aren’t investigating anymore. We have created a conclusion that no evidence can challenge.

So what would change my conclusion? The strongest evidence would be authenticated documents showing Chabad leadership giving instructions to governments or international institutions and those institutions following those instructions because Chabad possessed authority over them. I would want names, dates, documents and a traceable decision chain. Not somebody saying a president “answers to Chabad,” but evidence showing the instruction, the recipient, the mechanism of authority and the resulting action.

Financial evidence could change the picture too. If we discovered that Chabad or organizations acting under its direction secretly controlled substantial ownership interests, funding streams or financial dependencies that allowed it to dictate decisions at governments, banks or international institutions, that would be important. But the evidence would need to connect money with obedience. Wealthy people donating to Chabad proves that wealthy people support Chabad. It does not prove Chabad controls whatever businesses, governments or institutions those donors may also influence.

Personnel control would be another major piece of evidence. If Chabad could appoint or remove government officials, IMF directors, World Bank executives, UN officials or other decision-makers, that would move us far beyond access. The same would be true if authenticated records demonstrated that appointments were secretly conditioned upon Chabad approval. Throughout this investigation, however, we have repeatedly found public governing structures in which governments, member states, boards and legally designated officials formally possess those appointment and voting powers.

Then there is policy. Suppose we found repeated governmental policies originating as Chabad directives, moving through identifiable intermediaries and becoming law despite opposition from the institutions supposedly making the decisions. That could demonstrate something much stronger than advocacy. But we would still have to prove causation. Two organizations supporting the same policy doesn’t establish that one commanded the other.

The Noahide question gives us an especially good test because we already know what evidence would matter. Public Law 102-14 really did mention the Seven Noahide Laws and the Lubavitch movement. But when we read the law itself, Congress designated March 26, 1991, as Education Day, U.S.A.; it did not create Noahide criminal courts or penalties. If we eventually uncovered actual legislation establishing idolatry, Noahide blasphemy, classical Noahide sexual offenses or Noahide courts and could trace that legislation to a Chabad-directed campaign, that would dramatically change this investigation.

The United Nations provides another test. The Institute of Noahide Code obtained consultative status, and that access is real. But the UN itself explains that consultative status allows NGOs to attend conferences, submit statements, organize side events, enter UN premises, network and lobby. More than 6,600 organizations currently hold some category of ECOSOC consultative status, while only 132 hold General status. That makes General status meaningful access, but it still doesn’t transform an NGO into a member government or give it command authority over the United Nations.

Evidence showing something beyond that would matter enormously. If we found Chabad or a Noahide organization secretly determining UN votes, selecting national delegations, directing the NGO Committee or compelling member states to adopt policies, then our conclusion would have to change. But UN documentation describes the NGO Committee itself as an intergovernmental body responsible for reviewing applications and monitoring consultative relationships, while ECOSOC can even suspend or withdraw NGO status. That is evidence of an institutional relationship, not evidence that NGOs command the institution.

There is another kind of evidence that must be allowed to change the conclusion in the opposite direction. If we continue examining the places where control should become visible and repeatedly find independent decision-making, competing interests, disagreements, failed initiatives and governments refusing what advocates want, that matters too. Absence isn’t automatically proof, but repeated absence at the very points where a claimed control mechanism should operate weakens the claim.

That is why I don’t want to finish nine episodes by moving the goalposts. We began with the possibility that Chabad might somehow stand behind the people running the world. We found far more access and influence than I expected, and I am not going to erase that because it complicates the conclusion. But I am also not going to convert access into control simply because we reached Part 9.

My conclusion remains open to new evidence. Show me the directive. Show me the money tied to obedience. Show me the appointment mechanism. Show me the enforcement structure. Show me the institution taking orders. Show me the complete Noahide legislation and the documented chain that put it there. Any of those discoveries could force us to reopen what we thought we knew.

Until then, the standard stays exactly where we put it.

And with that standard established, there is only one investigation left. After everything we found, everything we didn’t find and everything that survived nine episodes of scrutiny, we can finally return to the question that started this entire series: Who really runs the world?

Investigation 10 — So Who Really Runs the World?

We have finally reached the question that started this entire investigation. After nine parts, thousands of pages of material, government records, Chabad’s own writings, United Nations documents, financial records, international organizations and the classical Noahide sources, I wanted to be able to point somewhere and say, “There it is. That is who runs the world.” Instead, the evidence has led me somewhere much more complicated.

The world clearly contains concentrations of power. Governments possess legal authority, militaries, taxation and enforcement. Financial institutions possess enormous economic influence. Corporations control capital, technology, employment and infrastructure. Wealthy individuals can finance political campaigns, foundations, universities, media organizations and religious institutions. International organizations create places where governments coordinate. Religious movements influence beliefs and communities. None of that requires speculation because those mechanisms are visible.

But those centers of power don’t all answer to the same authority. The United Nations General Assembly has 193 member states with one vote each. The IMF operates differently, using a quota system in which economic weight affects voting power; its Board of Governors is formally its highest decision-making body, while its Executive Board handles day-to-day business. Davos is different again. The World Economic Forum openly describes itself as a meeting place connecting business, governments, international organizations, academia, civil society, media and religious leaders. These institutions overlap, but their formal governing structures are different.

That doesn’t mean power is equally distributed. It obviously isn’t. At the IMF, for example, the United States currently possesses 16.49 percent of voting power, while Japan has 6.14 percent and China 6.08 percent. Economic power therefore translates into greater formal influence inside that institution. But that is very different from saying one hidden organization secretly owns the IMF. We can actually examine who possesses the votes and how decisions are made.

Academic research on global governance increasingly describes something resembling what we have encountered in this investigation: a complex, web-like architecture involving governments, international organizations, nongovernmental organizations and corporations rather than one simple hierarchy. That doesn’t prove nobody could secretly coordinate portions of the system, but it gives us a model that fits much of the evidence we have actually found. Power can be concentrated without being centralized.

And now we can finally put Chabad into that picture.

Chabad has something real. It has international reach, dedicated emissaries, wealthy supporters, institutional continuity and relationships extending into political and financial circles. It has a documented universal religious mission concerning the Noahide Laws. We followed that mission into Washington, found congressional recognition, followed Noahide advocates into the United Nations system, and then followed their work into discussions about global ethics, legislation and education. Those findings survived this investigation.

But the original allegation required something more.

If Chabad runs the world, eventually the network should become a command structure. Somewhere we should encounter the mechanism by which Chabad determines what the United States does, what Russia does, what China does, what the IMF does, what the World Bank does or what the United Nations does. We should find governments subordinating their decision-making authority, international institutions taking instructions, financial dependency producing obedience or personnel being placed and removed through Chabad authority.

After nine episodes, I haven’t found that evidence.

What I found instead was influence operating inside a world already filled with competing centers of influence. Sometimes those centers cooperate. Sometimes their interests overlap. Sometimes wealthy people move between them. Sometimes politicians and corporate executives attend the same conferences. Sometimes religious leaders know billionaires and presidents. Sometimes NGOs successfully place ideas into international discussions. None of that is meaningless, but neither does it demonstrate one hand controlling everything.

In fact, the formal structures we examined contain competing power centers. At the United Nations, governments vote. At the IMF, countries possess different voting shares. At the World Economic Forum, business leaders, governments, NGOs, academics and faith leaders deliberately occupy the same platform. Even the Forum describes its purpose in terms of bringing different stakeholders together for public-private cooperation. That is a network of influence, not evidence by itself of a single hidden ruler.

So who really runs the world?

Based on the evidence we have examined, I don’t think the evidence supports replacing all the old theories with a new theory that simply puts Chabad at the top of the pyramid. What we found doesn’t justify that conclusion. Chabad belongs on the map of influence we have been drawing, but being on that map is not the same thing as owning the map.

What seems much closer to the evidence is that the world is governed and influenced through overlapping systems of power. Governments possess one kind. Banks possess another. Corporations possess another. Billionaires, foundations, international institutions, NGOs, universities, media organizations and religious movements possess others. Sometimes they compete. Sometimes they cooperate. Sometimes the same people move between several of those worlds.

That means the two guys on the podcast may have pointed us toward something worth investigating without proving the conclusion they attached to it. Chabad’s network was much larger, better connected and more internationally engaged than I understood when we began. I am glad we investigated it because some of what we found genuinely surprised me.

But after nine episodes, I cannot honestly tell you that we proved Chabad runs the world.

What we proved is that Chabad has reach. Chabad has access. Chabad has wealthy supporters. Chabad has relationships with powerful people. Chabad has a universal religious mission. Specific Noahide advocates have entered international political and policy environments.

Those things deserve scrutiny.

They are not the same thing as control.

And maybe that means the question we started with was wrong. Maybe understanding power isn’t about finding the name sitting at the top of the pyramid. Maybe it is about understanding the networks through which money, relationships, ideas and authority move.

Because after nine episodes of asking, “Who runs the world?” I think the evidence has pushed us toward a better question.

How does power actually move through it?

Ending — Maybe “Who Runs the World?” Was the Wrong Question

When I started this series, I thought I understood the question. Two guys on a podcast were talking about Chabad as though they had discovered something sitting behind the political leaders, bankers and institutions most people associate with global power. I had spent years looking into subjects like this, and somehow Chabad had never occupied that place on my map. So I wanted to know whether I had missed something enormous.

Nine parts later, I can say that I had missed something. I underestimated the size of Chabad’s international network. I underestimated the relationships its representatives have developed with powerful people. I didn’t understand the importance the Rebbe placed on spreading awareness of the Seven Noahide Laws beyond the Jewish community. I hadn’t followed that idea through Washington, congressional recognition, the United Nations system, international advocacy, global ethics, legislation and education. Those discoveries were real, and I am not going to erase them simply because they didn’t lead where the original allegation said they would.

But I also learned something else during this investigation. Once you begin looking for somebody who “runs the world,” there is a temptation to turn every relationship into evidence of control. A president appears with a rabbi, and suddenly the rabbi controls the president. A billionaire funds a religious organization, and suddenly the organization controls the billionaire. An NGO receives access to the United Nations, and suddenly the NGO controls the United Nations. Someone attends Davos, and suddenly that person becomes part of a secret government.

That isn’t investigation. That is deciding what the dots mean before connecting them.

The evidence forced us to slow down. We learned to separate presence from relationships, relationships from access, access from advocacy, advocacy from influence, influence from policy adoption, and policy adoption from control. Once we started doing that, something interesting happened. The connections didn’t disappear. In many cases they became clearer. But the enormous claim sitting above them became harder to prove.

Chabad has influence. I think the evidence we examined makes that difficult to deny. It has thousands of representatives and institutions around the world, wealthy supporters, relationships with political leaders, access to influential environments and a religious mission intended to reach beyond the Jewish community. Specific Noahide advocates have entered international institutions and openly discussed education, global ethics and legislation. Those are legitimate subjects for scrutiny, and I think they should continue to be scrutinized.

But influence isn’t ownership.

After nine parts, I did not find evidence establishing that Chabad controls the United States government. I didn’t find evidence establishing that Chabad controls the United Nations, IMF, World Bank or World Economic Forum. I didn’t find the secret Noahide criminal code operating underneath American law. I didn’t find the complete classical Noahide system hidden inside the educational curriculum we examined. Most importantly, I didn’t find the command structure that would have to exist before I could responsibly say Chabad runs the world.

If somebody finds that evidence tomorrow, I want to see it. Show me the document. Show me the directive. Show me the financial mechanism tied to obedience. Show me the appointment authority. Show me the government taking orders. Show me the legislation and the chain that produced it. I have no investment in protecting the conclusion of this series. My investment is in following the evidence wherever it goes.

And maybe that is the biggest lesson I am taking away from these nine episodes.

Maybe “Who runs the world?” was the wrong question.

That question assumes somebody must be sitting at the top. It assumes power must eventually converge into one room, one family, one organization, one religion or one hidden committee. It makes us search for a king when the system may actually be a network.

What we found looks much more complicated. Governments possess legal and military power. Banks and financial institutions possess economic power. Corporations possess capital and infrastructure. Billionaires can finance institutions and ideas. International organizations create places where governments coordinate. NGOs advocate. Universities educate. Media organizations shape what millions of people see. Religious movements shape beliefs and communities. These worlds overlap constantly, and people move between them.

Sometimes they cooperate, and sometimes they fight each other. Sometimes their interests align, and sometimes they collide. Sometimes money opens doors. Sometimes relationships open them. Sometimes an idea travels through several institutions before eventually becoming public policy. None of that requires one organization secretly controlling everything.

And that changes the way I want to investigate power from now on.

Instead of asking only who somebody knows, I want to know what that relationship accomplished. Instead of asking who donated money, I want to know whether the money purchased influence. Instead of seeing somebody inside an international institution and assuming control, I want to know what authority that person actually possesses. Instead of finding similar language in two documents and assuming coordination, I want to trace where the language came from.

That is cause before symptom.

And there is one final thing I want to make absolutely clear. This investigation was about Chabad, specific Noahide organizations, specific individuals, specific institutions and specific documented relationships. It was never evidence against Jewish people. A Jewish banker isn’t evidence. A Jewish politician isn’t evidence. A Jewish billionaire isn’t evidence. Jewish identity doesn’t belong on an investigative flowchart unless there is a documented relationship relevant to what we’re investigating.

So after nine episodes, I am leaving this investigation with fewer assumptions than I brought into it, but considerably more knowledge. Chabad is more internationally connected than I understood. The Noahide mission is more significant to its worldview than I understood. Some of the political and international connections deserved investigation. But the evidence we found does not establish the enormous claim that started this series.

Maybe nobody “runs the world” in the way that phrase makes us imagine.

Maybe the more important question is who has influence, what kind of influence they possess, how they obtained it, what ideas they are advancing, who benefits, who can say no, and what happens when somebody does.

Because if we learn to follow those questions instead of chasing the name supposedly sitting at the top of the pyramid, we might finally stop looking for the person who runs the world.

And start understanding how the world is actually run.

Bibliography

• Babylonian Talmud. Sanhedrin 56a–59a. Sefaria.

• Chabad-Lubavitch. “All Mankind.” Chabad.org.

• Chabad-Lubavitch. “Facts and Statistics.” Chabad.org.

• Chabad-Lubavitch. “Is Buddhism Kosher?” Chabad.org.

• Chabad-Lubavitch. “The 7 Noahide Laws: Universal Morality.” Chabad.org.

• Chabad-Lubavitch. “The Seven Noachide Laws.” Chabad.org.

• Chabad-Lubavitch. “What Is Shlichus?” Chabad.org.

• Chabad-Lubavitch World Headquarters. “Chabad Centers.” Lubavitch.com.

• Chabad-Lubavitch World Headquarters. “Headquarters.” Lubavitch.com.

• Chabad-Lubavitch World Headquarters. “After Twenty Years.” Lubavitch.com.

• Chabad.org News. “Chief Rabbi at Davos.” January 2008.

• Congress of the United States. Public Law 102-14. “Education Day, U.S.A.” 102nd Congress, April 1991.

• International Monetary Fund. “IMF Executive Directors and Voting Power.” Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund.

• International Monetary Fund. “IMF Members’ Quotas and Voting Power, and IMF Board of Governors.” Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund.

• International Monetary Fund. “How the IMF Makes Decisions.” Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund.

• Institute of Noahide Code. Official organizational materials and statements. New York.

• Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “Philanthropist Has Ear of World Leaders.” March 2002.

• Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “Ukraine Invasion Puts Chabad of Russia Between a Rock and a Hard Place.” March 31, 2022.

• Maimonides, Moses. Mishneh Torah. Hilchot Melachim uMilchamot [Kings and Wars], chapters 8–10. Sefaria.

• Maimonides, Moses. Mishneh Torah. Hilchot Avodat Kochavim V’Chukkoteihem [Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations]. Sefaria.

• Nachmanides [Ramban]. Commentary on Genesis 34. Sefaria.

• ProPublica. Nonprofit Explorer. Internal Revenue Service Form 990 records for Chabad-affiliated nonprofit organizations examined during the investigation.

• The Shluchim Office. Organizational and program materials concerning the international Chabad-Lubavitch emissary network.

• United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Civil Society Database. “Institute of Noahide Code.” Organizational Profile and Consultative Status Records.

• United Nations Economic and Social Council. Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations. Reports, application proceedings and consultative-status records concerning the Institute of Noahide Code.

• United Nations Economic and Social Council. “Working with ECOSOC: An NGOs Guide to Consultative Status.” United Nations.

• United Nations General Assembly. Rules, membership and institutional materials concerning the structure and voting procedures of the General Assembly.

• United Nations Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 22: “The Right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion (Article 18).” 1993.

• United Nations Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 34: “Article 19: Freedoms of Opinion and Expression.” 2011.

• United Nations Human Rights Committee. Toonen v. Australia. Communication No. 488/1992. 1994.

• World Bank Group. “Boards of Governors.” Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group.

• World Bank Group. “Boards of Directors.” Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group.

• World Economic Forum. “Our Institutional Framework.” Geneva: World Economic Forum.

• World Economic Forum. “Stakeholders.” Geneva: World Economic Forum.

• World Economic Forum. Institutional materials concerning the Annual Meeting at Davos and public-private cooperation.

• Zürn, Michael. “Contested Global Governance.” International Studies Review. Oxford University Press.

Endnotes

1. Chabad-Lubavitch, “The Seven Noachide Laws,” Chabad.org. Chabad’s own presentation describes the Seven Noahide Laws as universal obligations and records the Rebbe’s campaign to encourage their observance among non-Jews.

2. Chabad-Lubavitch, “All Mankind,” Chabad.org. The article discusses the Rebbe’s view that Jews have a responsibility to influence humanity toward observance of the Noahide commandments.

3. United States Congress, Public Law 102-14, 105 Stat. 44, April 1991. The law designated March 26, 1991, as “Education Day, U.S.A.” and explicitly referenced the Seven Noahide Laws and the Lubavitch movement’s promotion of them.

4. Public Law 102-14 did not establish the Seven Noahide Laws as a federal criminal code, create Noahide courts, prescribe penalties for their violation, or authorize religious enforcement. Its operative provision concerned the designation and presidential proclamation of Education Day, U.S.A.

5. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Civil Society Database, organizational profile for the Institute of Noahide Code. UN records identify the organization with the promotion of the Seven Laws of Noah and connect its inspiration to the teachings of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson.

6. United Nations Economic and Social Council records concerning the Institute of Noahide Code. The organization received Special consultative status with ECOSOC in 2011 and was subsequently reclassified to General consultative status in 2021.

7. United Nations Economic and Social Council, materials concerning NGO consultative status. Consultative status provides qualifying NGOs opportunities including attendance, written statements, oral presentations in appropriate proceedings, networking, side events, and access to portions of the UN system. It does not make an NGO a member state or provide voting authority over the United Nations.

8. United Nations Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations records concerning the Institute of Noahide Code. During consideration of the organization’s application, government representatives including China, Egypt, and Cuba submitted questions. Cuba specifically raised the subject of United States congressional recognition of the Noahide Laws.

9. United Nations DESA Civil Society Database, Institute of Noahide Code organizational profile. The organization describes a strategy involving the United Nations agenda, parliamentarians, model legislation, culture of peace, environmental ethics, social justice, and efforts toward national legislation.

10. Institute of Noahide Code, official organizational materials. The Institute publicly identifies its Noahide orientation rather than presenting itself as an organization with no connection to Noahide teaching.

11. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 56a–59a. These passages provide foundational rabbinic discussions concerning the Seven Noahide commandments and demonstrate that the traditional framework contains substantially more jurisprudential discussion than seven short modern summaries.

12. Moses Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim uMilchamot, chapters 8–10. Maimonides systematizes Noahide jurisprudence, including commandments, courts, prohibited conduct, liability, and judicial provisions.

13. Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim uMilchamot 9:14. Maimonides describes an obligation to establish judges and magistrates to adjudicate matters concerning the other Noahide commandments, an important consideration when evaluating what complete classical enforcement could mean.

14. United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 22, 1993. The Committee interprets Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as protecting theistic, non-theistic, and atheistic beliefs as well as the freedom to adopt or change belief.

15. United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34, 2011. The Committee addresses freedom of expression and states that prohibitions on displays of lack of respect for a religion, including blasphemy laws, are generally incompatible with the Covenant except under narrowly defined circumstances.

16. United Nations Human Rights Committee, Toonen v. Australia, Communication No. 488/1992, 1994. The decision addressed criminalization of private consensual same-sex sexual activity between adults and found an interference with privacy under the ICCPR.

17. Chabad-Lubavitch, “Facts and Statistics,” Chabad.org. Chabad describes an international network extending across more than one hundred countries and territories and encompassing thousands of institutions and emissaries.

18. Chabad-Lubavitch World Headquarters, “Chabad Centers,” Lubavitch.com. Headquarters describes a worldwide network numbering more than five thousand centers.

19. Chabad-Lubavitch materials concerning shlichus describe emissaries as representatives carrying forward the Rebbe’s religious mission while establishing permanent Jewish institutions in communities throughout the world.

20. Chabad organizational materials also demonstrate substantial local operational independence among individual Chabad centers. This complicates descriptions of the movement as either completely centralized or merely a collection of unrelated organizations.

21. Chabad-Lubavitch World Headquarters and the Shluchim Office provide institutional resources, logistical assistance, educational materials, networking, and support for the international emissary system.

22. Chabad reporting concerning Rabbi Berel Lazar documents his participation at the World Economic Forum in Davos and his involvement with the Forum’s Council of 100 initiative.

23. Rabbi Berel Lazar is a Chabad emissary and a prominent Jewish religious leader in Russia who has maintained documented relationships with Russian political leadership, including President Vladimir Putin.

24. Jewish Telegraphic Agency, “Ukraine Invasion Puts Chabad of Russia Between a Rock and a Hard Place,” March 31, 2022. The article examines Chabad’s position in Russia and Lazar’s longstanding relationship with Putin while also describing tensions produced by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

25. Jewish Telegraphic Agency, “Philanthropist Has Ear of World Leaders,” March 2002. Reporting concerning Lev Leviev documents his substantial financial support for Jewish and Chabad-related activity in the former Soviet Union and his relationships with political leaders.

26. Leviev’s financial support demonstrates the importance of wealthy benefactors in the expansion of Chabad institutions. Financial support by itself, however, does not demonstrate that either the donor controls governments or that Chabad controls the donor.

27. Chabad accounts of Sami Rohr describe extensive philanthropic support for Jewish communities and Chabad emissaries internationally, particularly in areas where permanent Jewish infrastructure had been limited.

28. Chabad reporting concerning George Rohr describes decades of support for Chabad expansion, campus initiatives, emissaries, and Jewish educational programs across multiple continents.

29. These donor relationships establish a documented mechanism by which private wealth can become religious infrastructure: donations support emissaries, institutions, educational programs, buildings, and expansion. They do not by themselves establish governmental command authority.

30. ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer and Internal Revenue Service Form 990 records demonstrate that individual Chabad-affiliated organizations can operate as legally distinct nonprofit entities with their own revenue, expenses, assets, and donor bases.

31. Because Chabad consists of numerous separately organized institutions, the question “How much money does Chabad have?” cannot necessarily be answered by identifying one worldwide central treasury. Financial analysis must distinguish individual entities from the movement as a whole.

32. World Economic Forum, “Stakeholders.” The Forum describes engagement with businesses, governments, international organizations, civil society, academia, media, religious communities, and other stakeholders.

33. World Economic Forum institutional materials describe the organization’s purpose in terms of public-private cooperation and convening leaders across different sectors. Participation in Forum activities therefore demonstrates access to an influential networking environment but does not by itself establish authority over other participants.

34. International Monetary Fund, “IMF Members’ Quotas and Voting Power.” IMF voting power is substantially connected to member quotas rather than being distributed equally among countries.

35. As examined in Part 9, the United States currently possesses the largest individual IMF voting share, while Japan and China possess smaller but substantial shares. These percentages demonstrate an identifiable formal distribution of institutional voting power.

36. International Monetary Fund, “How the IMF Makes Decisions.” The IMF identifies its Board of Governors as its highest decision-making body, with day-to-day work conducted through the Executive Board and management.

37. World Bank Group, “Boards of Governors” and “Boards of Directors.” The World Bank similarly operates through publicly described governance structures involving representatives of member countries and executive directors.

38. No evidence examined during this series established that Chabad appoints IMF governors or executive directors, controls IMF voting shares, determines World Bank lending decisions, or possesses formal governing authority over either institution.

39. United Nations General Assembly institutional materials. The General Assembly consists of 193 member states, with each member possessing one vote. Important questions generally require a two-thirds majority of members present and voting, while other questions are decided by majority.

40. Chabad-associated participation at Davos establishes access and networking within an environment containing political, financial, corporate, academic, and religious leaders. It does not establish Chabad ownership or control of the World Economic Forum.

41. Repeated relationships between religious leaders, donors, politicians, and business leaders demonstrate that Chabad participates in overlapping networks of influence. A relationship alone does not demonstrate coordination on a particular policy.

42. Network analysis therefore requires distinguishing common membership, shared donors, meetings, friendships, institutional roles, and documented coordinated action. These categories cannot responsibly be treated as interchangeable evidence.

43. Chabad’s international emissary system provides unusual continuity because emissaries can remain within communities through multiple political administrations and economic cycles. This creates the possibility of relationships accumulating over decades without requiring centralized political command.

44. The continued expansion of the shlichus system after Schneerson’s death in 1994 demonstrates that common identity, religious teaching, institutions, and organizational culture can sustain coordinated mission without daily direction from the movement’s deceased leader.

45. Chabad’s Noahide campaign demonstrates that its international mission is not exclusively concerned with Jewish observance. Schneerson explicitly encouraged outreach concerning universal Noahide principles to non-Jews.

46. The existence of a universal religious mission must nevertheless be distinguished from political sovereignty. Religions commonly make universal truth claims without thereby possessing governmental authority over the populations to whom those claims are addressed.

47. The investigation repeatedly found evidence fitting the categories of presence, relationships, access, advocacy, and influence. Evidence demonstrating policy adoption appeared in narrower circumstances, including symbolic governmental recognition and participation in policy discussions.

48. Public Law 102-14 is particularly useful for illustrating this distinction. Congress explicitly recognized the Seven Noahide Laws and praised the Lubavitch movement’s efforts, but the law’s operative effect was an Education Day designation rather than implementation of classical Noahide criminal jurisprudence.

49. Similarly, the Institute of Noahide Code’s ECOSOC status demonstrates meaningful access to the United Nations system. It does not grant the Institute a vote in the General Assembly, control over member governments, or authority to impose legislation upon sovereign states.

50. The legislative advocacy examined in earlier parts included language concerning culture-of-peace education, environmental ethics, social justice, sustainable development, parliamentarians, and model legislation. The investigation did not locate a corresponding contemporary governmental proposal implementing the complete Maimonidean Noahide penal system.

51. Educational materials examined during the series likewise contained themes including peace, human rights, social responsibility, environmental concerns, intercultural understanding, and global citizenship. The investigation did not establish that a complete classical Noahide criminal framework was secretly embedded in those materials.

52. The absence of such evidence does not prove that no individual advocate desires broader Noahide implementation. It limits the conclusion to what the documentary record examined in this series supports.

53. A meaningful claim of global control would require stronger evidence than relationships or advocacy. Relevant evidence could include authenticated directives, appointment authority, ownership, financial dependency tied to obedience, enforcement mechanisms, or documented chains of command connecting instructions to institutional decisions.

54. Repeated failure to locate those mechanisms where they would reasonably be expected does not mathematically prove that they cannot exist. It does, however, weaken a claim that depends upon their existence and prevents access or association from being treated as proof of control.

55. International-relations scholarship frequently describes contemporary global governance as involving overlapping governmental, intergovernmental, corporate, and nongovernmental actors rather than a single centralized hierarchy. Such scholarship does not prove that covert coordination never occurs; it provides an analytical framework consistent with distributed institutional power.

56. Formal power remains unevenly distributed within those networks. IMF quota voting, national military and legal authority, corporate ownership, financial resources, and institutional rules demonstrate that some actors possess substantially greater power than others without requiring the existence of one ultimate controller.

57. The evidence examined therefore supports describing Chabad as an internationally extensive religious network possessing relationships, resources, access, institutional longevity, and opportunities for influence. Those findings should neither be minimized nor expanded beyond what the evidence establishes.

58. The investigation did not establish a documented Chabad chain of command controlling the United States government, United Nations, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, World Economic Forum, or world governments collectively.

59. Jewish identity itself is not evidence of participation in Chabad or of coordination with Chabad. Claims involving bankers, politicians, business leaders, philanthropists, or public officials require a documented relationship relevant to the investigation rather than inference from ethnicity or religion.

60. The evidentiary standard developed across the series remains the final safeguard: presence is not relationship; relationship is not access; access is not advocacy; advocacy is not influence; influence is not policy adoption; and policy adoption is not necessarily control. The final question therefore shifts from searching for one organization supposedly sitting atop a global pyramid toward examining how money, institutions, relationships, ideas, and formal authority actually move through overlapping networks of power.

#Chabad #ChabadLubavitch #NoahideLaws #NoahideCode #SevenNoahideLaws #GlobalPower #GlobalInfluence #PowerNetworks #WorldEconomicForum #Davos #WorldBank #IMF #UnitedNations #GlobalEthics #PoliticalInfluence #FollowTheMoney #ReligiousInfluence #ChabadInvestigation #CauseBeforeSymptom #WhoReallyRunsTheWorld

Chabad, ChabadLubavitch, NoahideLaws, NoahideCode, SevenNoahideLaws, GlobalPower, GlobalInfluence, PowerNetworks, WorldEconomicForum, Davos, WorldBank, IMF, UnitedNations, GlobalEthics, PoliticalInfluence, FollowTheMoney, ReligiousInfluence, ChabadInvestigation, CauseBeforeSymptom, WhoReallyRunsTheWorld