Tides Foundation

A  San Francisco-based organization which uses a veneer of philanthropy to cloak its real purpose: laundering money to left-wing causes. The Tides Foundation has reportedly received more than $20 million in donations from George Soros’ groups, and Tides shares Soros’ vision for a radical left-wing makeover of Western civilization and the world. Worse, nearly $170 million in tax-payer funded government grants disbursed through its 1996 offshoot sister company, the Tides Center, has passed through this liberal dark money behemoth that houses numerous left-wing groups, tax forms show. Tides has given out money to numerous left-wing groups including ACORN and Project Vote and recently created the Black Lives Matter Support Fund.

Founded by Drummond Pike, a professional political activist who has since retired from the organization, the initial funding for the Tides came from Jane Lehman, heiress to the fortune generated by the Reynolds tobacco conglomerate and an ex-president of the leftist Arca Foundation. The Tides Foundation’s extensive use of donor-advised funds to funnel grants to center-left political nonprofits has led some right-leaning groups to criticize it as a “dark money” group. The Tides Foundation calls itself a “values based infrastructure service for progressive nonprofit work.” Lehman remained chair of the organization’s board of directors until her death in 1988.3

Drummond Pike began his career in political activism in 1970 as associate director for the now-defunct Youth Project in Washington, D.C., a Center for Community Change project formed to give young people with inherited wealth a way to channel donations. Pike pursued a similar model as the basis for the Tides Foundation, using donor-advised funds (DAFs) as a means to incentivize liberal donors to give to Tides since they would play an advisory role in its grantmaking. In 1979, he extended Tides’ operations to include fiscal sponsorship, effectively using Tides’ 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status as an umbrella to incubate new center-left activist nonprofits.

DONOR-ADVISED FUNDS (DAFS)

Since its creation, donor-advised funds (DAFs) have formed the basis of the Tides Foundation’s grantmaking services. DAFs act as a kind of “charitable savings account,” enabling donors to gift tax-deductible funds to the Tides Foundation for the organization to invest and grow in individual accounts. Donors may then designate recipients for the Tides Foundation to make grants to from their accounts. This has the added effect of effectively masking (or “washing”) the original donors, since grants from Tides do not reveal which donor directed the funds and the IRS does not require 501(c)(3) nonprofits such as Tides to disclose its donors.

While DAFs are utilized by a wide array of 501(c)(3) nonprofits, Tides specializes in directing grants to center-left activist groups, making it one of the largest pass-through funders to left-wing nonprofits.  The center-right Washington Examiner has characterized Tides as a “dark money” organization for this practice.

Since its inception in 1976, Tides has “scaled more than 1,400 social ventures, fueled social change in 120+ countries, and mobilized more than $3 billion for impact,” according to its website. The far-reaching network—referred to as the Tides Nexus—is a complex set up of eight nonprofit entities. Each of these entities serves a different purpose—from fiscally sponsoring progressive groups to advocacy efforts—and include the Tides Foundation, Tides Center, Tides Network, Tides Advocacy, Tides Inc., Tides Two Rivers Fund, Tides Canada Foundation, and the Harding Rock Fund.

According to its website, the Tides Foundation has worked with over 15,000 individuals and organizations, including “foundations, donors, corporations, social investors, nonprofit organizations, government institutions, community organizations, activists, [and] social entrepreneurs,” and supported hundreds of nonprofit projects in its quest to “accelerate toward a world of shared prosperity and social justice.”

Democratic donors have pushed large sums to Tides primarily through their own grant-making foundations. Millions have been given from the likes of George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, Ford Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

The Tides Center, which acts as a “fiscal sponsor” to nonprofits by providing its 501(c)(3) tax and legal status. This arrangement lets the groups under its umbrella avoid registering with the IRS. Tax grants went to liberal initiatives housed at the Tides Center over a 17-year span between 2001 and 2018 and have steadily increased over time, according to a review of the center’s tax data. It has acted as an anonymous funding avenue for some of the nation’s most prolific Democratic donors.

The Tides Center is as liberal and politically active as they come; its entire purpose is to create new activist groups,” said Scott Walter, president of the Capital Research Center. Walter noted that the Tides Center’s recipient profile on USASpending.gov, which posts government grants, shows $34 million in federal funding since 2008. The grants were primarily from the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Department of Health and Human Services. While USASpending is meant to inform the public of where government grants are coming from and where they are going, it contains incomplete data. During the period of time in which the website says the Tides Center received $34 million in federal funding, the group’s own tax forms show that it had received $139 million in government grants.1

In addition to the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, the Tides Center also acts as a fiscal sponsor to the Alliance for Safety and Justice, a social justice organization that benefited from $2 million in grants awarded from the National Football League in 2019. It has acted as an incubation house for numerous environmental, anti-free trade, gun-control, and abortion-rights groups.

Oftentimes these groups pass funds among each other. The Tides Center’s 2018 tax forms show that it pushed seven figures over to the Tides Foundation for general support and projects. The Tides Foundation, likewise, pushed millions to both Tides Advocacy and the Tides Center. Hundreds of thousands more went to the Tides Network, the controlling organization of the Tides Center and Tides Foundation. The Tides Foundation itself shelled out $291 million in grants that year, which primarily benefited numerous outside left-wing groups such as America Votes, Center for Community Change, Center for Popular Democracy, Indivisible Project, and Planned Parenthood, among many others.

The Tides setup has also been emulated by other large-scale liberal dark money networks, including those at Arabella Advisors, a D.C.-based consulting company that manages four nonprofits that act as fiscal sponsors to liberal groups and initiatives.

In 2008, it was learned that Dale Rathke had embezzled nearly $1m dollars from the organization ACORN. Drummond Pike, the founder of Tides, made a donation to make the organization whole. The Tides Foundation is setting up and managing an endowment fund for Wikipedia/Wikimedia, and has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to the organization Thousand Currents.2

Dominion Voting Systems shares an office floor with the George Soros-funded left-wing Tides Foundation in Toronto, NATIONAL FILE reported.

The Tides Foundation has been implicated in a scheme of funneling millions of dollars into Canada from American donors to block joint U.S.-Canadian energy projects. During debate over the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline that would transport Canadian oil to U.S. refineries along the Gulf Coast, it was discovered that much of the Canadian anti-Keystone advocacy was being funded by American environmental donors.

Vivian Krause, a blogger from British Columbia, estimated that between 2000 and 2012 American donors poured roughly $300 million into controversial Canadian environmental groups that meddled with domestic politics. When her journalism uncovered the depth of U.S. donor involvement in Canada, the Canadian government withdrew an $8.3 million funding agreement with the Tides Canada Foundation, a Tides affiliate based in Canada which served as a key conduit for U.S. donors to influence Canadian policies.

DONORS TO THE TIDES FOUNDATION

Many of the Tides Foundation’s largest donors are center-left grantmaking foundations. The Tides Foundation also receives regular grants from a number of “commercial” donor-advised fund providers (nonprofits associated with for-profit investment companies), including Vanguard Charitable Endowment ProgramFidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund, and Schwab Charitable Fund. Funds from these DAF providers originate with individual donors or foundations, though they can rarely be traced from the DAF provider to the ultimate grant recipient. Notable grantors between 1998 and 2018 include:

  • Annie E. Casey Foundation: $946,500
  • Arca Foundation: $542,000
  • Bauman Family Foundation: $2,773,787
  • California Endowment: $4,265,828
  • Carnegie Corporation of New York: $823,486
  • David and Lucile Packard Foundation: $492,000
  • Ford Foundation: $26,410,759
  • George Soros’ Foundation to Promote Open Society: $10,259,289
  • George Soros’ Open Society Foundations: $12,130,241
  • Gill Foundation: $3,292,700
  • John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation: $340,986
  • Nick and Leslie Hanauer Foundation: $640,384
  • Oak Foundation USA: $392,754
  • Omidyar Network Fund: $818,000
  • Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: $2,236,350
  • Rockefeller Brothers Fund: $5,373,108
  • Rockefeller Family Fund: $460,914
  • Rockefeller Foundation: $1,661,055
  • Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors: $3,525,000
  • W.K. Kellogg Foundation: $3,131,201
  • Wallace Global Fund II: $8,621,001
  • William and Flora Hewlett Foundation: $8,317,690

Sources:

Tax Exempt Foundations

John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie pioneered the tax exempt Foundations. Many consider these 2 men as great philanthropists, but these foundations were front organizations to fund their globalist New World Order agenda. Today, the George Soros Open Society Foundation, The Clinton Foundation, and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have all joined in on the global funding of the New World Order agenda.

Philanthropy is the essential element in the making of Rockefeller power. It gives the Rockefellers a priceless reputation as public benefactors which the public values so highly that power over public affairs is placed in the Rockefellers’ hands. Philanthropy generates more power than wealth alone can provide.” – Myer Kutz Rockefeller Power (1974)

The hidden influence of tax-exempt foundations and think tanks in the halls of power has dramatically impacted our society, and in turn the world. The Rockefeller dynasty paved the way for eugenics in 20th Century America, heavily influenced the education system, created the medical cartel, and much more. Now Bill Gates’ various philanthropic institutions are impacting the globe, with a new initiative promising to make the next several years the “Decade of vaccines“. These institutions are impacting the globe to such an extent that some have suggested that the large foundations are monopolizing development. The United States has seen a shift of power to individuals who have been called “action intellectuals”. Who’s agenda are they serving? We didn’t elect these individuals, but large foundations are functioning like national governments.

The United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defense has picked up on this trend in its Strategic Trends program. The MoD’s Global Strategic Trends  – Out to 2040 document foresees “…the emergence of a global elite, a powerful network of individuals and institutions that sits above the level of individual states and influences the global agenda…”

Our health, society and future are all impacted by these elites. Who are they? What agenda are they pursuing?

A look back…

The U.S. Congress first investigated the activities of the large foundations in 1915 under the Commission on Industrial Relations. The Commission found that,

“The domination by the men in whose hands the final control of a large part of American industry rests is not limited to their employees, but is being rapidly extended to control the education and social survival of the nation. This control is being extended largely through the creation of enormous privately managed funds for indefinite purposes, hereafter designated “foundations”, by the endowment of colleges and universities, by the creation of funds for the pensioning of teachers, by contributions to private charities, as well as through controlling or influencing the public press…”

Again in 1953 the Reece Committee found that tax-exempt foundations were wielding an unprecedented amount of influence over American society, including the education system. Norman Dodd served as the chief director of research for the Committee. In the monumental interview Dodd outlines what he found (See video above).

Foundations serve another, much less discussed purpose. The wealth of the individuals who own the large foundations is protected from taxation.  The Rockefeller Foundation was conveniently founded in 1913, the same year that the income tax was ratified. John D. Rockefeller Sr. pioneered this art of so called “scientific giving”, and modern day philanthropists have followed in his footsteps. When John D’s public image became tarnished by his notoriously ruthless nature in his business dealings, he hired the PR man named “Poison” Ivy Lee. Lee suggested that Rockefeller begin giving away his wealth, and give it away he did; with strings attached.

Gary Allen explains in The Rockefeller File,

“He [Rockefeller] would “give” money away to foundations under his control and then have those foundations spend the money in ways which brought even more power and profits to the Rockefeller empire. The money “given” away would be bread cast upon the waters. But bread that always had a hook in it. John D. Jr. was to refer to this as the “principle of scientific giving.”

The influence of large foundations on American society is documented by Dr. Lily E. Kay in her book The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of the New Biology. Kay writes, “Their numerous projects and the unprecedented scope of their financial and institutional resources shaped the development of culture and the production of knowledge in the United States. Through education, public opinion, stimulation of specific research agenda, and the promotion of selective categories of knowledge and research, the Foundation played a key role in the creation of a hegemonic bloc…”

At the turn of the 20th century, capitalism’s proclivity for crisis was fomenting rebellion within the U.S. through massive labor strikes, struggles for universal suffrage and relief from poverty as a major depression gripped the nation due to overproduction. In response, the nation’s political and economic elite significantly expanded U.S. pursuits of overseas markets for American goods and investment capital… [rationalizing] U.S. military intervention. These events required the intensification of the social control apparatus of U.S. nationalism – well oiled by its highly effective and profitable role in the conquest of North America – as a means [in part] to deflect attention towards an external “threat.”

To achieve these aims on a more structural level, Prussian inspired common schools established in the 19th century served as the model for the establishment of compulsory secondary education in early 20th century America. According to these altruistic “stewards” of the public good, mass public education needed to be standardized, vocational and efficient as a means to serve their larger “social mission” of preparing students for their future roles in the 20th century industrial workforce. This philanthropic agenda was made explicit in 1914 when the National Education Association passed a resolution that read, in part:

We view with alarm the activity of the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations—agencies not in any way responsible to the people—in their efforts to control the policies of our State educational institutions, to fashion after their conception and to standardize our courses of study, and to surround the institutions with conditions which menace true academic freedom and defeat the primary purpose of democracy as heretofore preserved inviolate in our common schools, normal schools, and universities.

Fast forward to the 1990’s when “venture philanthropy” emerged, shifting the social mission of philanthropy to focus on neoliberal structural adjustment programs, which dictate austerity measures in the service of elite financial investors. Since philanthropic foundations are established and controlled by billionaires whose wealth and power is derived from human exploitation and environmental degradation, this modern pursuit should not come as a surprise. The personal interests of this opulent minority are directly tied to today’s financialized economy as investors and as members of politically influential networks that oversee global financial markets. As such, in the 21st century venture philanthropists have focused their efforts on constructing new financial markets through what is referred to as “mission investing,” “social impact investing,” or just “impact investing.” Impact investing is a continuation of the sixty-year colonizing mission of the IMF, World Bank, World Trade Organization, “Troika” and the United States government; yet with a “friendlier,” but more duplicitous methodology.

Foundations Today

In May of 2009 several top philanthropists met at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, president of Rockefeller University. David Rockefeller Jr, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey were all in attendance. According to the London Times, the meeting was so secret that, “…some of the billionaires’ aides were told they were at ‘security briefings’”. The Times reports, “Over dinner they discussed how they might settle on an “umbrella cause” that could harness their interests.” The Times interviewed a guest at the meeting, who said that the group wanted to meet in secret because they didn’t want their statements ending up in the media, “painting them as an alternative world government.”

A brief overview of the activities of these groups will show that they have been acting as an alternative world government, and that they have been for decades. Through their grant-making power and immense wealth, they can effectively choose which scientific research projects are funded, what education reforms are initiated, and in turn the entire direction of society at large.

In an interview with the Seattle Times, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was asked, “Some say the emergence of super rich philanthropies like the Gates Foundation has undermined the effectiveness of the U.N. and its member organizations, like the WHO.” Moon responded,

“On the contrary that is what we really want — contributions from the business community as well as philanthropies. We need to have political support, but it doesn’t give us all that we need. NGOs and philanthropies and many foundations such as Bill Gates Foundation — they’re taking a very important role…”

In October of 2007, the Global Impact Investing Network was established by the Rockefeller Foundation. The GIIN will “help solve social and environmental problems” by encouraging investment that will bring both profit and produce real world change. The GIIN is taking John D’s “principle of scientific giving” to another level. This conglomerate of various banks and foundations will attempt to mold industry and society by investing in selected social programs and “screening” out investments for Co2 emitters and others deemed to be unworthy.

According to GIIN:

Impact investing challenges the long-held views that social and environmental issues should be addressed only by philanthropic donations, and that market investments should focus exclusively on achieving financial returns.” With that purpose in mind, GIIN’s primary mission is to build “critical market infrastructure and supports activities, education, and research that help accelerate the development of the impact investing field.

GIIN is well positioned to do just that since its membership is comprised of the luminaries of global finance and philanthropic foundations, including (but not limited to): The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Goldman Sachs, J.P.Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Prudential Financial, Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association – College Retirement Equities Fund (TIAA-CREF), Zurich Insurance Group, Ford Foundation, Deutsche Bank, International Finance Corporation, Root Capital, UBS Financial Services and the Inter-American Development Bank Group (long-term IMF/World Bank partner responsible for structural adjustment and austerity throughout Latin America).

As briefly documented earlier, GIIN’s founding member, the Rockefeller Foundation, along with the Rockefeller family, have a dark history of leveraging their wealth and power in the service of U.S hegemony, both domestically and internationally. In line with the legacy of John D. Rockefeller Senior, the Rockefeller Foundation went on to become an influential founding member of the “Washington Consensus” and has since been an aggressive supporter of the IMF and World Bank’s draconian policies and practices. The Rockefeller family and its foundation were also early activists and funders of eugenics based population control efforts in the U.S. and abroad via forced sterilization of “inferior” populations (Black, Brown and disabled people). As Edwin Black documented in his 2003 San Francisco Chronicle article “Eugenics and the Nazis — The California Connection,” “Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune.” According to Black, “the Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.”

Two of GIIN’s other founding members include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

According to Andy Beckett of The Guardian, the Gates Foundation is known for being “top-down, technocratic, applying the language of engineering to social problems.” Beckett goes on to claim how critics of the Gates Foundation and its form of “philanthrocapitalism” loathe how it plays god with its “creations.” Following this model, the Gates foundation is notorious for many nefarious activities across the planet. Accordingly, Andy Beckett of The Guardian went on to report:

In 2007 an extensive investigation by the Los Angeles Times found that the [Gates Foundation] charity, via its trust, invests in ‘companies that contribute to the human suffering in health, housing and social welfare that the foundation is trying to alleviate.’ The [Gates] foundation did not challenge the thrust of the articles, which included allegations that it invested in an oil company responsible for causing health problems by burning off its unwanted gas, in an African country in which the foundation was active in trying to improve the population’s health. But the charity decided after a brief review not to change its investment policy.

A Gates Foundation spokesperson replied to the Los Angeles Times investigation by glibly stating:

The stories you told of people who are suffering touched us all. But it is naive to suggest that an individual stockholder can stop that suffering. Changes in our investment practices would have little or no impact on these issues.

The Gates Foundation is the largest funder of research in genetic engineering on the planet and is one of the world’s major donors to agricultural research and development. In line with GIIN’s objectives, most of the Gates Foundation’s focus in these areas target the continent of Africa. A 2014 report by the biodiversity and small farmer advocacy organization GRAIN found that the Gates Foundation was indeed living up to its colonizing character, with the claim: “The Gates Foundation fights hunger in the South by giving money to the North.” GRAIN went on to report:

… the Gates Foundation is promoting an imported model of industrial agriculture based on the high-tech seeds and chemicals sold by US corporations… the foundation is fixated on the work of scientists in centralised labs and that it chooses to ignore the knowledge and biodiversity that Africa’s small farmers have developed and maintained over generations. Some also charge that the Gates Foundation is using its money to impose a policy agenda on Africa, accusing the foundation of direct intervention on highly controversial issues like seed laws and GMOs.

As reported in The Guardian, GRAIN co-founder Henk Hobbelink revealed, “The bulk of [Gates Foundation] grants for agriculture are given to organisations in the US and Europe” while the “overwhelming majority of its funding goes to hi-tech scientific outfits, not to supporting the solutions that the farmers themselves are developing on the ground. Africa’s farmers are cast as recipients, mere consumers of knowledge and technology from others.” GRAIN went on to report how Gates “also funds initiatives and agribusiness companies operating in Africa to develop private markets for seeds and fertilisers through support to ‘agro-dealers.’”

GIIN’s other co-founder USAID, has a stated mission that “…carries out U.S. foreign policy by promoting broad-scale human progress at the same time it expands stable, free societies, creates markets and trade partners for the United States, and fosters good will abroad.” As documented by Teresa Meade in her book, A History of Modern Latin America: 1800 to The Present, USAID’s practices in promoting “human progress” and “free societies” infamously include undermining popular liberation movements throughout the globe by engaging in torture, murder, spying and paramilitary terrorism campaigns in order to advance U.S. imperial interests. According to Meade USAID public safety officer Dan Mitrione, who trained police throughout Latin America in the art of surveillance and torture in the 1970’s, is known to have stated during his regular lesson plan, “The precise pain, in the precise place, in the precise amount, for the desired effect.”

As documented in a 2010 joint report put out by banking giant JP Morgan and the Rockefeller Foundation titled “Impact Investments: An emerging asset class,” “Increasingly, entrants to the impact investment market believe they need not sacrifice financial return in exchange for social impact.” Under the premise of “doing good while doing well,” this report points out that impact investment attracts a wide variety of investors who invest “across the capital structure, across regions and business sectors, and with a range of impact objectives.” These include diversified financial institutions, pension funds, philanthropic foundations, insurance companies, development finance institutions, specialized financial institutions, fund managers, high net worth individual investors and large-scale family offices (private firms that manage just about everything for the wealthiest families). Impact investments often fall within traditional asset classes – private equity/venture capital, debt, and fixed income securities (mortgage-backed securities, municipal bonds, and business loans).

Generally, most individual and institutional investors are hesitant to take on risks associated with untested “seed” and early-stage ventures, often preferring later-stage ventures; especially in what the Unitas Seed Fund refers to as the “challenging segments of society.” For this reason, according to a 2013 article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review titled “Closing the Pioneer Gap,” venture philanthropy plays a crucial role in closing the so called “pioneer gap” through financing “pioneer firms to develop, validate and establish new business models, and even build entirely new markets.” When summarizing a 2012 Monitor Deloitte report titled “From Blueprint to Scale: The Case for Philanthropy in Impact Investing,” Vinay Nair of the The Guardian wrote, “without philanthropy… many developing-world businesses serving the poor would never have been able to move towards a point of sustainability or scalability… philanthropy-backed capital can step in and help progress enterprises from earlier stages to where they are capable of attracting growth capital and better delivering social outcomes to the poor.” In this report, the authors note how venture philanthropic funding “does not have to be deployed in isolation from investment capital.” Instead they can “‘layer’ grants with capital to create hybrid models that target high-risk situations” or use “grants to deliver much-needed capacity building (or technical assistance) to overcome the inherent disadvantages of the bottom of the wealth pyramid (details to follow) business environment, alongside a return-capital investment model. As the report “From Blueprint to Scale: The Case for Philanthropy in Impact Investing” points out, “even where funding ultimately flows through as a grant to the pioneer firm or a nonprofit, funders could deploy complementary mission investing strategies.”

Mission investing associated with impact investments encompasses program related investments (PRIs) and mission-related investments (MRIs), both of which according to David A. Levitt, a non-profit and former KIPP charter school network attorney, are “characterized by an intention to create positive social impact as well as some level of financial return.” Impact investing allows “non-profit” philanthropic foundations to function as investment banks that utilize a full menu of debt and equity financial instruments. These instruments allow foundations to leverage influence over their investee companies/projects as creditors and/or as investor owners. Both PRI’s and MRI’s are tax-free investments.

According to Mission Investors Exchange, PRIs “are powerful, versatile tools that foundations use to achieve their philanthropic goals alongside traditional grantmaking.” Similar to grants, PRIs make capital available to nonprofit or for-profit companies that are aligned with a foundation’s philanthropic mission. PRIs are loans and equity investments that are designed to have a social impact while generating below market-rate financial returns.

An MRI is not part of a foundation’s formal “charitable” activity and is instead an investment a foundation makes – as a business – within financial markets. It is therefore a financial instrument that foundations can use to further their stated mission, while also bringing a market-rate financial return on a risk-adjusted basis. Since MRIs derive from investment assets (cash, fixed income, public equity, private equity, venture capital, and real estate) and are commercial investments, by law they must maximize investor returns. Private foundations invest billions in private and publicly traded companies and financial markets, but the idea of MRI’s is that “charity” foundations will invest in markets and corporations that are aligned with their legal mission statements.

When contrasting venture philanthropy’s larger mission with their official propagandized mission, these financial investments further reveal their duplicitous character. Accordingly, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation claims to exist “to dramatically improve the quality of life for billions of people.” With that in mind, according to their 2014 tax return, they invested over 40 billion dollars in equities and securities in hundreds of financial markets and companies. Some of these include investments in nations from Canada to Saudi Arabia and Egypt as well as mortgage and student loan financing firms. Others include major corporations such as Comcast, Verizon, Walmart and Dow Chemical as well as major investment banks, including JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Barclays, Bank of America, CitiGroup, Lehman Brothers, Wells Fargo, Bear Stearns and Deutsche Bank.

According to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, their mission “focuses on improving people’s health” and ensuring “that all women and children have the nutrition they need to live healthy and productive lives.” Under this banner, the foundation invests in Coca-Cola, Pepsi, the multitude of highly processed Kraft products; and until very recently, McDonald’s, Burger King, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and KFC. In a 2014 article in Mother Jones titled, “How Bill Gates Is Helping KFC Take Over Africa,” Alex Park reported that USAID and the Gates Foundation fund:

… companies to build what development experts call ‘value chains’—business relationships that link small farmers to sellers of agricultural inputs like fertilizer on one side, and big buyers of corn and soy on the other. Those buyers turn these commodities into feed, and then sell it to large chicken wholesalers who are staking their future growth on supplying KFC’s African expansion.

Continued on next page…

Dulles, John Foster

(Feb 25, 1888 – May 24, 1959) An American lawyer who helped draft the harsh and unreasonable reparations upon Germany in the Treaty of Versailles and continued to create policies that damaged America and progressed his agenda for a socialist world government until his death almost 40 years later while President Eisenhower’s secretary of state. Dulles helped draft the preamble to the UN Charter, served Chairman of the Board for the Carnegie Endowment and a Trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation from 1935 to 1952, a founding member of Foreign Policy Association and Council of Foreign Relations, and . Famed journalist Alan Stang concluded in his book The Actor that “Dulles deliberately did more damage to America while masquerading as a conservative Republican anti-Communist (all for temporary political cover), than Gus Hall [long-time head of the American Communist Party] could have imagined doing.”

Shortly after Adolf Hitler took power in Germany in 1933, some Englishmen were curious about this new political figure in central Europe, asking, “This Hitler fellow, where was he born?” To which Lady Astor replied, “At Versailles.”

By that time, it was widely understood that the harsh peace imposed upon Germany after the First World War with the Treaty of Versailles — with loss of historic German territory; unreasonable reparations; and the hated Article 231, the “war guilt clause” — had given birth to Hitler. Some argue that the “war guilt clause” was perhaps the most onerous provision of the hated treaty. Under its provisions, the Germans were forced to admit that they, and they alone, were responsible for the Great War.

The person who drafted it was a young American lawyer, John Foster Dulles. The clause said, “Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damages to which the Allied and Associated governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies. (Emphasis added.)

It would not be the last time that an action of the then 31-year-old Dulles would lead to “blowback” on his country. In fact, famed journalist Alan Stang concluded in his book The Actor on the career of Dulles — the ultimate “deep stater” — “Dulles deliberately did more damage to America while masquerading as a conservative Republican anti-Communist, than Gus Hall [long-time head of the American Communist Party] could have imagined doing.” Although the term was not in use at the time, John Foster Dulles and his brother Allen were key architects in the construction of what we now refer to as “the deep state” — the permanent state behind the visible government in D.C.

From his negative influence at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, until his death almost 40 years later while President Eisenhower’s secretary of state, Dulles continued to create policies that damaged America. As Eisenhower’s chief foreign policy advisor, his influence was immense. Stephen Kinzer wrote in his book on Dulles and his brother, Allen (director of the CIA), The Brothers, “On some days, Foster spoke personally or by telephone with Eisenhower as many as ten times. At dusk he often visited the White House for a chat over drinks.”

Dulles’ advice to Eisenhower was consistent with the views he held as a young lawyer: He was an ardent globalist (the term more used then was “internationalist”) who believed military intervention was justified to achieve his desired globalist world order. And while Dulles occasionally peppered his résumé with conservative, anti-communist rhetoric, it was, as Stang concluded in The Actor, all for temporary political cover until he could achieve what he and other insiders like him wanted: a world socialist government.

Dulles came to his dogged pursuit of a global government naturally, via family connections and by educational training. His grandfather, John Watson Foster, was secretary of state to President William Henry Harrison. A pillar of the post-Civil War Republican Party, Foster helped direct the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani of Hawaii by its American settlers and supported sending American troops to aid the rebels who declared themselves the new government. The Harrison administration ended before it could act on the new government’s request for annexation (the next president, Grover Cleveland, quickly nixed the idea), but it did lay the foundation of the aggressive interventionism that would characterize Dulles’ career in the 20th century.

His mother’s sister married Robert Lansing, who replaced William Jennings Bryan as President Woodrow Wilson’s secretary of state. Bryan had been pushed aside largely for his opposition to American entrance into the First World War, and replaced by Foster’s Uncle Robert, who added his voice to Wilson’s principal advisor, Colonel Edward M. House, in urging American entry into the European war.

The Rise of John Foster Dulles

When the war ended in 1918, young Dulles was in the American delegation at the Paris Peace Conference. How did this happen? In a word, Dulles had “connections.” When he was just 16, he entered Princeton, where he soon became a protégé of a prominent history professor (and soon, college president), Woodrow Wilson. Dulles idolized Wilson, under whom he learned the virtues of globalism and the ability of government to correct evils — as Wilson and the progressives saw them anyway — of society. Wilson’s interventionist policies as president reinforced the idea that it was the proper role of the United States to intervene in smaller countries, such as Cuba, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua.

After taking his law degree, Dulles’ family connections landed him a job at the prestigious international law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, with such clients as the United Fruit Company, an important player in Latin American politics. Other important clients were J.P. Morgan, Brown Brothers, Standard Oil, and Goldman Sachs. Eventually, Dulles became the managing partner of Sullivan and Cromwell, and was, at one time, the highest-paid lawyer in the United States.

After the war, Dulles had extensive dealings with Germany, including the chemical giant I.G. Farben (responsible for making the infamous Zyklon B gas used in Hitler’s death chambers). He designed the Dawes Plan that helped Germany begin to pay off its oppressive war reparations — ironic, since it was Dulles who had drafted the section of the Versailles Treaty imposing those reparations.

Dulles continued his financial dealings inside Germany after the National Socialists under Adolf Hitler came to power. Dulles’ friend, Hjalmer Schacht, was even named minister of economics in the new regime. As Kinzer writes in The Brothers, “Working with Schacht, Foster [Dulles] helped the National Socialist state find rich sources of financing in the United States for its public agencies, banks, and industries.… Sullivan and Cromwell floated the first American bonds issued by the giant German steelmaker and arms manufacturer Krupp A.G.”

By the mid-1930s, the partners of Sullivan and Cromwell decided they could no longer do business in Nazi Germany. As Kinzer noted, “Since 1933, all letters written from the German offices of Sullivan and Cromwell had ended, as required by German regulations, with the salutation Heil Hitler!” All but Dulles voted to pull out of Hitler’s Germany. Dulles wept at the decision.

Going back to the aftermath of the First World War, Dulles had been an ardent advocate of liberal internationalism. The principle of non-interventionism — which internationalists such as Dulles slurred as “isolationism” — was the enemy. To Wilson and the rest of his globalist delegation, including Dulles, at Paris in 1919, the most important segment of the Treaty of Versailles was that creating the League of Nations. Colonel House wrote the first draft of the Covenant of the League. To promote the idea of the league, intended from the start as the foundation for a world government, House put together a group of sympathizers to inquire into the facts of global affairs, which was dubbed “the Inquiry.”

The membership of the Inquiry included Norman Thomas, a leader of the American Socialist Party. Another member was Dulles’ good friend, Walter Lippmann, a founding member of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society. Two other members in the small, select group were John Foster Dulles and his brother, Allen.

Dulles Among Founders of the Globalist CFR

When Wilson failed (twice) to win ratification of the Treaty of Versailles, largely because the U.S. Senate was not yet prepared to merge the United States into a global government, the Inquiry became the core group of the world-government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), founded in 1921. (The British had their own associated group, the Royal Institute of International Affairs.) As Kinzer explains in The Brothers, the defeat of the League of Nations “showed the Dulles brothers and others on Wall Street that internationalism had potent enemies. To resist those enemies, and to work toward a world that would welcome American corporate and political power, the brothers and a handful of their friends had decided to create an invitation-only club, based in New York, where the worldly elite could meet, talk, and plan.”

Source: This article appears in the March 5, 2018, issue of The New American. To download the issue and continue reading this story, or to subscribe, click here.

Chronological History of Events Involving John Foster Dulles

The House Banking Committee Staff Report on Corporate and Banking Influence Reveals Connection Between Rothschild and Federal Reserve Cartel Banks

The House Banking Committee Staff Report on Corporate and Banking Influence Reveals Connection Between Rothschild and Federal Reserve Cartel Banks

Aug 1976 - House Banking Committee Staff Report on Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence: Reveals the linear connection between the Rothschilds and the Bank of England, and the London banking houses which ultimately control the Federal Reserve Banks through their stockholdings of bank stock and their subsidiary firms in New York. The two principal Rothschild representatives in New York, J. P ...
Read More
The 'Pentagon Papers' by Daniel Ellsberg was a CIA Psyop to Divert Attention from the Phoenix Program and Probes into Their Drug Smuggling

The ‘Pentagon Papers’ by Daniel Ellsberg was a CIA Psyop to Divert Attention from the Phoenix Program and Probes into Their Drug Smuggling

Official narrative: In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg, a leading Vietnam war strategist, concludes that America’s role in the war is based on decades of lies. He leaks 7,000 pages of top-secret documents to the New York Times, a daring act of conscience that leads directly to Watergate, President Nixon’s resignation and the end of the Vietnam War. Ellsberg and a who’s-who of Vietnam-era movers and shakers give ...
Read More
Dr. Carroll Quigley Publishes 'Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time"

Dr. Carroll Quigley Publishes ‘Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time”

Carroll Quigley was an insider according to his own words: "I have studied it (secret international network) for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments ...
Read More
The Vietnam War Begins (Unofficially), but Why Would America get Involved in this Needless War?

The Vietnam War Begins (Unofficially), but Why Would America get Involved in this Needless War?

The media depicted the war as a “quagmire” begun by “right-wing hawks” who wanted to stop the spread of communism.  They said the war was “unwinnable,” dragged out because the “hawks” were too proud to pull our troops out, our military having underestimated the determination of Ho Chi Minh’s forces. Here’s what the media omitted: The roots of the Vietnam disaster trace to World War II ...
Read More
After the Japanese had Already Agreed to Surrender, the USA Drops an Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and the Famously Christian City of Nagasaki Three Days Later.

After the Japanese had Already Agreed to Surrender, the USA Drops an Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and the Famously Christian City of Nagasaki Three Days Later.

The U.S. government long claimed it dropped A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because only this would convince Japan to end the Second World War, and that it “spared millions of lives” which allegedly would have been lost had America been forced to invade the islands. I’ve (James Perloff) known this was a lie ever since reading Dr. Anthony Kubek’s 1963 classic 'How the Far East Was ...
Read More

Walsh Committee

It was created to review industrial relations and scrutinize US labor laws, studying work conditions throughout the industrial U.S. between 1913 and 1915, and tax-exempt foundations were also examined. The final report of the Commission, published in eleven volumes in 1916, contain tens of thousands of pages of testimony from a wide range of witnesses. Partial findings were that, “the lives of millions of wage earners are subject to the dictation of a relatively small number of men… The concentration of ownership and control is greatest in the basic industries upon which the welfare of the country must finally rest. This control is being extended largely through the creation of enormous privately managed funds for indefinite purposes, herein-after designated “foundations,” by the endowment of colleges and universities, by the creation of funds for the pensioning of teachers, by contributions to private charities, as well as through controlling or influencing the public press (namely, the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations). The following was revealed: “A number of witnesses testified that colleges had surrendered their religious identifications in order to comply with foundation requirements to receive grants…“  Continue Reading…

Carnegie Foundation

Incorporated in 1911 as the Carnegie Corporation by Andrew Carnegie and Elihu Root, Secretary of War under McKinley and Secretary of Interior under Theodore Roosevelt, [and] lawyer for J.P. Morgan. Root took charge of the Carnegie fortune for the program of the World Order. Although the name of Andrew Carnegie looms large on the roster of American foundations, for many years the five Carnegie foundations were mere appendages of the Rockefeller Foundation. Carnegie sold his steel interests to J.P. Morgan and the Rothschilds for into the billions, but was not permitted to walk away with the money. Like Cecil Rhodes, Rockefeller, and others, he was directed to put it into foundations which would carry out the globalist agenda.1

U.S. Army Sponsored Artificial Intelligence Surveillance System Attempts to Predict The Future - 'Minority Report' Style

U.S. Army Sponsored Artificial Intelligence Surveillance System Attempts to Predict The Future – ‘Minority Report’ Style

In something that looks straight out of the CBS show "Person of Interest", the science website Phsy.org is reporting on a potentially important breakthrough from researchers at Carnegie Mellon. In research sponsored by the United States Army Research Laboratory, the Carnegie Mellon researchers presented an artificial intelligence system that can watch and predict what a person will 'likely' do in the future using specially programmed software designed to ...
Read More
Final Version of Common Core Standards Unveiled: The Latest Dumb-Down Agenda by the Illuminati

Final Version of Common Core Standards Unveiled: The Latest Dumb-Down Agenda by the Illuminati

The Final Version of Common Core Standards Unveiled on June 2, 2010. The latest dumb down agenda funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, drafted by lobbyist and businessmen, was never voted on by Congress, state or local governments, or the department of education, but passed in 49 States bribed with billions in funding. States who rejected the Orwellian standards were refused millions in funding ...
Read More
Deep State Puppets Sponsor the 3rd CPSR Cryptography and Privacy Conference with Objective: "to require that telecom... redesign their systems to facilitate wiretapping."

Deep State Puppets Sponsor the 3rd CPSR Cryptography and Privacy Conference with Objective: “to require that telecom… redesign their systems to facilitate wiretapping.”

Clinton, Bush, Obama consiglieri James P. Chandler III and Chief of Staff John D. Podesta, via the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, sponsored the "Third CPSR Cryptography and Privacy Conference" to gather intelligence with the objective: "to require that telecommunications manufacturers and service providers redesign their systems to facilitate wiretapping." This laid the foundation of Obama's eventual ICANN give away TREASON (Oct. 01, 2016) & NSA ...
Read More
Dr. Carroll Quigley Publishes 'Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time"

Dr. Carroll Quigley Publishes ‘Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time”

Carroll Quigley was an insider according to his own words: "I have studied it (secret international network) for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments ...
Read More
John O'Donnell on the Education System: "It is Simply to Reduce as Many Individuals as Possible to the Same Safe Level, to Breed and Train a Standardized Citizenry"

John O’Donnell on the Education System: “It is Simply to Reduce as Many Individuals as Possible to the Same Safe Level, to Breed and Train a Standardized Citizenry”

John O’Donnell, “Capitol Stuff,” From an article in the Daily News, May 12, 1954: The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States, whatever the pretensions of politicians, pedagogues, ...
Read More
Reece Committee: A Congressional Investigation of Major Tax-Exempt Foundations and Their Efforts to Socially Engineer America Towards World Government

Reece Committee: A Congressional Investigation of Major Tax-Exempt Foundations and Their Efforts to Socially Engineer America Towards World Government

The Reece Committee was formed on November 1, 1953 and the final report released 6 months later after efforts by some democrats to frustrate and end the investigation were somewhat successful. The Reece Committee was a Congressional investigation of major tax-exempt foundations linked to the international money cartel and centered on the Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie, and Guggenheim foundations. The committee was unable to attract any attention ...
Read More
The Council on Foreign Relations is Established

The Council on Foreign Relations is Established

The Council on Foreign Relations Handbook of 1936 provides the following details concerning the organization's establishment:  "On May 30, 1919, several leading members of the delegations to the Paris Peace Conference met at the Hotel Majestic in Paris to discuss setting up an international group which would advise their respective governments on international affairs.  It was decided at this meeting to call the proposed organization the ...
Read More
Senator Poindexter: "The Cult of Rockefeller, Carnegie…to be guarded against in the educational system of this country!"

Senator Poindexter: “The Cult of Rockefeller, Carnegie…to be guarded against in the educational system of this country!”

During the crucial years of the school changeover from academic institution to behavioral modification instrument, the radical nature of the metamorphosis caught the attention of a few national politicians who spoke out, but could never muster enough strength for effective opposition. In the Congressional Record of January 26, 1917, for instance, Senator Chamberlain of Oregon entered these words: They are moving with military precision all along ...
Read More
Nicholas Murray Butler: "The old world order died with the setting of that day’s sun and a new world order is being born while I speak..."

Nicholas Murray Butler: “The old world order died with the setting of that day’s sun and a new world order is being born while I speak…”

American philosopher, diplomat, and educator, Nicholas Murray Butler, in an address delivered before the Union League of Philadelphia said, "The old world order changed when this war-storm broke. The old international order passed away as suddenly, as unexpectedly, and as completely as if it had been wiped out by a gigantic flood, by a great tempest, or by a volcanic eruption. The old world order died with the ...
Read More
NEA Annual Mtg: "the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations... control the policies,... menace true academic freedom and defeat the primary purpose of democracy..."

NEA Annual Mtg: “the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations… control the policies,… menace true academic freedom and defeat the primary purpose of democracy…”

The philanthropic agenda of the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations was made explicit in 1914 when the National Education Association passed a resolution at its annual meeting from July 4-11 in St. Paul, Minnesota. An excerpt follows: We view with alarm the activity of the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations—agencies not in any way responsible to the people—in their efforts to control the policies of our State educational ...
Read More