California Endowment

A left-leaning grantmaking organization founded in 1996 as a nonprofit public benefit corporation chartered by the State of California. It bills itself as the largest private health foundation in California with three billion dollars in assets. The Endowment promotes a health care-based advocacy message and mission. However, many of its agenda items focus on left-leaning priorities related to immigration, racial justice, school suspensions, and abortion. The Endowment has received multiple awards for its video campaigns promoting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.

In an August 2018 interview, Endowment vice president Tony Iton told the American Public Health Association that Building Healthy Communities had accomplished a number of its objectives. Among the objectives were helping one million low-level felons reclassify their crimes as misdemeanors; reducing school suspensions, especially among minority boys; reducing punishments for defying teachers; and using social media, television, and other media resources to promote illegal immigrants. Iton also favorably cited young anti-gun activists, Black Lives Matter protesters, and same-sex marriage advocates as inspirations for generating groundswell activism among younger people.

The California Endowment’s creation in 1996 came after Blue Cross of California purchased Wellpoint Health Networks. Its legal status means it is barred from engaging in political work and from advocating for specific policy prescriptions. However, it provides grants to governmental, non-profit, and religious entities which support a left-leaning agenda. For example, it does not fund groups which “discriminate on the basis of…gender identity and expression” and sexual orientation, which means that no Catholic group or other entity with traditionalist views on marriage and sexuality would be able to receive funding.

The Endowment funds a variety of California-based and national initiatives to support increased government intervention in health care and race and gender-based social changes. Initiatives the Endowment has funded include health care-related reporting at The Sacramento Bee; a 2019 report by the pro-abortion research group Guttmacher Institute which claimed pro-life laws restricting abortion are “not the main driver” of lower abortion rates; a pregnancy awareness and counseling event hosted by the Endowment which promoted abortion; a California-based national coalition of foundations which created a national activism network focused on race and gender, and alleged structural discrimination against minorities who are gender-confused; and the California Urban Partnership, an advocacy coalition which promotes minority business ownership, denounces the War on Drugs as racist, and provides minority business owners special trainings and financial benefits.

The California Endowment raised $256 million in 2018, spending $242 million and ending the year with almost $3.3 billion in assets.

Its grants went to a variety of organizations, such as:

  • 916 Ink, a Sacramento-based creative writing group. California Endowment provided the group $25,000 for youth writing about health-related issues facing student communities.
  • A New Way of Life Reentry Project received over $225,000 to help formerly incarcerated people get back on their feet, as well as to support a film festival and a gala to promote and support them.
  • $510,000 was given to three regional California American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) chapters.
  • $1.7 million went to the Action Council of Monterey, which funds efforts in Salinas Valley related to race-based activism and social change.
  • $100,000 was given to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute research group.

Almost $570,000 went to InnerCity Struggle, a liberal organization which pushes left-leaning cultural, educational, and voting policies in the Eastside part of Los Angeles.

Leadership

The California Endowment’s board and staff leadership are primarily left-leaning, ethnic-based researchers and activists.

Dr. Shawn Ginwright is the Endowment’s Board chair. He is a professor of Africana Studies at San Francisco State University, a co-founder of an education advocacy group, and a senior research associate at the Cesar Chavez Institute for Public Policy.

Vice-Chair Minerva Carcano is a bishop in the United Methodist Church. She primarily advocates for immigrants and people who identify as LGBT. She also backs companies changing their internal structures to match those preferred by the Human Rights Campaign, the largest and most powerful LGBT-interest advocacy organization.

Robert Ross has been president and CEO of the Endowment since 2000. He previously worked in senior health care roles for San Diego County and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Executive vice president and Endowment counsel Martha Jiminez has served in multiple senior counsel roles and in left-leaning social change organizations such as Fair Trade USA.

Dr. Tony Iton is senior vice president for health communities. He oversees the Building Healthy Communities initiative.

Source: https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/california-endowment/

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:

Omidyar Network

A tax exempt foundation located in Silicon Valley started by billionaire, French-Iranian eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. It funds such leftist organizations as The Clinton Foundation, Politifact, Full Fact, First Look Media, the Democracy Fund, and other left-wing organizations. Pierre and his wife have given nearly $1M to Democratic candidates, causes and campaign committees in recent years, including Hillary, Biden, Obama, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and a host of Democratic political committees. Omidyar is the single largest contributor to the “NeverTrump PAC” and also a major contributor to The Lincoln Project, another anti-Trump GOP group. In 2016, the NeverTrump PAC received $303,550 in money, $250,000 of which came directly from Omidyar.

Omidyar is the principle owner of First Look Media, the parent corporation of The Intercept. While The Intercept has covered important issues in the past, it has been charged with privatizing Edward Snowden’s leaks and promoting regime change efforts in Syria through direct attacks on the democratically-elected government of Bashar Al-Assad. Furthermore, The Intercept possesses a troubling record of outing the identities of those leaking secret government information. In a word, Omidyar has used his influence over The Intercept to stifle dissent while promoting the outlet as a pioneer of “independent” media.

Omidyar also funded the American Economic Liberties Project, led by Sarah Miller, a democrat operative who worked with the 2008 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and had Satanic High Priest John Podesta officiate her wedding when she married Bernie Sanders campaign manager, Faiz Shakir.

The National Voter Registration (NVF) is sponsored by the Democracy Fund, a charitable foundation also created by the eBay founder and far-left activist, or most likely by his handlers. The Omidyar Network has partnered with the Open Society on various projects for a number of years and it has given grants to third parties using the Soros funded Tides Foundation as a “fiscal sponsor.” Tides is one of the largest donors to left-wing causes in the United States.1 One of the other organizations funded by both Soros and Omidyar’s ‘philanthropic’ organizations is Whistleblower Aid, a small nonprofit co-founded by Mark Zaid and the lawyers for the so-called whistleblower that was at the center of the impeachment movement targeting President Trump.

Omidyar is most concerned, however, with ensuring that the US empire maintains corporate and military control over the world’s nations and peoples. He has donated millions to the Clinton Global Initiative responsible for imposing ruthless austerity measures on nations such as Haiti. There is also documented evidence that Omidyar used his philanthropic network to support the “Maidan Revolution” in Ukraine in 2014 which propelled neo-Nazis into state power, much to the pleasure of the IMF. The billionaire eBay mogul has also been a critical supporter of the United States Agency for International Development or USAID. USAID is well-known for its support of “soft power” tactics to promote regime change in nations that do not bow down to U.S. military and corporate power such as Cuba.

It was Omidyar’s section of the ruling class that created the economic and political conditions for Trump. For over thirty years, billionaires such as Omidyar, Steyer, and Buffet have bled workers and poor people dry. Wages and wealth have plummeted for the majority while profits and land holdings have soared for the minority. The only thing that workers and poor people can count on is that the military, police, and surveillance apparatus will grow as people become more desperate and impoverished. Omidyar and the Democratic Party-aligned billionaires have coalesced with as many repressive forces in the ruling class as possible to wage a struggle against Trump. In doing so, they avoid the very real crisis of legitimacy that elected Donald Trump in the first place.

We should steer clear of supporting Omidyar and expose his putrid political record as proof that there is no such thing as a “progressive” billionaire. Real progressives and radicals stand for universal healthcare, peace, jobs, and against war, mass incarceration, and mass surveillance. These are the political issues of our time that the entire ruling class stands against. Trump knew this and politically appealed to anti-regime change and anti-free trade sentiment within the Republican and Democratic Party. Through their “resistance” toward Trump, Omidyar and his ilk have as their real goal the suppression of this sentiment so that it never becomes a truly progressive movement for social transformation in this country.

Sources:

Covenant House

Founded in 1972 by Father Bruce Ritter in NYC, it is the largest privately funded agency in the Americas providing shelter, food, immediate crisis care, and an array of other services to homeless and runaway youth. It consists of a network of 21 sites throughout the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and Central America. According to the former Nebraska senator John DeCamp who authored ‘The Franklin Cover Up‘, the charity has been used to acquire children for the purposes of child abuse: “Covenant House had expanded into Guatemala as a gateway to South America. According to intelligence community sources, the purpose was procurement of children from South America for exploitation in a pedophile ring. The flagship Guatemalan mission of Covenant House was launched by a former business partner of Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza, Roberto Alejos Arzu, who had ties to the CIA, according to the Village Voice of Feb. 20, 1990.”

In 1968, Ritter asked his superior — Cardinal Francis Spellman of the Archdiocese of New York — for permission to take homeless teenagers, boys and girls, into his home in Manhattan. As was noted in Part I of this series, Spellman was accused of pedophilia and ordained known pedophiles while serving as the highest-ranking Catholic priest in the United States. Spellman was also a close associate, client and friend of Roy Cohn, as well as of his law partner Tom Bolan, and Spellman was alleged to have been seen at least one of Cohn’s “blackmail parties.” In addition, Spellman’s nephew, Ned Spellman, worked for Roy Cohn, according to LIFE magazine.

Ritter, like Spellman and other priests who served under Spellman, was eventually accused of having sexual relationships with many of the underaged boys he had taken in, and of spending Covenant House funds on lavish gifts and payments to the vulnerable teenagers he exploited.

One of Ritter’s victims, Darryl Bassile, wrote an open letter to him a year after the priest’s preying on teenage boys was exposed by the press: “You were wrong for inflicting your desires on a 14-year-old . . . I know that someday you will stand before the one who judges all of us and at that time there will be no more denial, just the truth.”

Notably, when Ritter’s activities at Covenant House were exposed in 1989 by the New York Post, Charles M. Sennott, the Post reporter who wrote the story, would later state that “Robert Macauley’s friend Father Bruce Ritter set up Covenant House as a cover for a pedophile ring” and “the secular powers more than the archdiocese or the Franciscans protected him [Ritter].” Sennott’s report was attacked viciously by columnists in other New York media outlets, powerful politicians including then-Governor of New York Mario Cuomo, as well as by Cardinal Spellman’s successor, Cardinal John O’Connor.

The likely reason these “secular powers” came to the aid of the embattled Ritter, who was never charged for having sexual relationships with minors and was merely forced to resign from his post, is that Covenant House and Ritter himself were deeply tied to Robert Macauley, Bush Sr.’s roommate at Yale and a long-time friend of the Bush family. Macauley was described by the New York Times as “instrumental” to Covenant House fundraising after he joined its board in 1985 and brought on several “other wealthy or well-connected people,” including former government officials and investment bankers.

Macauley’s organization, the AmeriCares Foundation, which was later accused of funneling money to the Contras in Central America, was one of the main sources of funding of Covenant House. One of the members of AmeriCares advisory board was William E. Simon, former U.S. secretary of the treasury under the Nixon and Ford administrations, who also ran the Nicaraguan Freedom Fund, which sent aid to the Contras.

AmeriCares was also known to work directly with U.S. intelligence. As the Hartford Courant noted in 1991: “Knowledgeable former federal officials, many with backgrounds in intelligence work, help AmeriCares maneuver in delicate international political environments.

Furthermore, Ritter was known to have visited Macauley’s Connecticut estate and served as Vice President of AmeriCares until he was forced to resign from Covenant House. Notably, George H.W. Bush’s brother, Prescott, was also on the AmeriCares advisory board. After George H.W. Bush died, AmeriCares stated that he had been “instrumental in founding the health-focused relief and development organization.”

Years before Ritter was outed as a pedophile who preyed on the disadvantaged and vulnerable teenagers who sought refuge at his charity, Covenant House was praised heavily by President Ronald Reagan, even earning a mention in his 1984 State of the Union address, which called Ritter one of the country’s “unsung heroes.” From 1985 to 1989, Covenant House’s operating budget grew from $27 million to $90 million and its board came to include powerful individuals including top executives at IBM, Chase Manhattan Bank and Bear Stearns.

It was during this time that Covenant House grew into an international organization, opening branches in several countries, including Canada, Mexico and elsewhere in Central America. Its first branch in Central America was opened in Guatemala and was headed by Roberto Alejos Arzu, a CIA asset whose plantation was used to train the troops used in the CIA’s failed “Bay of Pigs” invasion of Cuba. Alejos Arzu was also an associate of the former U.S.-backed dictator of Nicaragua, Anastasio Somoza, and a member of the Knights of Malta, a Catholic order to which former CIA Director William Casey and Roy Cohn’s law partner Tom Bolan also belonged. Alejos Arzu also worked for AmeriCares and was tied to several Central American paramilitary groups.

Intelligence community sources cited by DeCamp assert that the Alejos Arzu-led branch of Covenant House procured children for a pedophile ring based in the United States. Years later, Mi Casa, another U.S.-run charity in Guatemala that George H.W. Bush had personally toured with his wife Barbara in 1994, was accused of rampant pedophilia and child abuse.

In 1990 it was reported that: The charity called Covenant House gives temporary accommodation to homeless children including teenage prostitutes. Covenant House makes a lot of money for its top staff, but does little for some of the kids.

From Village Voice – Breaking the Faith – Russ Baker:

Revelations of insider loans from an unregistered trust fund to board members and friends of Father Bruce Ritter, including a $131,000 loan to Father Ritter’s sister, Cassie Wallace, have splintered the management of Covenant House and raised doubts about the future of the $85 million charity…

Ritter made friends with many Reagan­/Bush friends, like Peter Grace, the conservative billionaire head of W. R. Grace, William Simon, the former Treasury secretary, and Charles Keating, chief of California’s failed Lincoln Savings and Loan…”

The board people were mostly Republicans, mostly Irish Catholic…

Source: Aangirfan.com

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…