Post: #1

Interesting article in the New Yorker. I suspect these foundations are largely responsible for the actual stuff that people think of as conspiracies. However, like many things, they are actually out in the open, it's just no one really notices (or doesn't want to notice).

Quote:Ford had recently decided, in fact, that inequality was the problem of the times—more than climate change, for instance, or extremism. The foundation had been accused for years of spreading itself too thin. (The budget for 2015 was five hundred and eighteen million, but it was amazing how fast you could run through half a billion dollars with a world to fix.) So now it was going to do something dramatic: it was going to work on inequality and nothing else. The crucial task, everyone agreed, was to “disrupt the drivers of inequality.” In order to do that, it was necessary to ascertain what those drivers were, so program officers all around the world had been instructed to write reports identifying the chief drivers of inequality in their regions. After those reports were collected, many, many meetings were held in the conference rooms of the New York office.

...

One person wanted to know why they kept talking about “disrupting,” since it was so negative. Negativity in the meetings was rare. There were some disagreements, but on the whole the tone was one of patient encouragement. (“I want to thank you for putting this so clearly, and so well.” “I feel like I heard a number of helpful building blocks.”) It was important to Ford to model, in its way of working, the kind of society it wanted to produce: less unequal, more inclusive—a safe space with enough room for everyone’s questions and problems. It was felt that this was not only intrinsically good but also insured that everyone felt personally invested in the result. On the other hand, the commitment to niceness had a tendency to muffle aggressive criticism. “The culture of overweening politeness in American philanthropy is leading to our ruin,” Albert Ruesga, the president of the Greater New Orleans Foundation, recently fumed to the Chronicle of Philanthropy. “It keeps me from telling you, in the clearest possible terms, that your five-year, $2-million initiative to end homelessness is well-intentioned magical thinking at best and boneheaded ignorance at worst.”

...

All these problems were not so bothersome for development foundations. A development foundation, like Gates or Rockefeller, generally had certain concrete things that it wanted to get done, and these things could often be measured. It might want to drill wells, for instance, or disseminate an improved type of seed; it might want to immunize babies in a given region, or administer deworming medicine. But Ford was not a development foundation: it was a social-justice foundation, and a social-justice foundation was concerned more with amorphous entities such as fairness and exclusion than with material well-being.

It sounds like the whole SJW enterprise is in large part due to the Ford foundation. Other foundations include Gates, Rockefeller, and the Soros stuff. The foundations operate tax-free as far as I know. These do-gooders fund agitators and "disruptors" to mold society according to their whims. Because it is tax free, these grand undemocratic goals are essentially funded by the US tax payer. And their reach is global. Pretty nice racket, huh?

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/0...acfarquhar

Post: #2

Post: #3

I started a thread on this topic here:

Do NOT give money to Charity or an NGO. Their psychological warfare is relentless
/thread-66245.html