Featured Articles

The Way Life Should Be? Vol. XV: A Tale of Two Senators, Or How the Establishment Really Works

Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Janet Langhart Cohen.

Perhaps no two figures better epitomize the kosher sandwich in action than former Maine Senators George J. Mitchell and William S. Cohen, Gentile and Jew, Democrat and Republican, equal and complementary slices of kosher bread in the neo-liberal order. They are, as we shall see, really quite perfect avatars.

George Mitchell

Following his stint in the US Senate from 1980 through the end of his term on January 3rd, 1995, Mitchell was asked by Michael Eisner to join Disney’s Board of Directors; he also joined Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson, and Hand (where Elliott Abrams—yes, that Elliott Abrams—worked before joining the Reagan administration), a law firm and lobbyist organization that in September 2002 merged with Piper Rudnick LLP, which would itself soon be part of the merger that would form DLA Piper. Mitchell is currently a partner and Chairman Emeritus of DLA Piper’s Board, and has been on or is presently on the Boards of Staples, Unum, Unilever, Starwood Hotels (owned by Marriott), Xerox, FedEx, and others; Mitchell was also on the Board of the American Security Project, which is not as innocuous as the name sounds. The American Security Project takes a very antagonistic stance toward Russia and works to advance interventionism in order to combat climate change. They also use climate change as a bogeyman for causing “ethnic conflict” in and mass migration from sub-Saharan Africa. The implications are obvious, and with people like John Kerry on the Board and former “luminaries” including Susan Rice, this is unsurprising. As one example, the same UNICEF that declares the West must open itself up to an indefinite number of “migrants” receives well north of $100 million annually from the United States government[1] and also has a multi-million-dollar partnership with DLA Piper.

Curiously, however, despite the supposedly carbon-driven mass migrations from the Equatorial world, Mitchell’s Bipartisan Policy Center, of which he is co-founder and co-chair, receives a substantial amount of funding from companies like Chevron and ExxonMobil.[2] It also receives funding from FedEx, which is surely a coincidence.

In 2004, Mitchell defended the Board’s ouster of Roy Disney and, as one might expect, was rewarded as Chairman of Disney from March 2004-December 31st, 2006. Roy Disney and Stanley Gold were vocal in their criticisms of Mitchell as former CEO Michael Eisner’s puppet. “Giving the company’s chairmanship to former US Senator George Mitchell, Eisner’s lap dog, is a fig leaf covering Eisner’s continuing control of the company,” wrote one observer. Additionally, as Gold wrote in his letter of resignation from the Board:

Senator Mitchell was appointed Presiding Director, despite having been recently employed as a Company consultant and notwithstanding that the law firm of which he was chairman received in excess of $1 million for legal services on behalf of the Company in fiscal 2001.

No conflict of interest there. It gets better, as Wesley B. Truitt reports in his book The Corporation:

After retirement, [George Mitchell] became a partner in a prominent Washington, DC law firm and accepted Michael Eisner’s invitation to join Disney’s board of directors and those of eight other companies. As a nonemployee director at Disney, he was paid $45,000 annually, plus $1,000 per meeting he attended. Disney also hired him as a $50,000-per-year consultant, and he became a consultant to six of the other companies on whose boards he served. Two of those firms, Federal Express (FedEx) and Staples, for which he was both director and consultant, also employed his law firm, as did Disney. This is all pre-2002. In that year, with corporate governance reforms occurring, Disney dropped Mitchell’s law firm, having paid it $2.6 million in fees over the previous seven years, and required Mitchell to give up all other board seats except three. He kept FedEx, Staples, and Starwood Hotels. He continued to take consulting fees, amounting to $175,000 annually from FedEx and Staples. His consulting fees from Disney had brought him $300,000 over seven years. In March 2005, Disney’s board of directors, following a search in which only one outsider was interviewed (in Eisner’s presence), announced their choice of Robert Iger, then president of Disney and Eisner’s handpicked insider choice, to succeed him as CEO later that year.[3]

In 1998, Verner, Liipfert et al. received $1 million in compensation from Starwood Hotels for their lobbying efforts; that number was $430,000 in 1999, $380,000 in 2000, $380,000 in 2001, and $300,000 in 2002, when they merged with Piper Rudnick. Starwood retained Piper Rudnick, and then what became DLA Piper after the merger, into 2016, at which point Starwood was acquired by Marriott.

As the ultimate Shabbos goy, Mitchell earned high praise from ADL Director Abe Foxman while serving as Special Envoy for Middle East Peace under Barack Obama. As if he could be any more of a living cliché, Mitchell is also in the Bilderberg Group.

Earlier this year, in documents unsealed on August 9th by federal prosecutors in New York at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, Mitchell was among those named by Virginia Roberts Giuffre in a lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell as one of the men she was forced to have sex with while she was allegedly being trafficked for sexual acts as an underage girl by the duo. Mitchell denies the accusation; however a sworn affidavit by a former Epstein employee, Juan Alessi, affirms Giuffre’s claim. Mitchell was absolutely an associate of Epstein’s—Mitchell called Epstein a “friend and supporter” in a 2003 New York Magazine profile and Epstein referred to Mitchell as “the world’s greatest negotiator.” Giuffre named Mitchell in a 2015 defamation suit against Ghislaine Maxwell and again in a sworn deposition in 2016, saying she was instructed to give him a “sexual massage” while he was visiting Epstein in Palm Beach. From these documents, we learn:

American liberal icon, President Obama’s Middle East peace envoy Senator George Mitchell, frequently visited Epstein’s New York residence. Mr. Mitchell…was very close to Jeffrey, Virginia recalled. “He is very clean-cut. You wouldn’t think of him being part of Jeffrey’s crew.”

Though Mitchell cited work commitments as the reason and not the atrocious optics of an accused sex abuser’s affiliation with a fund for those abused by the clergy, he resigned in May from the oversight committee of the Philadelphia archdiocese’s Independent Reconciliation and Reparations Program (IRRP), a fund handled by administrators Kenneth Feinberg and Camille Biros. Feinberg made at least $3.3 million representing British Petroleum after their massive spill, and, per Judicial Watch:

Uncovered U.S. Treasury Department documents…reveal President Obama’s “Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation” Kenneth Feinberg received a $120,830 annual salary to establish executive compensation levels at companies bailed out by the federal government. These documents contradict multiple press reports that Feinberg would not be compensated for this work for the Treasury Department.

Feinberg makes his living deciding on what, if any, financial compensation victims of tragedies like 9/11 are entitled to. There’s really not much else to say about that—a Jewish lawyer profiting wildly from tragedy and financial improprieties says it all, really.

William Cohen

William Cohen and George Mitchell were concurrent Maine Senators for all of Mitchell’s time in office. Cohen was a Senator from 1979 through the end of his term on January 3rd, 1997. Cohen and his wife Janet Langhart have made a tidy profit from advertising their interracial marriage, first with the 2006 memoir Love in Black and White, and next with Langhart’s one-act play Anne and Emmett, which—I kid you not—debuted at the US Holocaust Museum and is about “an imagined conversation between Anne Frank and Emmett Till.”

After serving as the Secretary of Defense during Bill Clinton’s second term, Cohen founded the Cohen Group, a lobbyist organization and “business advisory firm providing corporate leadership with strategic advice and assistance in business development, regulatory affairs, deal sourcing, and capital raising activities,” of which Cohen remains Chairman and CEO. The Cohen Group has lobbied on behalf of special interests such as VR military training technology company Raydon, commercial satellite operator SES Americom, and technology-defense contractor Alion Science & Technology, and has facilitated donations to both Maine Senators Susan Collins and Angus King; a number of their employees and associates have donated to current presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg. Tellingly, Cohen rebuked Donald Trump during Trump’s 2016 campaign and endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. In the 2016 election cycle, affiliates of the Cohen Group’s largest donation recipient was Hillary Clinton, although Republicans Susan Collins, John McCain, and Jeb Bush were also among the top donation recipients. This speaks volumes about the truly bipartisan nature of not just the Cohen Group, but of the DC Beltway—and the entire Establishment for that matter: they’re all pretty much on the same page.[4] Also consider that Cohen was John McCain’s Best Man in his second marriage, and the picture increasingly comes into focus. For further illustrative purposes, however, let’s look at some of the top donation recipients from the Cohen Group in other election cycles:

·         2014: Susan Collins, Cory Booker, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Joe Kennedy III

·         2012: Susan Collins, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Joe Kennedy III, Tim Ryan

·         2008: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Susan Collins, Mitch McConnell, Ted Stevens

·         2004: John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Howard Dean, Arlen Specter, John Edwards

You get the idea. What many do not know, however, is that Cohen’s former chief of staff and top political strategist Bob Tyrer (who by the way is now co-president of the Cohen Group) was tasked with running Susan Collins’s campaign for Senate in 1996 as Cohen’s hand-picked replacement—a position she enjoys to this day. The substantial and consistent donations to Collins especially make much more sense in this light. As you’ll recall from the previous piece, DLA Piper is also a major campaign donor to Collins, as are companies like FedEx. You can see how the pieces are starting to fit.

Cohen is also on the Advisory Board of the Partnership for a Secure America, which, like Mitchell’s American Security Project, considers “climate change” to be a “threat multiplier.” Other organizations of which Cohen is currently or has been involved with include Viacom, CBS, the Council on Foreign Relations, AIG, MIC Industries, the Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Partnership, Thayer Capital, and the Trilateral Commission.

The Sandwich

The most obvious connection between Cohen and Mitchell, aside from the fact that they were concurrent Senators from Maine for a decade-and-a-half and clearly worked closely together is their co-authored book on the Iran-Contra affair published in 1988. Not-so-obvious would be the other aspects of their working relationship. Presently, DLA Piper has established, “a strategic alliance with The Cohen Group, a business consulting firm, to help clients identify and achieve global business and strategic opportunities.”

The first identifiable financial ties are from 2003, when the Cohen Group’s lobbying services were retained by Piper Rudnick for $250,000; in 2004 that number rose slightly to $280,000, but in 2005, when a three-way merger created DLA Piper, the Cohen Group’s compensation fell to $80,000. The working relationship persisted, however, with the Cohen Group’s compensation for their lobbying efforts on behalf of DLA Piper totaling $110,000 in 2006 and $140,000 in 2007. Though DLA Piper is listing as having retained the Cohen Group in 2008, I could not find the amount, at which point the financial record of the Cohen Group’s explicit lobbying endeavors on behalf of DLA Piper appears to vanish. As indicated above, however, this did not end the Cohen-DLA Piper working relationship, but rather precipitated what would grow into a major partnership.

Cohen was a featured speaker at DLA Piper’s annual Global Real Estate Summit in Chicago this year and Ambassador Nick Burns serves as Senior Advisor to DLA Piper through the firm’s exclusive relationship with the Cohen Group, where he is a Senior Counselor. DLA Piper and the Cohen Group have collaborated on “independent reports” designed to influence policy—for which they were financially compensated—and a litany of other projects both domestically and globally. One such project may potentially have involved a coup attempt in Turkey. A large percentage of the Cohen Group’s leading figures are ex-diplomats and military figures; there is a curious paucity of “traditional” business or legal acumen at the top. Oh, and by the way:

We know, from sworn testimony given by FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, that former Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman committed treason when he divulged classified information to Turkish operatives in the summer months of 2001, included in that information was the fact that Brewster Jennings & Associates and Valerie Plame were CIA…Marc Grossman’s former boss at the State Department, Richard Armitage…The ATC helps facilitate billions in defense contracts between the Turkish government and FBI Director James Comey’s friends at Lockheed Martin, where Comey used to be VP and Senior Counsel. Lockheed Martin’s Board of Directors also includes Joseph Ralston and James Loy who work with Grossman at the Cohen Group.[5],[6]

There are deep ties not just between the Cohen Group and DLA Piper, but between the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and both the Cohen Group and DLA Piper, as Laurence Shoup relates:

The Cohen Group was founded by former Defense Secretary and CFR director William S. Cohen when he left the Clinton administration in early 2001. The objectives of the firm are: “helping multinational clients explore opportunities overseas as well as solve problems that may develop. The Cohen Group has the unique ability to provide our clients with truly comprehensive tools for understanding and shaping their business, political, legal, regulatory, and media environments.” The Cohen Group has a strategic alliance with the international law firm DLA Piper, one of the largest law firms in the world. Both the Cohen Group and DLA Piper have multiple connections to the CFR. Besides Cohen himself, Marc Grossman, a vice chair at the Cohen Group, is a Council member, and former ambassador and undersecretary of state Nicholas Burns is both a CFR member and a senior counselor at Cohen. Former Senator George J. Mitchell, DLA Piper’s former chairman, was a Council director, and former U.S. senator and CFR member Tom Daschle is a policy adviser at this law firm.

But why does it matter that Mitchell, Cohen, and their associates have these connections to the CFR? There are hundreds of these think tanks that recycle the same old “bureaucratic tape-worms,” to borrow Tucker Carlson’s phrase, in between governmental appointments. As Shoup explains in his excellent book Wall Street’s Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics, 1976-2014:

The CFR’s own leaders, in their own publication, [state] that U.S. foreign policy in the twentieth century was made by a “professional class” (their term for a ruling capitalist class) of only “several hundred” people, augmented by a number of “experts” beginning in the 1960s. Almost all of these people were members of the CFR, which actively promoted a foreign policy suitable to the U.S. capitalist class…The Council is the most important U.S. and global center of “deep politics” and the “deep state” that rules behind the scenes, a way that the 1 percent conducts their unrelenting class war against the 99 percent. Despite pretensions to “democracy” and endless attempts at instructing the world, U.S. “democracy” is, in reality, largely a fraud, a hollowed-out shell, devoid of any substantive content. The fact is that the U.S. government—led behind the scenes by the CFR—is largely run in an anti-democratic fashion by and for the interests of a financialized capitalist class, their corporations, and the wealthy families that control and benefit from these corporations. No matter who is elected, people from the Council propose, debate, develop consensus, and implement the nation’s key strategic policies. The deep state, in the form of the CFR, operates behind the scenes, making and enforcing important decisions outside of those publicly sanctioned by law and society. A focus on the Council on Foreign Relations is a key way to understand concretely the central sector of the ensemble of power relations in the United States and its informal global empire.

The Cohen Group and DLA Piper each feature both current and former members within or affiliated with the CFR, as well as other major geo-political players; these connections are anything but incidental. Major DLA Piper alumni include: A.B. Krongard, former Executive Director of the CIA; Mel Martinez, former Senator, member of the Bipartisan Policy Center, and JP Morgan Chase’s Chairman of the Southeast US and Latin America; and Harry Cummings McPherson, Jr., who served as counsel and special counsel to Lyndon B. Johnson from 1965 to 1969 and was Johnson’s chief speechwriter from 1966 to 1969. Additionally, DLA Piper represents over 150 Israeli companies and investors. From the firm’s website:

The firm has also assisted over 75+ of its foreign clients who require legal assistance in Israel…Our Israel Country Group delivers all the benefits of a global elite law firm through a team of lawyers dedicated to the Israel market. Our broad knowledge and access to local advice has led to us becoming a key address for advising Israeli clients as they do business across the globe. Recent involvement has included advising on M&A transactions in Japan, Norway, Spain and South Africa; HR matters in Brazil, Singapore and Italy; real estate deals in the US, Germany and the UK; IP and tax in Turkey, Dubai, Australia and Czech Republic; fund formation in Poland and the US; commercial and mining advice in Africa; and litigation advice in the UK, Africa and the US.

Don’t forget that George Mitchell of DLA Piper was an associate of Jeffrey Epstein. Recall also the “changing role” of the NSA following 9/11 and the fact that the NSA gave Israel access to all US citizens’ communications data. This all dovetails rather nicely, as, returning to Shoup:

William J. Clinton was himself a CFR member before he became president…Of Clinton’s three secretaries of the treasury, the first, Lloyd M. Bentsen, was not a CFR member (my note: or a Jew, but definitely a Shabbos goy), but Robert E. Rubin and Lawrence H. Summers were (my note: both Jewish), with Rubin later becoming a director and co-chair of the Council. All three of Clinton’s choices for Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin, William J. Perry, and William S. Cohen, were CFR members, and Aspin and Cohen were directors. Cohen was a director when Clinton called on him to serve in the government…George W. Bush was never a member of the CFR, but…his vice president, Richard B. Cheney, was a longtime member and was a two-time director between 1987 and 1995. Both of Bush’s secretaries of state, Colin L. Powell and Condoleezza Rice, had long been members of the Council when they were appointed, and Powell became a CFR director in 2006…George W. Bush had two secretaries of defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld and Robert M. Gates. Rumsfeld was a CFR member during the 1970s but later dropped out of the organization. Gates has been a continuous Council member since 1985. Bush’s appointees to head the CIA, Porter J. Goss and Michael V. Hayden, were CFR members prior to entering office, as were both of his appointees to head up the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz and Robert Zoellick, who had also been a Council director. Three of the four men Bush appointed to be UN ambassador, John D. Negroponte, John R. Bolton, and Zalmay Khalilzad, were CFR members prior to their appointmentsSusan E. Rice, who also served as Obama’s first UN representative, has been active in the organization for years…Obama’s second secretary of state, John Forbes Kerry, became a CFR member in the early 1990s. He married his second wife, the near billionaire Teresa Heinz (who inherited the Heinz food fortune), in 1995, the same year she was elected to Council membership.

I would be remiss if I did not also mention that Janet Napolitano, who made a brief appearance in Volume IX, is also a member of the CFR, but in light of all of these other revelations, that does seem a bit incidental, doesn’t it?

Reposted from The Anatomically Correct Banana.


[1] “‘Migrating is not a choice,’ according to Henrietta Fore, executive director of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), speaking to reporters last week on the sidelines of the G7 ministerial summit in Paris. Fore insisted: ‘Migrants do not want to leave their country, but they are forced to do so because of the economic situation or the violence that reigns there.’…‘Those of us who live in more developed countries must do whatever we can to allow them to get here and integrate.’… UNICEF is funded by governments and private donations. Due to relentless lobbying on Capitol Hill by UNICEF USA supporters, the United States has ‘traditionally provided more unrestricted funding to UNICEF than any other government.’ The U.S. remains UNICEF’s top funder with $132.5 million in 2019, just as it was in 2016, 2017, and 2018 with similar contributions. What remains to be determined is why the Trump administration continues to write a blank check to [them].” https://cis.org/Rush/UNICEF-Chief-Developed-World-Must-Welcome-All-Migrants-Because-Migration-Not-Choice

[2] Would you like to know more? https://ethics.harvard.edu/blog/bipartisan-lobbying-center

[3] P. 209.

[4] Consider the 636 business organizations that signed their approval of a prospective “Immigration Reform” bill in 2014 that enjoyed bipartisan support, and which would have provided for DREAMER amnesty and the re-orientation of immigration toward “economic necessity”: https://www.uschamber.com/letter/multi-industry-letter-immigration-reform

[5] http://illinoispaytoplay.com/tag/the-cohen-group/

[6] Lockheed Martin is a major donor to both Maine Senators Susan Collins and Angus King, and House Representative Chellie Pingree—Republican, Independent, and Democrat. Yup.

Slavoj Žižek’s “Pervert’s Guide” to anti-Semitism

“ [Kevin] MacDonald’s theory is a new chapter in the long process of the destruction of Reason.”
Slavoj Zizek

“Žižek is, at his best, a posturing charlatan.”
Thomas Moller-Nielsen, Current Affairs, Oct. 18 2019.

 

This is an essay on anti-Semitism, but because it’s also about Slavoj Žižek we’re going to have to start with the subject of extra-marital affairs. Very early in my academic career, I was asked to take part in a cross-faculty seminar, where PhD students could present small talks on the development of their research. It was hoped that, as a newly-minted PhD, I’d ask presenting students some tough but helpful questions, and thus somehow contribute to a team atmosphere in my department. I was provided with a list of proposed talks and immediately felt an overwhelming sense of apathy at the litany of feminist tripe and quasi-Marxist navel-gazing, none of which was in any way related to my own fields of research. I was eager to please in my new role, however, and so I fell dutifully into line. I’ll never forget the first presentation because it was so remarkably surreal, being an effeminate young African-American who quite literally gave a performance poem titled “Black Skin” about, well, you get the idea. But the more memorable event of the day came later, when a young woman gave a presentation on gender in the media, or something to that effect. Something about her manner irritated me considerably, so I gave her a hard time during the Q & A. This was picked up on by a senior figure in the department, a soft meek-looking and much-gossiped-about English historian, who, after the seminar had finished, invited me to his office for a discussion on gender and sex politics.

I’ve been politically aware since I was a teenager. I’d read deeply about Marxism since the age of seventeen, and was familiar with its cultish elements. None of this prepared me for my adventure in this otherwise unremarkable Englishman’s office, the walls of which were festooned with small red flags and quasi-religious images of Lenin and Trotsky. So, I thought, here was a Red in the flesh. I was in the presence of a dedicated Marxist, and that right there in front of me stood a solitary tangible example of the long march through the institutions. He made tea, and we sat down. He began to talk, I listened. During his initial monologue, my host started speaking from a personal perspective, explaining that even in his private life he aimed to live in accordance with his “socialist beliefs.” Before he got married, he explained, he and his fiancée agreed that they wouldn’t take traditional vows, agreeing they wouldn’t be so possessive as to make an oath of exclusivity to one another. They might “expect” exclusivity, but they wouldn’t demand it. They believed in “freedom,” he said, and ultimately this was what social progressivism and modern gender and sex politics was all about. It wasn’t anything to get upset over, he implied, or laugh about.

Except that it was. The faculty gossip I’d heard was that the wife of this “free love” advocate had been on a short-term teaching stint in Norway and had just recently decided to permanently settle there with a Norwegian lover she’d been having an affair with for some time. She had the marital couple’s two children with her in Norway, and was making it extremely difficult for the meek, permissive, Lenin-loving Englishman to see them. The family home had also been declared off-limits, and my Marxist colleague was apparently reduced to staying in a local bed and breakfast. Tragic? Quite possibly. Hilarious? Most definitely. All of this flooded my mind as the cuckolded Leninite sat opposite me recounting his lukewarm marriage vows, tea in hand, eyes glistening with — tears? Steam from the tea he said, wiping them casually and glancing at the window. My face was stone. The time passed, and my host gradually fell silent. I thanked him most disingenuously, and made a hasty retreat, taking a deep breath as I emerged from the building. I never set foot in that office again.

What does any of this have to do with anti-Semitism? If you’re the superstar Marxist intellectual Slavoj Žižek, it has everything to do with anti-Semitism, since as we will find out, infidelity and anti-Semitism are irrefutably linked. I say “irrefutably” quite deliberately, because his arguments are irrefutable — and they are irrefutable because they are nonsensical. Read more

The Way Life Should Be: #SquadGoals and the U.S Corporate Elites That Fund Them

The rhetoric of climate change has become millenarian and hysterical, uncoupled from any genuine environmental concerns, of which there are many. If a picture is worth a thousand words, let the image of Greta Thunberg, the teenaged Swedish environmental activist’s arrival in New York on a former Rothschild family racing yacht—and the numerous flights that made the journey possible in the first place—serve as example number one. It is in the climate of Establishment-generated climate change hysteria that the contradictions of, say, an Ayanna Pressley—vocal supporter of fellow Squad Member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal—and the sources of her financial backing—such as Global Partners LP (whose “operations focus on the importing of petroleum products and marketing them in North America”), a slew of real estate developers, and Blue Haven Initiative—become all the more grotesque. Blue Haven Initiative, by the way, is another one of these “impact investment” organizations I’ve written extensively on; its co-founder and principal investor is none other than Liesel Pritzker Simmons, of the Jewish Pritzker family. Blue Haven will make another appearance later.

The Green New Deal resolutions in the US House of Representatives and the Senate were sponsored by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ed Markey, respectively. It is always worth looking into where politicians derive their campaign finances from, as this gives us a window into the interests that they represent. For Markey, in the current election cycle, that would be PACs representing and/or individuals affiliated with: Akin, Gump, et al.,[1] DLA Piper,[2] Bain Capital, Blackstone Group, Tufts University (alma mater of Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt), Harvard University, Google, Immigrant Learning Center, DISH Network, iHeart Media, Estee Lauder, the National Basketball Association, Verizon, Brownstein, Hyatt, et al., WilmerHale LLP, T-Mobile, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Sprint, Hilton, Morgan Stanley, Dell, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Twitter, and Oracle. As evidenced in The Way Life Should Be? pieces, many of these organizations are a part of Michael Bloomberg’s New American Economy and/or are helmed by Jewish CEOs (or commissioners in the NBA’s case). Also, Markey’s wife, it should be noted, is the Jewish Susan Blumenthal, whose resumé includes a number of high governmental positions, professorships at Georgetown, Brandeis, and Tufts, and a column for the Huffington Post.

Regarding House sponsor Alexandria “AOC” Ocasio-Cortez, since becoming a media darling after her surprising victory over her district’s incumbent Joe Crowley—a genuine grassroots victory, where Ocasio-Cortez was outspent 18-to-1 in the Democratic Primary—Ocasio-Cortez has quickly become the new face of the corporate class. In gearing up for her re-election campaign, Ocasio-Cortez’s primary donors so far include PACs representing and/or individuals affiliated with: Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Alphabet Inc., Delta, Kaiser Permanente, “majority women-owned” law firm Selendy & Gay, and WilmerHale LLP. Robert Mueller is a partner at WilmerHale’s Washington office, and the firm is notorious for shady dealings and representing the unscrupulous, including Jewish insider trader Ivan “Greed is Good” Boesky. In this election cycle, donations from individuals affiliated with WilmerHale have gone not just to Markey and AOC, but Elijah Cummings (now deceased), Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Joe Biden, Julian Castro, John Hickenlooper, Elizabeth Warren, Adam Schiff, Mitch McConnell, Jerrold Nadler, Beto O’Rourke, Bernie Sanders, Tim Ryan, Ben Sasse, Ted Lieu, Joe Kennedy III, Lindsey Graham, Maxine Waters, Tulsi Gabbard, Cristina Tzintzun Ramirez, Mike Levin, and Cory Booker. Donations from affiliates of WilmerHale and Alphabet Inc. went to Ayanna Pressley in her initial election bid.

While we’ve discussed half of “The Squad,” we should not neglect to look into who’s footing the bill for Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib’s re-election bids as well. For Omar, her top donors in this election cycle include PACs representing and/or individuals affiliated with: Google, Apple, Alphabet Inc., Creatis Capital, Evercore Partners, Dana Investment, Paradigm Global Group, Tiger Global Management, and Patagonia, Inc. (also a Pressley donor—maybe that’s why they’re all so fashionable). For Tlaib: Fedex, Boeing, AT&T, Evercore, the End Citizens United PAC, East Bridge Capital, Microsoft, and the commercial real estate IDS Real Estate Group. Indeed, irrespective of their “wokeness” or sass quotient, it appears the saucy Congresswomen are, as we expected, nothing but mouthpieces for multi-nationals and global capital. Insert “color-blind” joke here. Donald Trump, however, is not. From the Times of Israel:

Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke, a former congressman from Texas, tweeted: “When he calls 6 members of Congress — all women of color or Jewish — ‘savages,’ he wants you to think of them as less than human. Like when he calls immigrants an ‘infestation’ and says ‘no human being’ would want to live in Baltimore.’ We can’t be surprised when violence follows.”

Thank you, Robert Francis. Thank also his donation sources Sanchez Oil & Gas (O’Rourke has publicly supported the Green New Deal), Microsoft, Dell, IBM, Apple, AT&T, Cisco Systems, the Blackstone Group, Amazon, the US Army, and the University of Texas. Alluded to but unmentioned are Elijah Cummings, Jerrold Nadler, and Adam Schiff. Schiff, recipient of WilmerHale campaign donations (as is Maine Senator Susan Collins), has also received money from PACs representing and/or individuals affiliated with: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, which spawned Cortez donor Selendy & Gay, as well as Paloma Partners, Soros Fund Management, Raytheon,[3] DLA Piper, Georgetown University, Cisco Systems, Disney, Saban Capital Group, the University of California-Berkeley, Chelsea Handler Inc., Lauder Partners, the Federal Reserve System, Stanford University, Warburg Pincus, Lockheed Martin, the Council on Foreign Relations, Northrop Grumman, Point72 Asset Management (Steven A. Cohen’s Point72 was founded in 2014 as the successor to SAC Capital the year after the firm pleaded guilty to federal insider trading charges, paid a $1.8 billion fine, was given a five-year probation, was required to hire an outside monitor, and was ordered to terminate managing money for outside investors), Google, Amazon, WarnerMedia, and AT&T. Schiff and Nadler have also received funds from Alphabet Inc. (organizational PAC donations plus donations from affiliated individuals), as has “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg, with Alphabet (only donations from affiliated individuals) forming his largest donor source ahead of PACs representing and/or individuals affiliated with AT&T, Microsoft, Disney, Comcast, Amazon, Wells Fargo, Kaiser Permanente, McKinsey, Harvard University, Facebook, Apple, and the Blackstone Group.

Alphabet Inc. is an American multinational created through a corporate restructuring of Google and is now the parent company of Google and several former Google subsidiaries. Alphabet Inc. organizational PAC donations and/or affiliated individuals’ donations have gone to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley, plus over $200,000 to Elizabeth Warren, over $160,000 to Bernie Sanders, $120,000 to Kamala Harris, $60,000 to Andrew Yang, nearly $60,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, $37,000 to Cory Booker, over $34,000 to Joe Biden, over $24,000 to Beto O’Rourke, and over $23,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in this election cycle thus far, as well as Tulsi Gabbard (sigh), Nancy Pelosi, Ro Khanna, Mike Levin, Jay Inslee, Kirsten Gillibrand, Eric Swalwell, Amy Klobuchar, Julian Castro, John Hickenlooper, Tim Ryan, Ted Lieu, Jared Golden (featured in my Maine pieces), John Lewis, Hank Johnson, Xochitl Torres Small, Cristina Tzintzun Ramirez, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joe Kennedy III, Jon Ossoff, Aisha Wahab, Nabilah Islam (it should be noted Islam is a Program Associate for the Land, Water, and Climate Justice team for the American Jewish World Service organization[4]), and a slew of PACs. Lest you think, like Israel, there isn’t strong bi-partisan support for the megalopoly that is Alphabet Inc., the National Republican Congressional and Senatorial Committees have received funds from Alphabet Inc. sources in this election cycle, as have individual candidates Chuck Grassley, Ben Sasse, Mike Lee, Mitch McConnell, Steve Scalise, Tim Scott, David Perdue, Liz Cheney, Lindsey Graham, Justin Amash (now “Independent”), and…Donald Trump.

Alphabet Inc. as an institution, including affiliates (organizational PAC donations plus donations from affiliated individuals) dispensed over $5.5 million in the 2018 election cycle, including almost $85,000 to Maine Congressional candidate Jared Golden, another vociferous supporter of the Green New Deal, $16,000 to Maine Senatorial incumbent Angus King, and almost a quarter of a million dollars to Beto O’Rourke in his unsuccessful bid to unseat Ted Cruz in Texas.

Alphabet Inc. also has deep ties to numerous Jewish organizations, not least of which is the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, and other technology companies work with the ADL on the “Cyberhate Problem-Solving Lab” and the Best Practices for Challenging Cyberhate. Google subsidiary YouTube has tasked the ADL with filtering out and banning “extremist content” from its platform. Further, as Corinne Weaver writes:

George Soros, Google, and the ADL all have something in common: they all take interest in “white nationalism” online. Google sent an interesting representative to the hearing on “Hate Crimes and the Rise of White Nationalism” on April 9. Alexandria Walden, Google’s Counsel on Free Expression and Human Rights, was introduced by the House Judiciary Committee Chairman as a former Center for American Progress employee. The center is a liberal non-profit that was founded by President Clinton’s former chief of staff John Podesta, and funded by liberal billionaire George Soros… Google already had a friend at the hearing, however. Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-New York) tweeted on April 8 that he was “Honored to join #GrowwithGoogle for its launch with partners @GoodwillNYNJ @HudsonGuild @galeabrewer & others.” According to OpenSecrets.org, Nadler’s top donor for his 2018 campaign was Alphabet, Google’s parent company, which donated $26,000. Google is a major landlord and employer in Nadler’s district…The spokesperson for the Anti-Defamation League, Eileen Hershenov, blamed platforms like Gab and 8chan for being “recruiting grounds for terrorists” and “round the clock white supremacist rallies.” She also stated that the rhetoric of “elected officials and candidates” was encouraging white nationalist crime.[5]

Hershenov’s bona fides include a stint as a law clerk for Jack B. Weinstein in New York’s Eastern District, a Karpatkin Fellow with the ACLU focusing primarily on “women’s rights” and immigration, and as general counsel for George Soros’s Open Society Foundations as well as his Central European University. ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt served as the Director of the Impact Economy Initiative project at the Aspen Institute, which received more $500,000 from George Soros’ Open Society Foundations. The Aspen Institute is also involved with the World Economic Forum (WEF), discussed in The Way Life Should Be? Vol. XVII.

Since 1985, when it began tracking “hate groups’” use of online bulletin boards, the ADL has dedicated resources to censoring the internet, espionage, and sharing intelligence with law enforcement and the government (which includes Israel). Who can forget the infamous “HateFilter” the ADL sent to market in 1998? From a November 2017 Omidyar Network[6] press release on the ADL’s Center for Technology and Society:

The ADL…announced new funding for the center from Omidyar Network, the philanthropic investment firm created by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar…Earlier this year at the South by Southwest conference, ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt announced that the organization was establishing the CTS with a $250,000 seed grant from Omidyar Network. Now up and running, CTS will lead ADL’s efforts to fulfill its civil rights mission in the digital space…Omidyar Network has committed additional funding and will provide $1.5 million to support the Center’s work…The board members are: Danielle Citron, a law professor at the University of Maryland and author of Hate Crimes in Cyberspace; Brad Hamm, dean of the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University; Shawn Henry, former FBI executive assistant director; Reddit founder and CEO Steve Huffman; James Joaquin, co-founder and managing director of Obvious Ventures; Aileen Lee, Cowboy Ventures; Matt Rogers, Nest founder and chief product officer; Facebook VP of Product Guy Rosen; Jeffrey Rosen, president of the National Constitution Center and professor of law at George Washington University; Jeffrey Saper, vice chair of the global tech law firm Wilson Sonsini;[7] Snapchat’s head of public policy, Micah Shaffer; former Twitter executive Katie Jacobs Stanton, Color Genomics’ chief marketing officer; Anne Washington, a public policy professor at George Mason University who focuses on the social dynamics of information; and Whitney Wolfe, CEO of the dating app Bumble.[8]

What you might find interesting is that Greenblatt and Omidyar have a working relationship that extends back to the early 2000s when Omidyar invested in Greenblatt’s Ethos Water; they eventually sold the company to Starbucks and Greenblatt worked for Howard Schultz as the Vice President for Global Consumer Products. Remember how the ADL was going to do the anti-bias training for Starbucks last year?

The ADL’s CTS also has entered into a fellowship program sponsored by the Robert A. and Renee E. Belfer Family Foundation.[9] The Belfer fortune is from “an oil empire that is now in its third generation.” Per Inside Philanthropy, the Jewish Belfers:

Have recently shown a major concern with cybersecurity. To that end, they recently gave a $15 million gift to the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School to establish the Cyber Security Project, which “seeks to help create the conceptual arsenal” for strategists to confront cyber threats.[10]

One of the three inaugural fellows is Samuel Woolley of the Oxford Internet Institute at the University of Oxford, who works with Jigsaw, Google’s think tank.[11] The Center also has joined forces with UC Berkeley’s D-Lab to create the Online Hate Index. In June:

The ADL (the Anti-Defamation League), Moonshot CVE and the Gen Next Foundation…announced a partnership to counter white supremacist and jihadist activity online. The program, dubbed the Redirect Method, will use advertising to redirect individuals who search online for violent extremist material to content that exposes the falsehoods of extremist narratives and directs searchers to non-violent content. This new effort borrows from best practices Moonshot CVE developed with Google for ISIS-related searches, and builds on the previous deployment of the Redirect Method USA – which the RAND Corporation found showed promise – in partnership with the Gen Next Foundation.[12]

Yasmin Green works with the ADL and is the Director of Research and Development for Jigsaw, a unit within Alphabet Inc., and was previously Head of Strategy and Operations for Google Ideas. Green launched the Redirect Method, born out of a partnership in 2016 among Google’s Jigsaw tech incubator, the Google-backed London-based Moonshot start-up, and the U.S.-based Gen Next Foundation. Edward C. Baig reports what the project will look like in practice:

If a person on the fringe, or in some pre-radicalization mode, enters a search query asking, “Is it true that the Mossad took down the World Trade Center?” the counternarrative reflected in a top search result would direct the person to a place that would make it clear that that was just an unfounded conspiracy theory. A search on “I want to join the KKK” could lead to a search result and link that says that “No race should be superior. Make up your own mind. Browse our playlist to find out more.”[13]

Rather rich coming from the self-proclaimed “God’s Chosen People,” don’t you think?

Incidentally, every single Democratic candidate for president who has received funds from Alphabet Inc. has also endorsed the Green New Deal, notable—beyond its infeasibility and general ridiculousness—for its preoccupation with “carbon emissions.” I’ve written numerous times that if carbon emissions were a problem, the solutions are actually rather straightforward: curtail mass migration, focus on localized trade and sustainability and re-structure the economy so productive people don’t have to commute (gulp!), and simply plant more trees! There’s no money in that in the current system, obviously, but it does beg the question: why carbon, especially when fossil fuels produce such massive revenues?

Fossil fuels are a finite resource, and the alternatives so far have been wildly inefficient and sorely lacking. As with the whole “climate change” manufactured hysteria in general, this is about resource consolidation and speculation first and foremost, but there are other key reasons as well, ranging from the propagandistic—fewer white babies to save climate while guilty Western nations must also accept millions of African “climate change refugees”—to the “proprietary.” “Carbon will be the world’s biggest commodity market, and it could become the world’s biggest market overall,” said Louis Redshaw, head of environmental markets at Barclays Capital and former power trader at Enron. The carbon-trading market, masquerading as “environmentalism,” does nothing positive for the environment nor does it even address the “problem” of carbon emissions. From Bank Track:

Carbon trading, especially through banks’ proprietary trading desks, is a way for banks to make money from money, without contributing new capital towards solving climate change.[14]

The term “Green New Deal” was first used by the Jewish Thomas Friedman in January 2007 and the United Nations Environment Program began to promote the concept in 2008. Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, Google, IKEA, Coca-Cola, and GM have publicly backed the “renewable” plank of the Green New Deal. But what are the specifics? They’re sorely lacking. We all know about greenwashing, the term activists developed to describe the corporate practice of claiming that self-serving policies and harmful products are environmentally-friendly. As with “equality,” “inclusion,” and the other plethora of Cultural Bolshevist concepts, most of this rhetoric regarding “sustainability” and the like is a smoke-screen for power and profit, most of which tends to accrue to a certain ethno-religious group and their sycophants. Regarding “greenwashing,” Katharine Schwab writes:

The International Monetary Fund estimates the collective worth of Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft at $3.5 trillion, more than the GDP of the United Kingdom…Google and Apple claim to be completely carbon neutral: Apple says all its facilities are powered entirely by renewable energy, while Google has become the world’s largest buyer of renewable energy to offset its energy costs… A story in Gizmodo in February 2019 revealed how Microsoft, Google, and Amazon are helping to “automate” the climate crisis by providing big oil companies with the technological tools to streamline their operations and help them find even more oil.[15]

Not exactly “sustainable,” but if these major companies are set on a “zero emissions” US economy by 2030, they’ll need a whole lot of solar panels, and that will require a massive energy expenditure. As Jasper Bernes writes:

From space, the Bayan Obo mine in China, where 70 percent of the world’s rare earth minerals are extracted and refined, almost looks like a painting. The paisleys of the radioactive tailings ponds, miles long, concentrate the hidden colors of the earth: mineral aquamarines and ochres of the sort a painter might employ to flatter the rulers of a dying empire…Dotted with “death villages” where crops will not fruit, the region of Inner Mongolia where the Bayan Obo mine is located displays Chernobylesque cancer rates…To meet the demands of the Green New Deal, which proposes to convert the US economy to zero emissions, renewable power by 2030, there will be a lot more of these mines gouged into the crust of the earth. That’s because nearly every renewable energy source depends upon non-renewable and frequently hard-to-access minerals: solar panels use indium, turbines use neodymium, batteries use lithium, and all require kilotons of steel, tin, silver, and copper. The renewable-energy supply chain is a complicated hopscotch around the periodic table and around the world. To make a high-capacity solar panel, one might need copper (atomic number 29) from Chile, indium (49) from Australia, gallium (31) from China, and selenium (34) from Germany. Many of the most efficient, direct-drive wind turbines require a couple pounds of the rare-earth metal neodymium, and there’s 140 pounds of lithium in each Tesla…It takes energy to get those minerals out of the ground, energy to shape them into batteries and photovoltaic solar panels and giant rotors for windmills, energy to dispose of them when they wear out. Mines are worked, primarily, by gas-burning vehicles. The container ships that cross the world’s seas bearing the good freight of renewables burn so much fuel they are responsible for 3 percent of planetary emissions…Mines require a massive outlay of investment up front, and they typically feature low return on investment, except during the sort of commodity boom we can expect a Green New Deal to produce.[16]

Ah, there it is. There will be a commodity boom and there will need to be more cheap labor to manufacture and distribute the commodities. One of the primary goals of the World Economic Forum (WEF) to “combat climate change” is to “prevent labour market exclusion” and “ensure…openness,” meaning no impediments to the movement of labor across international boundaries, which is obviously at odds with lowering humans’ carbon footprint. This will naturally keep labor costs low and destroy social cohesion, which is essential to the maintenance and expansion of neo-liberalism. From the European Union to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), it starts with “intra-regional labor mobility”[17] and ends with mass migrations, particularly from the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa, where the population is expected by some measures to quadruple by the end of the century. 70,000 arrived in Malaysia—Malaysia—alone in 2012: “Malaysia is now a country of asylum for forced migrants originating from Angola, Burundi, Bhutan, Central African Republic, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Algeria, Guinea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Kenya, Kuwait, Rwanda and Senegal.”[18]

Beyond the need for cheap labor, there will need to be more markets beyond just the United States to purchase these products as the United Nations and the complicit globalist establishment hammers us with propaganda about the need for “global solutions in an increasingly global world”—which is precisely the root of the problem.

In terms of catering to these “new markets,” the Omidyar Network has facilitated partnerships between oil companies like Shell looking to diversify with their New Energies division and d.light, a solar energy company launched at Stanford University aimed at opening up the “developing world” market:

Shell’s New Energies business was created in 2016 and focuses on two main areas: new fuels for transport, such as advanced biofuels and hydrogen; and power, which includes low-carbon sources such as wind and solar. Within the power portfolio, Shell is also actively pursuing commercial opportunities to invest in energy access solutions in Africa and Asia. The New Energies business is supported by Shell Ventures B.V., the corporate venture capital arm of Royal Dutch Shell PLC (“Shell”)…Shell Vice President Energy Solutions Brian Davis said, “We are impressed by d.light’s track record in meeting evolving customer needs for access to electricity across both Africa and Asia. Their experienced team has developed efficient sales and distribution channels in these markets and continues to expand their product range. We look forward to supporting d.light to realize its growth ambitions. With this latest investment, Shell takes a step closer to meeting its ambition to provide a reliable electricity supply to 100 million people in the developing world by 2030.”[19]

Blue Haven Initiatives is pursuing a similar strategy. Blue Haven Senior Advisor Chad Larson is the co-founder of M-Kopa, a pay-as-you-go solar company based in Kenya. As an answer to the deep corruption and unreliable electrical grid in Kenya, M-Kopa profits off of selling the panels to the rural poor and extending lines of credit to them in order to afford the attendant kit of batteries, bulbs, et cetera. The kit also includes a SIM card that “can communicate with M-Kopa headquarters in Nairobi. When a customer has made a payment via mobile phone, the SIM card sends a signal to activate the battery, which is powered by the panels.”[20] This inter-connectedness is central to the profit-multiplying effect of these companies, firms, and organizations working in tandem. As Stephan Faris writes:

In 2007 the Kenyan mobile operator Safaricom launched a service called M-Pesa, allowing customers to use a phone to send cash. Originally intended as a way to help microfinance borrowers make and repay loans, M-Pesa was rapidly adopted for everything from salaries to taxi rides, bringing banking to people who were miles from physical bank branches. Today about a third of the Kenyan economy flits across Safaricom’s airwaves, and 82 percent of Kenyan adults have a mobile phone…Slogans hand-painted on concrete buildings hawk the power of the Internet in the service of selling smartphones: “Take Google With You” and “You Are Not on Facebook?”… It was [M-Kopa co-founder Nick] Hughes, when he was an executive at Vodafone—which owns 40 percent of Safaricom—who first came up with the idea that would become M-Pesa. M-Kopa’s director of operations, Pauline Vaughan, was in charge of the mobile-money service during its early years.[21]

As M-Kopa grows its market, it will need more employees, and another senior advisor, Paul Breloff is there as CEO of Shortlist, “a recruiting technology startup transforming how talent meets opportunity in emerging markets…Shortlist is on a mission…source and screen great job-seekers for growing, purposeful companies across India and East Africa.” The market growth is intended to be inter-connected, multi-faceted, and exponential:

“If you take the long-term view and if you treat low-income people as customers…you can change the world,” [co-founder Jesse] Moore says…Once M-Kopa has a customer, it works hard to sell him more products on installment. “Your anchor product is clean energy, and then you build a finance relationship,” Hughes says…M-Kopa also sells Samsung smartphones and offers loans to pay for school fees…The interest M-Kopa charges is high by U.S. or European standards. The cash price of one of its products is about 20 percent less than the installment price. But in the markets where the company’s working—so far, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda—the rates are competitive. Traditional microfinance companies typically charge about 20 percent interest on their loans…In November [2015], M-Kopa received a clear vote of confidence when it completed a $19 million investment round, including $10 million from Generation Investment Management, a fund co-founded by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore that’s also invested in SolarCity, the biggest U.S. rooftop solar installer, and digital thermostat maker Nest Labs.[22] “We think they have the potential of being a multibillion-dollar African success story,” says Colin le Duc, GIM’s head of research. Other investors in the round included Virgin’s Richard Branson and AOL co-founder Steve Case.[23]

Superficially it all sounds great—feel virtuous, make money, and save the planet, but the reality, as is virtually always the case with any ruling-class-hatched scheme, is the opposite: not just grim and ugly, but deadly. Concluding with Jasper Bernes:

The problem with the Green New Deal is that it promises to change everything while keeping everything the same… The appeal is obvious but the combination impossible…The Green New Deal…thinks you can keep capitalism, keep growth, but remove the deleterious consequences. The death villages are here to tell you that you can’t. No roses will bloom on that bush.[24]

Every rose doesn’t even get the chance to have its thorn.


[1] For more on Akin, Gump, et al. see The Way Life Should Be? Vols. XIII, XIV, and XVI.

[2] For more on DLA Piper, see The Way Life Should Be? Vols. XIII and XV.

[3] For more on Raytheon, see The Way Life Should Be? Vols. III, IV, and XIII.

[4] “As the only American Jewish organization solely dedicated to ending poverty and advocating for human rights in the developing world, AJWS partners with Jewish leaders to shape policies that will help people in the developing world… In our current political climate, many U.S. policies have harmful effects on millions of people who live far beyond our national borders. For example, the recent expansion of the ‘Global Gag Rule’—a policy that blocks U.S. federal funding to international organizations that provide abortions or abortion-related services to their patients—is an assault on the human rights of women, girls and LGBTI people.”

[5] https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/techwatch/corinne-weaver/2019/04/09/google-sends-former-soros-funded-employee-white

[6] For more on the Omidyar Network, see The Way Life Should Be? Vol. XVII.

[7] Saper is also a national commissioner for the ADL.

[8] https://www.omidyar.com/news/leading-tech-platforms-and-cyber-experts-join-new-adl-advisory-board-clamp-down-online-hate

[9] “FUNDING AREAS: Arts, Education, Health and Jewish causes…In 1992, Robert founded Belco Oil & Gas Corp., a leading independent producer of domestic oil and gas. Belfer is currently chairman of Belfer Management LLC, a private investment firm. Belfer took a big financial hit a while back, losing somewhere in the neighborhood of $700 million because of shares he held in Enron…Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University also received more than $120,000 from the foundation in the past. The foundation is also passionate about Jewish causes. They’ve given more than $86,000 recently to the American Jewish Committee. Central Synagogue, the UJA Federation of New York and Columbia Barnard Hilel have all received funds from in recent years.” https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/grants-for-scientific-research/2019/10/15/belfer-family-foundation-grants-for-science-research

[10] https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/grants-for-scientific-research/2019/10/15/belfer-family-foundation-grants-for-science-research

[11] “His fellowship project will work to understand how political bots and algorithms have been leveraged to target the Jewish community and use this understanding to find ways to counter this bias.” https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adls-center-for-technology-and-society-announces-first-class-of-belfer-fellows

[12] https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-and-partners-counter-white-supremacists-online-through-google-search

[13] https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/06/24/adl-fighting-kkk-jihadism-by-redirecting-online-searches/1437331001/

[14] Regarding carbon trading, I’ve written more on the subject, which you can read here.

[15] https://www.fastcompany.com/90363968/what-big-tech-has-to-learn-from-the-green-new-deal

[16] https://communemag.com/between-the-devil-and-the-green-new-deal/

[17] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/08/southeast-asia-realising-importance-high-skilled-immigration/

[18] https://www.boell.de/en/2017/08/02/future-forced-migrants-asean

[19] https://www.dlight.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Shell-Press-Release_FINAL-FOR-PUBLICATION.pdf

[20] https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-mkopa-solar-in-africa/

[21] Ibid.

[22] Nest Labs was acquired by Google in January 2014.

[23] https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-mkopa-solar-in-africa/

[24] https://communemag.com/between-the-devil-and-the-green-new-deal/

 

Jeremy’s Jackboots: Even More Jewish Hysteria about Jeremy Corbyn and the British Labour Party

“Gobsmacked” is a good English word that’s gaining ground in America, I’ve read. If it’s not familiar to you, it means “very surprised or otherwise affected,” like someone who has been unexpectedly smacked in the gob, or mouth. I’ve recently been gobsmacked not once but twice by a Scottish journalist called Stephen Daisley.

Corbyn’s a monster, Blair’s a mensch

My first gobsmacking from Daisley came when I read this article by him in the cuckservative Spectator:

A vote for Labour is a vote for anti-semitism

The Labour party (1900 – 2015) is dead. It died the day a majority of members, £3 and otherwise, voted to make their leader a man already plainly drenched in the moral sewage of anti-Semitism. The Labour party (2015 – ) is Corbyn’s party and if the famous centrists are working to preserve any party, it is that one. They might eventually salvage something out of it — Corbynism without Corbyn — but they will remain culpable for his actions until then.

Every vote for Labour is a vote for Corbyn. Every leaflet delivered is a two-fingered salute to British Jews. Every door knocked is a declaration: this is who I am and this is my tribe. You can campaign for Labour and vote for Labour without being an anti-Semite but in doing either you announce that you have reached an accommodation with anti-Semitism. Colluding in the organisation of politics against the Jews is worth it to get the railways renationalised.

The Labour party is going to fail the anti-Semitism test and the country might too. (A vote for Labour is a vote for anti-semitism, The Spectator, 29th October 2019)

As you can see, Daisley thinks that Jeremy Corbyn (often nicknamed Jezza) killed the Labour party by becoming its leader in 2015. Obviously, then, Daisley also thinks that Labour was alive and well under the leadership of Tony Blair. You remember Blair, don’t you? He’s the devious narcissist who lied the UK into a disastrous war in Iraq that killed huge numbers of innocent people and that directly led to the rise of the head-choppers and sex-slavers of Islamic State. Blair also nefariously opened Britain’s borders to migrants not just from Eastern Europe, who undercut the wages of Labour’s traditional supporters in the White working-class, but also from the Third World, who set about raping and sexually enslaving the daughters of those traditional Labour supporters.

Porcine punims

Having left office after these crimes, Blair began piling up a vast fortune (now possibly well north of £100 million) as he was rewarded by the greedy and amoral globalists for whom he had worked so hard as prime minister. Jeremy Corbyn resolutely opposed Blair’s Iraq disaster and is not interested in money or material possessions. Yet it’s Corbyn, not Blair, who’s “drenched” in “moral sewage,” and it’s Corbyn, not Blair, who “killed” the Labour party – according to Stephen Daisley. And this brings me to the second gobsmacking I’ve received from Daisley. I looked for photographs of him and found these:

The porcine punim of Stephen Daisley

The porcine punim again

I have never seen a more porcine and less trustworthy punim (which is Yiddish for “face”). And I doubt I ever will. Daisley looks as though he’s in training to play the role of the giant slug-like villain Jabba the Hutt in a remake of one of those old Star Wars movies. But I’m glad Daisley looks like that, because it means his punim is as repulsive as his ideology. I’m no fan of Jeremy Corbyn, believe me. But clearly he’s a far less immoral person than Tony Blair and has been responsible for far less evil in the world. Corbyn opposes war and the military-industrial complex. Blair supports war and has grown rich by working for the military-industrial complex. Read more

What’s good for the Jews? Stephen Miller.

Editorial comment: This article was originally posted on February 8, 2018. I thought that, since Stephen Miller has now been officially outed as a “White nationalist”  by the SPLC it would be a good time to revisit it.

Young right-leaning Jews don’t have many Jewish figures to look up to.  Illustrious elder scholar and “alt right godfather” Paul Gottfried. Taki columnist and revisionist David Cole Stein.  Brilliant neoreactionary thinker and half-Jew Curtis Yarvin (Mencius Moldbug).

But thankfully we now have Stephen Miller, the 32-year old Trump advisor and immigration hard-liner recently blamed by Democratic senators for scuttling their desired amnesty deal for illegal immigrants. Transparently, the Dems are trying to spoil Trump’s relationship with Miller, as they did with Bannon, by insinuating that Miller is pulling Trump’s strings. Of course it is absurd to suggest that Trump is anything but his own man. But Miller is a crucially important figure in the Trump administration and his influence is, from what I can tell, entirely positive for the interest of Americans concerned with mass immigration and the very tangible threat of Europeans and people of European descent becoming minorities in their own countries.

Jews, and Americans overall, need more Stephen Millers. Brash, unafraid, quick-witted, verbally formidable, and unabashedly “America First,” Miller is a powerful spokesman for economic nationalist positions, anti-globalism, and for preserving this country’s original culture and people against the Democratic scheme to flood it with illegal and legal immigrants whose main gift to America will be their reliable Democratic votes in every future election. Miller is roundly despised by the establishment for his positions and rhetoric. Nancy Pelosi has called Miller a “White supremacist,” while others on the left have compared him to Joseph Goebbels. He’s the only Jew I can think of offhand that the mainstream media actively encourages the country to hate.

But we Jews should be honest: for every mensch like Miller, we have shmucks like  Tim Wise, Noel Ignatiev, Rob Reiner, Charles Schumer, and thousands of other high-profile Jews who seem to hate or fear White Christian Americans and seek to hasten their demise as the ethnic majority of this country. Yes, we Jews have Miller, but we also have the ADL and the SPLC — powerful well-funded groups who conduct witch hunts against anyone who dares speak out against multiculturalism, open-borders, globalist doctrine, or who dares to criticize Jews. Jewish political influence in the US is still overwhelmingly negative, despite the great work of a few good Jews.

As an American (first) and Jew (second) who supports Trump and Trumpism, the European New Right, and anyone concerned with the long-term impacts of mass immigration, I want to see more Jews, particularly younger, Generation Z Jews move to our ideological side. I have tried to explore my own motivations for this. Why do I find myself so far to the Right on the issue of immigration and of protecting European cultures and peoples?   Why do I hope other Jews follow me on this ideological journey?  And there is growing indication they are. Read more

The Way Life Should Be? Vol. XVII (Finale): Get Woke, Shoah Invoke

It’s a sad state of affairs when charity becomes weaponized, but here we are. It certainly wasn’t always this way—it was once an integral part of the old WASP establishment’s noblesse oblige to those less fortunate than they. As Alison Powell, Willa Seldon, and Nidhi Sahni write:

Throughout the 20th century, large US institutional foundations such as the multiple Carnegie foundations, the Ford Foundation, and The Rockefeller Foundation played an outsize role in philanthropy. By virtue of their large share of the philanthropic marketplace, these institutions were able to shape the thinking of policymakers, attract social innovators, and exert influence to bring together the private sector, government, and civil society. As a result, they played a vital role in underwriting social change: They helped to eradicate polio in the United States and then across most of the world; they provided 96 percent of Americans with easy access to free libraries; they helped to reduce smoking in the United States by more than 60 percent; and they promoted a “green revolution” that dramatically increased agricultural production.[1]

Certainly these magnates were not without fault by any stretch of the imagination, and a strong executive such as Teddy Roosevelt proved necessary to rein them in. There’s a lesson in that, an essential one, in that strong and responsible governance on behalf of the people and the environment is an essential counter-point to the all-consuming profit motive.

Our current government hasn’t the spine to curtail the cravenness and grotesque gluttony, the likes of which would’ve made the robber barons blush—for they are bought and sold, for one, and the true power brokers are not of the same Anglo-Saxon stock, for another. We have a government run by financial institutions and corporations for financial institutions and corporations; when it no longer serves its purpose, it will be discarded along with the country itself. As it stands, we have watched America become little more than an economic zone, a gigantic market, its founding stock the target of ultimate erasure through a mixture of malice and greed.

In Revolution from Above, Kerry Bolton extensively documents the bankrolling of feminism, “civil rights,” and other causes that have proven corrosive to the moral foundations of this country by foundations such as the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. As with virtually all of the philanthropic charities established by America’s old financial and industrial magnates, once the original benefactor had died, the foundation was co-opted to be re-fashioned in order to undermine the communities and society it was ostensibly there to help. These foundations are becoming obsolete in the 21st century, however, with the predominance of private equity and the private equity model.

The private equity model has actually been adopted by philanthropies to some degree, but what is far more prevalent is the treatment of philanthropic organizations as investments. Lobbying is such a dirty business and has such negative PR, but charity and philanthropy…well, that’s another story. That’s how big business can couch the importation of a new labor force in humanitarian terms. That’s how big capital and multi-nationals can super-charge their efforts to knock down borders, socially re-engineer entire populations, and even ethnically cleanse those populations proving to be reluctant or troublesome.

The rise of the private equity model is one way in which Jewish capital was able to effectively corral the old WASP establishment; the growth potential of private equity and its relative complexity could rapidly out-strip the resources of the extant American ruling class and first enfold and then subsume them into the burgeoning neo-liberal system. Not that the WASPs were entirely hoodwinked—they had plenty of willing collaborators to do their dirty work in the World Wars, transformative immigration, the erosion of civil liberties, et cetera. In terms of adapting to the new model, Jeffrey C. Walker catalogues:

Over time, larger, more professional private equity businesses emerged, with whom the wealthy families couldn’t compete. Instead, those families began to invest through the new PE funds. The PE industry then began offering funds specializing in particular industries (such as health care, tech, media, industrial, or consumer), geographies (including the United States, Europe, China, and Latin America), and deal sizes. Focused on pursuing higher rates of investment return, these specialized PE funds enjoyed [a] competitive advantage.[2]

Now here’s where things get interesting; returning to Walker:

Like PE funds, these philanthropic funds are focused on specific objectives—for example, the sustainable development goals (SDGs) established by the United Nations. Like PE funds, they are managed by experienced, knowledgeable leaders who can apply the most current knowledge of impactful program design to their investment decisions. And like PE funds, they allow wealthy families to channel their funds to a larger number of organizations than they could reach if they tried to seek out one well-run, effective nonprofit organization at a time.[3]

This is almost surely the primary reason that “social change” has accelerated so rapidly. Speaking at the 2017 Global Steering Group for Impact Investment Summit, Sir Ronald Cohen, an “impact investing innovator and advocate,” believes that the field’s rapid growth will reach a tipping point and “spark a chain reaction in impact creation,” touching investors, big business, foundations, and social organizations.[4] We are witnessing that already. Susan Wolf Ditkoff and Abe Grindle concur: “Many of today’s emerging large-scale philanthropists aspire to…audacious successes… Steady, linear progress isn’t enough; they demand disruptive, catalytic, systemic change—and in short order.” Recalling a number of sentiments discussed in the previous installment, from Bank of New York Mellon Wealth Management’s paper “From Philanthropy to Social Investment” (2018):

Demographic shifts are poised to bring about significant changes in the philanthropic market, and this evolution is being accelerated by the emergence of newer, more dynamic models for giving and changes to the U.S. tax code. It’s imperative for both institutions and the individuals they serve to recognize how these changes will affect their philanthropic endeavors and learn how to navigate them in the most efficient manner possible…The continued evolution of the philanthropic market…will have a profound effect on how we view giving—less as charity, and more as a social investment…As philanthropists come to think of themselves as social investors, non-profits must also redefine themselves as “for-purpose” institutions. This must be more than a rebranding. An effective for-purpose institution must…aid in identifying opportunities across the investment spectrum…A “social investor” will endeavor to compile a portfolio of solutions that draws from both the non- and for-profit worlds…According to the Global Impact Investing Network, measurable investments in impact vehicles reached $228 billion in 2016, equal to 55% of the traditional philanthropic market. These vehicles, which fall under the umbrella of “social finance,” do more than just pursue a positive societal or environmental impact; they also seek to offer a satisfactory financial return…To [younger givers], environmental, social and governance issues are intertwined with financial health and long-term, corporate sustainability.

To some degree, this last point may be a “life imitating art or art imitating life” question, but most likely these “younger givers” have been conditioned to hold this view and are simply reflecting the neo-liberal architecture back at itself. In any case, the ruling class has indeed made “environmental, social, and governance issues…intertwined with financial health and long-term, corporate sustainability.” This is precisely the problem, and it goes way beyond “Woke-washing” brands with the rainbow. It is social and political engineering on a global scale. The ability to “seed” money/investments globally has allowed for a synergistic effect which, provided the present architecture remains unchanged or worse is built upon and expanded, can only amplify the stated aims of globalization. Though Walker obviously believes this is a good thing, look past his glowing language to identify the strategy at play here, a strategy I’ve provided countless examples of regarding Maine in particular over previous pieces:

There are now philanthropic funds that focus on supporting great new ideas from top social and system entrepreneurs. This has been a core strategy of groups such as New Profit, Draper Richards KaplanAshoka, and Echoing Green. New Profit, in particular, has been investing in social change for 20 years, and has supported the growth of nonprofits like Teach for AmericaKipp Schools, and City Year. Much like venture capital funds, philanthropic funds like New Profit install staff members on the boards of the organizations they support, where they spend three to five years adding value through the counsel, management insights, and useful connections they provide.[5]

This is the essential framework of philanthropic capitalism. The vast network of organizations are linked by personnel, history, ideology, and financial aims and ties. The various charities and philanthropies do not view their works as good for its own sake—there is always an ulterior motive, and it always involves an economic component. Creating social disharmony among whites is also good, too. Regarding the former point, consider the Rise Fund’s calculations on social investment; their charity is filtered through an economic lens of GDP and return on investment: “In the malaria world…organizations can measure the return on dollars invested in mosquito bed nets against lowering health costs and increasing a country’s 10-year GDP. The result has been a 15-to-1 payback.” Saving lives is a nice by-product, but those lives translate into more workers and more consumers. As Chris Addy, Maya Chorengel, Mariah Collins, and Michael Etzel explicate:

The partnership between Rise Fund and Bridgespan Group has produced a forward-looking methodology to estimate…whether corporations or institutions can evaluate the projected return on an opportunity. We call our new metric the impact multiple of money (IMM). Once they have identified the target outcomes, social impact investors need to find an “anchor study” that robustly translates those outcomes into economic terms.[6]

As I discussed with Nestlé and SwissContact, this is not about “empowering women” or “marginalized communities,” it’s about training a semi-educated and compliant workforce who will readily buy from the company store. It really is that simple. The role of capital in this process is essential; Capital Impact Partners provides an illustrative example, in their own words (emphases are mine):

Capital Impact Partners has continued to invest in shared prosperity, equity, and inclusion for its communities nationwide. With income inequality, mass incarceration, wealth stripping, and other forms of structural discrimination continuing unabated, breaking barriers to success for underinvested communities has become ever more important. Capital Impact announced…financing and investment efforts…to serve more than 14,500 beneficiaries and create more than 515 permanent and construction-related jobs…Transforming marginalized communities into places of opportunity comes from disrupting structural racism and discrimination in order to expand economic and social justice…Capital Impact also took a leadership role in exploring how financial institutions can be more inclusive of individuals with criminal records…Capital Impact’s…financing…create[s] new educational opportunities and…safe spaces for immigrants to live in communities across the United States.[7]

Specific examples include:

  • In Bridgeport, CT, Great Oaks Charter School is bringing high-quality education to a census tract with a 71 percent poverty rate. Eighty-six percent of the students who will attend the school qualify for free and reduced-price lunch…Capital Impact supported the construction of a 70,000 sq. ft. facility that will become the permanent home of Great Oaks Charter School…The school will scale up from serving 400 students in grades 6-9 to 750 students in grades 6-12, 15 percent of whom are English language learners and 20 percent of whom have disabilities. Great Oaks has…a focus on professional development for local students.
  • Brooklyn Laboratory Charter Schools is creating a high school in Dumbo…The majority of the students are expected to be African American, 85 percent of whom will be eligible for free and reduced-price lunch, and 32 percent of the student population are going to receive special education at the school. Because of its proximity to technology companies in Dumbo, the school curriculum focuses heavily on technology. 
  • Creating schools that intentionally reflect the socioeconomic, racial, and cultural diversity of the communities in which they operate—diverse by design—is a promising practice within education that is showing results. Citizens of the World Charter Schools (CWC) is the first national school network to follow a diverse by design model, creating an environment in which all students thrive no matter their background, precisely because they are integrated. Diversity is a cornerstone of school leadership as well, with minorities making up 60 percent of the leadership team and 40 percent of the board.
  • Tacoma Community House (TCH) in Tacoma, Washington…has seen an increasing number of farmworkers and refugees, resulting in a significant need for social and legal services…TCH is the only center providing comprehensive services to immigrants and refugees in the region. TCH serves immigrants from 105 countries – approximately 4,000 individuals each year. The majority of their clients are of Latino and Asian descent, with the remainder hailing from Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Through partnerships with regional community colleges, businesses, housing providers, local health centers, and government offices, the center provides access to education programs for children and adults and job placement, internships, and training for job seekers. TCH also offers immigration services and advocacy.

Dovetailing with capital and “social justice” are the supports for the architecture of philanthropic capitalism, from the advocacy groups to the law firms. Add to the multitudinous alphabet soup of advocacy organizations the Alliance for Justice (AFJ); Edward Labaton, co-founder and President of the Institute for Law and Economic Policy (ILEP—introduced in Volume V), was honored by the AFJ as its 2015 Champion of Justice; what said “justice” looks like is the usual sentimentalized dreck readers will no doubt be well-familiar with at this point:

Immigration is baked into our DNA as a country. People from all over the world seek refuge and opportunity in America, and how we treat those who are new to our country says a lot about us as humans.

In conjunction with AFJ, a number of organizations co-signed a 2018 letter protesting several judicial appointments of judges who believe a non-Israeli country should have the right to police its borders. Included on the list of co-signing organizations were: the NAACP, Bend the Arc Jewish Action, MoveOn.org, CAIR, Rwandese Community Association of Maine, Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project (ILAP), Maine Business Immigration Coalition, the National Council of Jewish Women, and the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), whose mission is:

To protect and promote the rights and opportunities of low income immigrants and their family members.  NILC staff specialize in immigration law, and the employment and public benefits rights of immigrants. The Center conducts policy analysis and impact litigation and provides publications, technical advice, and trainings to a broad constituency of legal aid agencies, community groups, and pro bono attorneys.

All of this is designed to ensure that the influx of foreigners is not impeded; among their many uses to the neo-liberal order, Third World immigrants are a huge investment opportunity. Mission Investors Exchange says as much: “Venture capitalist investors, philanthropists, and businesses are looking at immigrants and refugees as opportunities for investment.” They then list some of the major players:

  • Nuveen: Nuveen is a private investment manager that recently made an investment in an online-based remittance provider that focuses on channels in sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. The goal is to invest in technology to lower the cost of remittance for migrant populations.
  • NeedsList: NeedsList addresses the need for massive innovation in the humanitarian sector with a marketplace connecting local NGOs with individual and corporate donors.
  • Refugee Investment Network (RIN): The RIN moves private capital from commitment to active investment by sourcing, structuring, and supporting the financing of projects and companies that benefit refugees and host communities. They are creating an investor-centered knowledge hub targeting business opportunities that support refugee self-reliance; building a pipeline of deals that will speed and scale private investment in communities of displaced people; and articulating investor needs to funders, governments, and the development community.
  • Tent Foundation, or The Tent Partnership for Refugees: This foundation was established by Hamdi Ulukaya, founder and CEO of Chobani. The initiative, a partnership of over 80 businesses in over 30 countries, grew out of the Obama Administration’s appeal for the business community to engage more deeply with global refugee crises. In addition to sparking a $500 million investment commitment from George Soros, the appeal built a coalition of businesses expressing measurable commitments. 
  • George Soros and Open Society Foundations: Open Society Foundations founder and chair George Soros announced a pledge to invest up to $500 million in startups, established companies, and other businesses founded by migrants and refugees. The assets will be managed by Open Society Foundation and is in addition to its existing grant and program-related investments of the Foundations.
  • Community Enterprise Development Services (CEDS): A nonprofit lender that provides business startup training and micro loans to immigrant and refugee entrepreneurs, as well as entrepreneurs who face barriers accessing traditional sources of capital.
  • OpenInvest: This financial analysis and investing platform developed an investment screen allowing its customers to invest in the companies helping refugees. The company’s #WithRefugees Impact Investment Screen identified 21 public American companies making significant contributions to refugee survival and welfare.[8]

Mission Investors Exchange is a massive network of community foundations, public charities, private foundations, “impact investors,” law firms, investment advisors, asset managers, consultants, and community development financial institutions (CDFIs). Their aim is “to build an infrastructure that assures the sustainability of impact investing and expands [its] ecosystem.” Partnering or affiliate organizations include: the Boston Foundation, AARP Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, Deutsche Bank, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, the John T. Gorman Foundation, MetLife Foundation, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Silicon Valley Community Foundation, the Prudential Foundation, Nutter McClennan & Fish LLP, Community Development and Investment Group at Northern Trust, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, US Trust—Bank of America Private Wealth Management, Graystone Consulting, the Climate Trust, Bank of the West BNP Paribas Wealth Management, TD Bank, Solomon Hess Capital Management, Maycomb Capital, National Association for Latino Community Asset Builders, Coastal Enterprises, Inc. (CEI), Cornerstone Capital, and the Omidyar Network.

The name Cornerstone Capital should ring a bell from Volume VI. Self-described “Jewish lesbian” founder and CEO Erika Karp penned an op-ed for Forbes in 2012 where she explicitly ties capitalism, globalism, “social justice,” and her ventures to Judaism, opening with a quote from Hillel and using it as a through-line, along with her Jewish identity—two themes which are echoed in another article by Karp from 2016, this time featured on Cornerstone’s own website. She states:

As we once again approach the Jewish High Holidays — “The Days of Awe” — we return to a theme we have touched upon before: the importance of amplifying the voices of progress…“The Days of Awe” could bring lessons to leverage the power of capitalism towards its best and highest purpose…In reflecting on the future of capitalism, we draw from wisdom of the great scholar Hillel…“If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, then when?” These questions posed at around 50 BC are incredibly timely in the context of today’s struggling global economy and threats to our system of capitalism…All the pieces are in place to move forward and leverage the extraordinary power of capitalism on behalf of the entire world. We have everything we need across the broad realms of technology, science, academia, economics, government and finance…There are one thousand asset management firms representing $30 trillion in assets…These firms [are] all signatories of the Principles for Responsible Investment.[9]

The Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) was set in motion by then-United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan.[10] It is an official UN-supported network of global capital, “based on the notion that environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues, such as climate change and human rights, can affect the performance of investment portfolios and should therefore be considered alongside more traditional financial factors if investors are to properly fulfill their fiduciary duty. The six Principles provide a global framework for mainstream investors to consider these ESG issues.”[11] Just two years after Karp’s second piece, the PRI had swollen to almost $90 trillion in assets under management and rising.[12] For perspective, the annual global gross domestic product (GDP) is estimated to be approximately $80 trillion, and the collective global wealth is about $360 trillion. In other words, one-quarter of the entire planet’s wealth is under the control of this particular international network of neo-liberal capitalists who are facilitating resource consolidation and speculation, mass migration into and erasure of white nations, moral and environmental degradation, and Jewish supremacy.

Karp has also been involved with the World Economic Forum (WEF), the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation “strengthened by a strategic partnership framework agreement with the United Nations.” David Wallace-Wells describes its annual summit as “an orgy of plutocratic comity.” Comprised of NGOs, supra-governmental organizations, venture capital firms, multi-national companies and banks, diplomats, academic institutions, and media figures, WEF is essentially the last word in neo-liberal globalism. Partner and affiliated organizations include: Nestlé, Soros Fund Management, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing, Hess, Walmart, Visa, Verizon, Hewlett Packard, Deloitte, ING, Western Union, Tyson Foods, TD Bank, the Rise Fund, Toshiba, Coca-Cola, Silver Lake Partners, Pepsi, Prudential, Pfizer, S&P Global, Nasdaq, Nielsen, the New York Times, Polo Ralph Lauren, Procter & Gamble, NBC, the New York Stock Exchange, Novo Nordisk, Morgan Stanley, Nokia, MasterCard, Allianz, AIG, Alibaba, AT&T, Microsoft, Marriott International, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Goldman Sachs, Adobe, Advantage Partners, African Rainbow Minerals, Merck, Lloyds Banking Group, Kaiser Permanente, Liberty Global, State Grid Corporation of China, Saudi Telecom Group, Johnson & Johnson, Lockheed Martin, JP Morgan, LinkedIn, Hyundai, IBM, Infosys, Guggenheim Partners, Gulf International Bank, Hydro Quebec, Huawei Technologies, HSBC, Google, Facebook, Heineken, General Electric, Hitachi, London-Heathrow Airport, Humana, HP, Ericsson, eBay, Dow, Humana, Emirates Group, Deutsche Bank, European Investment Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Dell, Discovery, Chevron, BP, BBVA, Citi, Cisco, Barclays, Bayer, the American Heart Association, Amazon, Bank of America, BlackRock, the Blackstone Group, Santander, Boeing, Booking.com, Credit Suisse, McKinsey, LUKOIL, PayPal, Thomson Reuters, UPS, Unilever, Anglo American, Investment Corporation of Dubai, Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa, Bank Leumi Le-Israel, Dubai Electricity and Water Authority, Bloomberg, the LEGO Company, Volvo, Anheuser-Busch, Volkswagen, Airbus Defense and Space, AARP, African Development Bank Group, Bain & Company, Expedia, Development Bank of Southern Africa, Iron Mountain, Investec, Ingka Group (includes IKEA), Levi Strauss, the Mayo Clinic, Scotiabank, Royal Dutch Shell, Royal Bank of Scotland, Stanley Black & Decker, Swarovski, African Export-Import Bank, Banco do Brasil, Prudential, Discovery, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, the State Bank of India, and Quest Diagnostics.

The future these entities are planning for us in what WEF calls the Fourth Industrial Revolution / Globalization 4.0 is one of unlimited mobility—ie, the mass movements of cheap labor/consumers and goods in the service of the neo-liberal economy. Ultimately, WEF and its affiliates such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) desire to “maximize…foreign direct investment on the economy, society and the environment” and increase “global economic interdependence.” These are central planks of its E15 Initiative, a partnership between WEF, ICTSD, WTO, UN, OECD, the Center for International Development at Harvard University, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Evian Group, Brussels European and Global Economic Laboratory (BRUEGEL), Chatham House, Climate Strategies, the Global Governance Programme, the European University Institute, the Graduate Institute of Geneva Centre for Trade and Economic Integration, the World Trade Institute, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (named after the first president of Germany’s Weimar Republic),[13] the International Food and Agricultural Trade Policy Council, Peking University National School of Development, the International Institute for Sustainable Development, International Institute for Management Development (IMD) International Business School, Kommerskollegium National Board of Trade (a government agency in Sweden that answers to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs), Southern Voice (a network of over fifty think tanks from the Global South that actively supports the UN’s Agenda 2030), and the governments of Sweden, the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Canada, and Switzerland. Major features of the E15 Initiative include:

  • An emphasis on multi-lateral trade agreements styled after the Trans-Pacific Partnership that undermine national sovereignty and enforce a kind of “trade egalitarianism”
  • An international appeals process to undermine existing bilateral trade agreements
  • The removal of all tariffs by “developed countries” for imports from the Third World; near-removal of all other tariffs
  • “Scale technical assistance from the International Monetary Fund or multilateral development banks to LDC sovereign debt issuers”
  • Increase foreign aid from “developed countries” to the Third World
  • “Mandate within the WTO the disclosure and phased prohibition of fossil fuel subsidies, according special and differential treatment to poorer developing countries”
  • Create a system of global food stamps
  • Emphasize blended finance or hybrid-model capitalism as the preferred method of development
  • “Streamline processes and procedures related to visas and work permits and establish a plurilateral but open ‘innovation zone’…within which skilled researchers and technical personnel would be able to migrate freely for up to ten years”
  • “Establish an Advisory Centre on International Investment Law to level the playing field for developing country governments that lack the legal expertise to defend themselves adequately in disputes, based on the model of the Advisory Centre on WTO Law” (read: standardize all economic systems to neo-liberalism)
  • “Enhance local capacity to conform to global standards”
  • “Develop norms for making regional and plurilateral agreements more inclusive”
  • “Combining improvements in infrastructure, investment climate institutions and workforce skills with openness to foreign direct investment…Emphasize the facilitation rather than restriction of imports and inward foreign investment”
  • Establish a global supply chain
  • Mandate compliance with the Paris Climate Accord
  • Institute export restrictions[14]

Despite using the usual wet cardboard euphemisms such as “sustainability” and “equity,” Karp’s brand of “social impact investing” is not predicated on making a positive impact or anything of the sort—it is about crippling the West and countries like Japan, exploiting the Third World, enforcing globalism, and putting a rainbow paintjob on the contemporary vehicle of Jewish supremacy while generating previously-unfathomable profits for a small coterie of oligarchs. Amy Bennett relates Karp’s rough outline of the Shape of Globalization to Come:

Far from simply catering to progressive individuals looking to “invest their values,” environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors provide critical insight into a company’s viability and long-term economic performance. It’s not ancillary analysis, it’s critical fundamentals. This realization…was a pivotal moment for Erika Karp and a key to success in developing a truly integrated research framework…“Economics is a wonderful way to think about, and put a framework around, social constructs,” says Erika…[Karp] established relationships in different areas of the capital markets—including corporations, non-governmental organizations, regulatory agencies, exchanges, wealth asset managers, investment banks, accountants and others (including the United Nations and the Clinton Global Initiative)… It all involves having a macro capital markets view. Erika notes it’s not about moving millions or even billions, but trillions of dollars towards impact, especially when considering ESG imperatives like climate change, women’s economic empowerment, animal welfare, education, ocean pollution, potable water and increasing broadband access. “To give you a sense, in 2017 maybe $400 billion of venture money was moved towards alternative energy. We need to move $1.5 trillion a year if we’re going to achieve anything like the COP 21 [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change] objectives. And that’s just for alternative energy. If you can’t get the capital markets working and having money flow towards progress, we won’t be able to do it…We don’t think of ESG or impact investing as an asset class. We think it should be completely integral to the investing process.”…Donor advised funds and similar philanthropy-focused investment vehicles are critically important “portals” for wealth management clients to access impact investing, Karp adds. “We are seeing a transformation of traditional philanthropy strategies towards impact investing.”[15]

This transformation is all-encompassing and signals a full integration of disparate modes of investment with philanthropic endeavors and different modes of lobbying. Essentially, traditional notions of public versus private are out the window, with governments themselves part of the investment portfolio, so long as they serve as profitable vehicles and/or useful intermediaries. As it is, funneling huge funds through various philanthropic loopholes pads profits through tax exemptions and amplifies the ability of investors and big capital to influence the political process, as we will see below. The goal, as stated by Cornerstone Capital, is for “partnerships, integration of philanthropy into business strategies, and innovative types of investments, including impact-focused investments, [to] transform the traditional economy.”

The integrative approach promises mutual support and amplified profits, in addition to the financial interests and incentives already present in each sphere. For example, the VOLAGs (refugee re-settlement agencies) have already monetized migration through per-head payouts. For perspective, one of the smallest of these VOLAGs, the Ethiopian Community Development Council (ECDC) and its subsidiaries received almost $21.9 million from federal, state, and local government grants in 2016 according to their own financial report on the condensed consolidated statement of activities. They have also received recent donations from the United Way, IKEA, HSBC Bank USA, the Wells Fargo Foundation, Capital One, BB&T, SunTrust Bank, Whole Foods, TD Bank, Susan G. Komen, Ethiopian Airlines, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, E*Trade, Bed Bath and Beyond, PNC, and Golden & Cohen, LLC. They’ve received Open Society and Tides money in the past as well as microloan funding from Citigroup. Further:

ECDC testified before Congress last year that the Unaccompanied Alien Children crisis could “lead to the demise of the refugee resettlement program as we know it.” This was primarily a funding concern…ECDC provides a wide variety of services to refugees, and is involved in other contractual services as well, for example Small Business Administration microloans for new minority businesses.[16]

The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) does all of this and more, and has gone one step further in profiting off mass migration into the US—HIAS has an agreement under which it collects on loans given out by the International Office of Migration (“IOM”) to refugees. HIAS keeps 25% of the total amounts collected, and recognizes it as migrant loan processing fees and repayments revenue in the accompanying consolidated statements of activities. HIAS’s corporate partners include Airbnb, 3M, Starbucks, Marriott, and Sodexo. Surely there is no vested interest in having cheap labor by these companies. HIAS also received over $21 million from the US State Department in 2016 and over $3 million from the US Department of Health and Human Services.[17]

The VOLAGs are reinforced by the plethora of law firms, advocacy groups, and other charities that either profit directly from their services or indirectly as covert lobbying organizations, fronts or conduits for illicit financial dealings, and/or social engineering vehicles. ILEP is a perfect case-in-point (incidentally, all five of ILEP’s principal figures are Jews, including Portland Mayor Ethan Strimling donor Marc Gross). While this 501(c)(3) generally stays within the lines of symposia on class action lawsuits and the like, its innocuousness camouflages a deeply subversive agenda. Consider that in 2018, ILEP partnered with Loyola University-Chicago for a symposium on consumer protection that featured Barney Frank as its keynote speaker. Yes, that would be the nipples-protruding (very, very disrespectful) Jewish homosexual Barney Frank who:

Accept[ed] as a gift a round trip fight on a luxury jet from S. Donald Sussman of Paloma Partners, a hedge-fund manager who had previously received a $200 million federal bailout as a subsidiary of AIG. As chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank oversaw the dispersion of the bailout funds. Frank reported the cost of the 2009 flight from Maine to the Virgin Islands, estimated to be worth $30,000 each way, to Congress as worth only $1,500…Scandal is nothing new to Barney Frank. The Boston Globe asked him to resign in 1989 after it was revealed that he had fixed parking tickets for a male prostitute who was running a brothel out of his Dupont Circle condominium…While serving on the House Financial Services Committee, Frank consistently supported the expansion of questionable mortgage loans through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while his partner, Herb Moses, was an assistant director of Fannie Mae responsible for relaxing mortgage standards. This policy, of which Frank was a prime mover, led to the largest credit implosion in the history of civilization…Frank, who continued to promote dangerous credit expansionary policies throughout the Bush years, subsequently partnered with Sergio Pombo, who was an employee of the World Bank…Frank consistently reaped campaign money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as from various banks…As chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank inserted a special provision into bailout legislation to grant $12 million in TARP funds for One United Bank, a bank connected to the husband of Rep. Maxine Waters.[18]

I’ve used the adjective “incestuous” to describe the ruling class before, and clearly with good reason.

Let’s consider one example of how an earlier version of the (still evolving/metastasizing) neo-liberal hybrid model was able to manufacture consensus for “gay rights issues,” which would prove the harbinger for the recent push toward “transgender rights” and the normalization of pedophilia and other disturbing trends no healthy society would ever tolerate:

After Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage in 2003, the following year 11 states enacted amendments banning same-sex marriage, often by sweeping vote margins. Eager to put substantial funds behind the fight for marriage equality, major funders led by the Gill Foundation and the Evelyn & Walter Haas, Jr. Fund brought together more than two dozen LGBTQ leaders in 2005 to devise a common strategy. What emerged from this gathering became known as the “road map to victory,” which would create an electoral and public opinion infrastructure capable of winning and maintaining support for same-sex marriage, one state at a time. It identified 100 tangible battlefields that could then be pursued in sequence as part of a coordinated field operation…Funders came together as the Civil Marriage Collaborative to support the road map. The Haas, Jr. Fund itself contributed $39 million. Marriage equality was a classic example of using a big bet to wage an advocacy campaign. Here, the role of philanthropy is to take a risk that no one else will take. Such a big bet can provide the critical infrastructure required for movements: materials, people, transportation, legal services, research, and more. It can also represent a vote of confidence, especially when the odds against progress are high. When the Haas, Jr. Fund made its first contributions in support of marriage equality, momentum seemed to be going in the opposite direction, with more and more states amending their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage. Big investments in advocacy offer leaders the time they need to weather defeats and press forward to create change.[19]

The authors then go on to state that this model is being applied to “gun control,” which I have written about elsewhere (side note: this “philanthropic endeavor” is currently being spearheaded by Michael Bloomberg). Gay marriage was a sustained, coordinated, and well-funded campaign to manufacture an issue, wear the traditional institutions down, and ultimately impose an agenda through a combination of dubious legislation, judicial activism, bureaucratic machinations, executive fiat, media manipulation, academic indoctrination, mass marketing, and social pressure. Susan Wolf Ditkoff and Abe Grindle expand on the methods used to institutionalize the objectionable:

Tim Gill and other philanthropists who support LGBTQ rights demonstrated the importance of setting milestones. In the early 2000s, at the urging of movement leaders including attorney Evan Wolfson,[20] they began devoting considerable resources to the very specific objective of legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. For decades the movement had focused on the broad goal of “advancing LGBTQ rights,” and although that work continued, leaders hoped that a significant push on a concrete winnable milestone would more powerfully advance the larger cause. They further concentrated efforts on a targeted set of states in order to build momentum and lay the public and legal foundations for a national victory…The marriage equality movement struggled to connect with the general public as recently as 2008, even losing a well-funded ballot initiative in left-leaning California. In the aftermath of that and other setbacks, supportive philanthropists financed polling and focus groups to help movement leaders understand how to reframe the core message. The research revealed that many voters perceived the movement as driven primarily by same-sex couples’ desire for the government benefits and rights conferred by marriage—and they did not find that a gripping rationale. This insight was pivotal: The movement refocused its communications strategy on equality of love and commitment, arguing that “love is love”—a message that struck a chord. Victories piled up, culminating in the 2015 Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage throughout the United States.[21]

These 501(c)(3)s serve a vital role in subversion under the guise of charity, among their many other functions, as we’ve seen. Additionally, many of these 501(c)(3)s such as HIAS have diverse investment portfolios that include mutual funds (HIAS also invests in the State of Israel government bonds). As Wesley B. Truitt informs, “A number of mutual funds feature investments that are socially responsible according to criteria advertised by the fund…The Timothy Plan fund avoids investing in companies whose practices are considered contrary to Judeo-Christian principles.” The 501(c)(3)s are often a valuable conduit and/or cover for major profit-making ventures. The ability of the 501(c)(3)s to then invest tax-exempt money in donor-advised funds (DAFs) is one major reason for their increasing popularity among investors. From the Ropes & Gray LLP document, “Beyond the Private Foundation” (March 2018):

With the passage of the Tax Reform Act of 1969, private foundations were required to contend with many new regulatory requirements and restrictions…Subsequent rulings…confirmed the advantages of the DAF model. In 1987, the Internal Revenue Service lost its attempt to deny tax-exempt status to a public charity that existed almost exclusively to maintain DAFs and other donor-recommended charitable projects. Several years later, the Internal Revenue Service granted tax-exempt status to a non-profit organization established to maintain DAFs and affiliated with Fidelity Investments, namely, the Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund. Since then, DAFs have flourished. In 2016, there were reported to be almost 285,000 DAF accounts holding assets worth nearly $85 billion.

Grants from donor-advised funds to charities increased almost 20 percent from 2016 to 2017, with the number of individual donor-advised funds growing a whopping 60.2 percent. Charitable assets increased 27.3 percent. The Standard & Poor’s 500 (S&P Index) rose by 18.4 percent, or over 400 points, in 2017.[22] Scholars have found that the “strongest predictor [of individual giving] is the S&P Index…a 100 point increase in the index is associated with a $1.7 billion increase in charitable deductions.” Roughly 60 percent of the contributions to donor-advised funds are non-cash assets such as publicly traded securities, closely held stock, real estate, and personal property.[23] Donor-advised funds are fast becoming the preferred method of choice for investors, though not the only one. More capital and other assets are also flowing through a variety of linked structures, such as LLCs and 501(c)(4)s in an increasingly inter-connected fashion. Alison Powell, Willa Seldon, and Nidhi Sahni explain:

Living donors are also increasingly willing to forgo the tax benefit of putting funds into a foundation and are embracing alternative legal structures that enable both for-profit investing and nonprofit giving, or giving to political donations and advocacy. These structures include limited-liability companies (LLCs, which allow for greater control of funds and stocks, diversity of investment options, and more privacy than a foundation) and the 501(c)(4) structure (which allows social welfare organizations to participate in political campaigns and lobbying while maintaining their nonprofit status). For example, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the Omidyar Network, and the Emerson Collective (run by Laurene Powell Jobs) have all set up LLCs to allow for advocacy or impact investing. Even a more traditional institution, the Walton Family Foundation, has set up multiple 501(c)(4)s to support its focus areas.[24]

To tie these last few strands together, we must understand that from the destruction of social cohesion in Western countries to the swollen profits, the nexus of capital and control with philanthropy has triggered the exponential acceleration of globalization and is fast becoming the primary vehicle for a negative social and demographic sea change the likes of which we have never seen. The runaway worship of capital coupled with—and enabled by—the Judaization of society has produced these conditions, and only a radical reorientation back toward productive, substantive, sustainable, and ethnocentric values—not those built on speculation and the veneration of the alien and the dysgenic—can counter-act the destruction. One need look no further than Russia in the 1990s compared to Russia today. Imperfect, yes, but vastly improved.

The Jewishness of Karp and company is not incidental, nor is this some kind of novel outlier. The modern concept of DAFs can be traced back to the late nineteenth century, when the first federated charity, the Jewish Federation, was established in Boston. By the mid-1930s, donor-advised funds began to proliferate within the Jewish community and were usually housed at local Community Foundations and Jewish Federations. As previously evidenced, this remains central to the disbursal of funds, which inevitably come with strings attached. These Jewish Community Foundations are massively profitable in their own right, as Alyssa Ochs reports:

The year 2017 was yet another record-breaking year for the Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles (JCFLA) because it gave the highest dollar amount in grants in the funder’s history—$100 million. Back in 2016, the funder gave $81 million, so this was a 23 percent increase. In 2015, the foundation and its donors made $96 million in grants, a 35 percent increase over $71 million the year before…We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: Jewish giving is going strong and getting even stronger by the year. At the end of 2017, the foundation’s total charitable assets under management was $1.25 billion, which is a 14 percent increase from 2016. JCFLA opened 58 new donor advised funds just last year as well. Overall, the Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles manages assets for over 1,300 families…Jewish donors who work through community foundations like this often have a very global perspective and give a lot of money to Israel and Jewish outreach areas in other parts of the world…Another trend that we’ve been noticing lately among Jewish foundations is an increasing willingness to support non-Jewish groups.[25]

We know this from our early investigation of Catholic Charities. There is also the matter of not just outsourced and internalized Jewishness, but the very essence of Judaism forming the back-bone of neo-liberal capital, as evidenced by Erika Karp’s own admission. What we are witnessing is the next stage in Judeo-neo-liberalism’s evolution; from “internationalism” and communism in the first half of the twentieth century—financed primarily by Jewish capitalists such as Olof Aschberg and Jacob Schiff in its early Soviet days and supported well into the 1950s as an extension of Judaism—to Cultural Bolshevism and the dawn of neo-liberalism in its second half, this third act is far more dangerous for its pervasiveness and intrusiveness, and the fact that an induced paralysis of government and consumer at best, an active facilitation of their own destruction at worst, gives the primary drivers carte blanche to act with impunity and steamroll what little resistance they presently encounter.

That said, the neo-liberal globalist system is also incredibly fragile and is largely built on a house of cards. If there’s a silver lining, it’s that the golden gilding of the neo-liberal age is one or two hard shoves away from crashing to pieces. It requires constant maintenance, policing, and expansion to work, and may well collapse under its own weight in the absence of any powerful external force. With a firm grasp of the methods, institutions, actors, and aims in hand, though, the right entity or coalition may well be able to put the shambolic corpse down for good sooner rather than later, and construct a far more fair and natural system. To my mind, the end goal must be to allow for the self-determination of all peoples, respecting the environment and human bio-diversity so that all may have a healthy and happy homeland to call their own.


[1] https://ssir.org/articles/entry/reimagining_institutional_philanthropy

[2] https://ssir.org/articles/entry/attracting_greater_philanthropic_funding_the_private_equity_model

[3] Ibid.

[4] https://hbr.org/2019/01/calculating-the-value-of-impact-investing

[5] https://ssir.org/articles/entry/reimagining_institutional_philanthropy

[6] https://hbr.org/2019/01/calculating-the-value-of-impact-investing

[7] https://www.capitalimpact.org/2018-third-quarter-financing/

[8] https://missioninvestors.org/resources/foundations-and-others-investing-immigrants-migrants-and-refugees

[9] https://cornerstonecapinc.com/hillels-voice/

[10] Yes, this Annan: “Annan’s real legacy was to continue the trend of morphing the secretary-general’s administrative responsibilities into a symbolic role to justify jet-setting across the globe. He continued that in his retirement, flailing hopelessly in Syria (despite his organization’s huge budget), and bankrupting his own Global Humanitarian Forum through gross mismanagement. His son Kojo first used his father’s credentials to make a quick buck, and then took corruption to a new level, as his prominent feature in the Panama Papers.” https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/kofi-annan-represented-all-that-is-wrong-about-the-united-nations

[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_for_Responsible_Investment

[12] https://www.unpri.org/annual-report-2018/how-we-work/the-pri-in-numbers

[13] “The FES was a section of the Social Democratic Education and Culture Organisation, and was banned along with the party itself in 1933 by the Nazis. In 1946, the FES was reinstituted at the founding assembly of the Socialist German Student Federation. In 1954, the FES was restructured into a charitable organisation ‘for the advancement of democratic education.’ This established the FES as an independent, self-contained institute. In addition to education programmes, the FES has also worked in the area of development aid since the 1960s. In this effort, it has supported democracy and freedom movements, for instance in the African National Congress (ANC), and played an important role in overcoming dictatorial regimes in Greece, Spain, and Portugal.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Ebert_Foundation

[14] http://www3.weforum.org/docs/E15/WEF_Full_Report_Strengthening_Global_Trade_Investment_System_21st_Century.pdf

[15] https://real-leaders.com/the-economics-of-sustainable-and-impact-investing/

[16] https://capitalresearch.org/article/refugee-resettlement-the-lucrative-business-of-serving-immigrants/

[17] https://www.hias.org/sites/default/files/hias_inc._12-31-2016_-_sf_fs_-_final_report.pdf

[18] https://www.wnd.com/2010/10/217209/

[19] https://ssir.org/articles/entry/becoming_big_bettable#sidebar1

[20] Jewish

[21] https://hbr.org/2017/09/audacious-philanthropy

[22] https://www.nptrust.org/reports/daf-report/

[23] Ibid.

[24] https://ssir.org/articles/entry/reimagining_institutional_philanthropy

[25] https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2018/9/14/two-jewish-foundation-trends-even-secular-groups-should-know-about

Feeding the Dragon: The Left Want Power and Revenge, Not Equality and Justice

Rights for snakes! Yes, imagine that the Western world is swept by a movement for the liberation of snakes, spiders, scorpions and all other creatures whose naturally gentle and harmless natures have been corrupted by millennia of human bigotry and mistreatment. Tough laws are passed making it an offence to discriminate against these historically oppressed animal groups, which begin to enter buildings, cars and all other human spaces in ever larger numbers.

Mad to the Max

After several decades of this snake, spider and scorpion “uplift,” a conservative writer publishes a book called The Madness of Mandibles in which he ponders why snakes, spiders and scorpions are biting and stinging people more than ever, despite being given all they could ever have wished for. “They’ve been granted equality, so why aren’t they behaving like humans?” the conservative writer asks in bewilderment.

The Madness of Crowds by Douglas Murray

That’s a ridiculous scenario, of course. A conservative writer would never be so stupid. Or would he? I have my doubts, because I’ve based that scenario on a real conservative writer called Douglas Murray, who has just published a book called The Madness of Crowds that seems to be pretty much as stupid as The Madness of Mandibles. Murray’s book was reviewed by the part-Jewish political scientist Eric Kaufman in the Financial Times:

How did our societies become so insane? In The Madness of Crowds, Murray argues that it’s because highly educated people cling to a new religion known variously as “social justice”, “identity politics” or “intersectionality”. Essentially this is the old Marxist faith poured from the class bottle into the race-sex-gender one. Meaning is realised through struggle against those who commit wrongthink.

Identity politics helped reduce prejudice but, having vanquished its foe, began manufacturing phantom enemies. Murray, following the late conservative political theorist Kenneth Minogue, dubs this “St George in retirement” syndrome. Having slain the dragon, he charges off in pursuit of ever-smaller ones and ends by “swinging his sword at thin air, imagining it to contain dragons”. (The Madness of Crowds by Douglas Murray – Slay the dragon, then stop, The Financial Times, 11th October 2019)

As you can see, Kaufman’s review has the subtitle of “Slay the dragon, then stop.” That is Murray’s injunction to the practitioners of “identity politics.” Once they’d slain the dragon of injustice and oppression, they should have stopped their campaigning and become good little liberally democratic boys and girls (and trans-boys, trans-girls, gender-fluids, etc). Read more