');
The Unz Review •�An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Hans Vogel Archive
An Illusion of Philanthropy

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library •�B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search TextCase SensitiveExact WordsInclude Comments
List of Bookmarks

Hans Vogel outlines the historical rise of robber barons and their legacy of influence through modern-day globalist philanthropy, showing how charitable foundations and NGOs, guided by the money-driven mindset of their predecessors, now shape international agendas on issues from climate policy to public health.

When around 1900 the US economy was growing at dizzying rates, a small number of entrepreneurs became extraordinarily successful. That success was measured by a single standard: money. They amassed dazzling amount of dollars. Though none of them was called Scrooge McDuck, they were at least as rich and could swim in coin-filled pools. John Pierpont Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Andrew Carnegie, Henry M. Flagler and dozens of tycoons made fortunes so enormous as had hardly ever been seen before. Their fortunes were made in banking, oil, steel, railroads, cotton, chemicals and other branches of trade and industry. King Croesus was just small fry next to them. They were so amazingly rich, they could do whatever they wanted. They could get away with murder, which some of them actually did, if only indirectly, such as by not providing proper labor conditions for their workers.

Since these entrepreneurs were practically above the law, they were called robber barons, like those noblemen in medieval Europe making a living as highwaymen. The public was also aware of the fact that it is just impossible to make a really big fortune while always remaining strictly within the law.

The robber barons’ criminal behavior at the expense of society, the state and their fellow citizens eventually caused a major public outcry. The so-called muckrakers, a group of journalists (we would call them investigative journalists today) played a key role in informing and enlightening the public. Ida Tarbell, author of the highly influential The History of the Standard Oil Company (1904) was one of these. In 1906, Upton Sinclair published the novel The Jungle, depicting the dreadful labor conditions in the Chicago meat packing business.

As the public became better and more thoroughly informed, and as a result was becoming more indignant, the robber barons sought ways to clean up their act or at least to appear to be doing so. Since money was their only standard and the beginning and end of their worldview, they soon concluded that the best way that could be done was by spending money on “good” causes and to do that very much in the public eye. These good causes included especially health and education. Special charitable foundations were set up to invest in medical research, to build hospitals, and to found universities and public libraries. Johns Hopkins University was founded in 1876, Rice University in Houston in 1912 and in Durham, North Carolina, in 1924 Trinity College was renamed Duke University thanks to the funds provided by the Duke family.

Such charity donations served as a double-edged sword since they enabled the generous givers to decide what kind of research was conducted and who was to benefit. Thus, hospitals had facilities where only the very rich could go for treatment. In the end, charity also served as a kind of perpetual tribute to the generosity and kindness of the robber barons. Thus, lavishly decorated Carnegie Hall (1891) in New York is a lasting monument to the steel king Andrew Carnegie, and so is the Peace Palace in The Hague (1913). For all the publicity about the robber barons’ philanthropy, however, its public benefits turned out to be more limited than the public was led to believe by sycophantic politicians, public officials and the venal press.

The American system in which rich men with de facto criminal records would fill in sometimes sizable gaps left by government policies was exported after the end of World War II. After the end of “real existing socialism” in 1991, the charity framework was rolled out worldwide. New members of the growing chorus of do-gooders continued to come from the US, but also from other countries. At the same time, charitable foundations were often less emphatically connected with the individuals who had amassed their fortunes in the first place, and therefore, many newcomers carried more general-sounding names. Such as the Danish Novo Nordisk Foundation, the world’s richest charity. The second-richest, however, is called the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and is thus obviously connected with one of the most notorious present-day robber barons. The Open Societies Foundations were founded by another robber baron, George Soros, a Hungarian-born convicted criminal.

In addition to the foundations created by rich individuals or dynasties, there are what one might call crowd-funded charities, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Doctors Without Borders that also happen to rely heavily on government funding provided by state agencies and ministries. Nations that one often finds as sponsors of such NGOs include Germany, England, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and Sweden. Therefore, to call the beneficiaries of such funding NGOs is not really correct, because of their heavy reliance precisely on governments. Moreover, these governments are all members of the US Empire.

Most charities and NGOs cooperate within the framework of broader networks, held together at the top by outfits such as the WHO, the WEF and the UN. During general meetings at their headquarters and special venues or luxury resorts such as Davos, goals and directives are established for all to abide by.

What began more than a century ago as a sort of private extension or rather complement to government policies today has morphed into a highly influential structure of NGOs, charities and foundations cooperating closely with global organizations. Most governments are then compelled to cooperate as well, which in practice boils down to following down to the minutest detail the orders given out by the WHO and the WEF. These set the agenda that governments are pressed into adopting and carrying out. Since all charitable foundations and NGOs have adopted the worldview and reasoning of the original American robber barons, it may be said that much of the world is now being run according to the distorted ideas and assumptions of those robber barons. Essentially, all of their ideas are based just on money, but they are doing their best to conceal that ugly fact.

The preferred issues include so-called climate policy in response to what has been identified as anthropogenic “global warming,” public health (notably in response to supposed “pandemics”), as well as things like “gender justice” (a term used by the NGO Oxfam) and “gender equality.” But also mass immigration and the wellbeing of third-world immigrants in Western nations and naturally also what have come to be known as SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) such as identified by Agenda 2030.

None of the above issues have been identified or formulated as a result of traditionally established political processes, namely autonomously within individual states according to locally entrenched norms: whether monarchical, democratic, liberal, autocratic, socialist, republican, fascist, national socialist or some indigenous tradition. Those traditional ways of establishing policy goals are by their very nature non-globalist, but more importantly, they reflect local concerns and are designed to find local solutions for problems affecting local circumstances. Until recently in the EU (before the brutal centralization under the corrupt plagiarist Ursula von der Leyen), this was the principle of subsidiarity: whenever feasible, problems needed to be solved at the lowest possible level, so as not to cause a work overload at the administrative center.

Of the globalist issues, however, none is the result of any normal or traditional decision-making process. One might say the modern-day robber barons and their legions of spineless minions have established the prevailing globalist issues. Absolutely all of them are based on fake science (“global warming”), fake medicine (“pandemics”) and faulty legal reasoning (gender and woke lunacy). Essentially, all of these issues are money-making schemes designed to steal money from the gullible public.

The globalist issues (“problems”) and their solutions have been defined by delusional psychopaths who convinced themselves that they work for the common good, whereas they only have their self-interest, self-enrichment and self-aggrandizement in mind. In other words, they may believe they are doing philanthropic work but in actual fact their policies are delusional and often positively criminal.

This may have to do with the very nature of philanthropy. Doing good just for the sake of doing good may be theoretically possible but to be able to do that, one can hardly be human.

Therefore, those who claim to be doing that are not to be trusted since they have another agenda: Agenda 2030.

(Republished from Arktos Journal by permission of author or representative)
•�Category: Economics, History, Ideology •�Tags: Bill Gates, Charity, Inequality, Wealth
Hide 7�CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. anonymous[139] •�Disclaimer says:

    NGOs are subversive organizations engaged in spying and color revolutions. Amnesty International was taken over and some years back put up billboards lauding US-NATO occupation of Afghanistan, linking it to little girls being able to go to school. Going to Afghanistan, bombing and killing Afghans in their own country was supposed to be beneficial to them. The robber barons listed had labor issues such as dirty and dangerous working conditions, labor violence, workers getting shot and mauled, importing bamboozled immigrant workers from overseas, etc. They had the forces of the state backing them. It’s funny that Gates may still have his ex-wife’s name attached to his foundation since she got rid of him, making vague references to Bill’s involvement with Epstein, taking the money and scooting. Quirky egotist Soros seems to have his fingers in a lot of pies but who knows, some of these billionaires and their NGOs are probably just fronts for the CIA or other government agencies. A country would be safer by banning all NGOs.

    •�Replies: @ivan
  2. anarchyst says:

    In the days of the “robber barons”, the united States of America was largely successful due to the Protestant (lack of) ethics, most builders of industry raking in millions in profits while ignoring the basic needs of those who made their success possible by their hard work. It was common to see these Protestant “captains of industry” do their damnedest to pay their employees as little as possible while raking in massive profits benefiting only themselves. Protestants still consider anyone who cannot be successful as suffering from a moral failing of their own doing, not outside circumstances.
    The Catholic faith requires business owners to pay their workers fairly–not below subsistence wages. There is no comparable demand in Protestantism.
    These Protestant “captains of industry” attempted to redeem themselves by establishing “foundations” (which guarded their wealth, making it tax exempt) and indirectly countering their own Protestant belief that “good works” were not necessary for salvation.
    They always pled poverty to their employees while living grand lives themselves.
    This contributed to the rise of labor unions, which at first, were brutally suppressed.
    There were exceptions, such as Henry Ford, who almost single-handedly created the middle class by paying his employees well above “market wages” of the day. His $5.00 per day wage was not entirely altruistic as it was also instituted to stem “turnover” as assembly line work was monotonous, but his writings have stated that one of his objectives was to make it possible for workers to “enjoy the fruits of their labor”.
    The Protestant Reformation resulted in the legalization of usury, the establishment of the debt based financial system and central banks which has enabled the usurers to accumulate so much wealth and power that they can impose their NWO.
    The Reformation resulted in capitalism, communism, socialism, fascism, two world wars which resulted in the decimation of the European peoples by the jews and WASPS acting as muscle for the bankers, and various genocides and the dystopian difficulties that are a part of modern civilization.

  3. Franz says:

    Why call it the “US Empire” if we have established that only the monies interests are the actors in policy decisions like this?

    For decades the Sierra Club has been hobbled by wealthy donors who will cut off all funds if the organization were ever to push for serious border control.

    Whether politicians or policy is being made, money has the last say, and money knows no border.

    Calling the like of Joe Biden is an insult to guys like Nero and Tiberius. At least for awhile they could make policy.

    Joe? No.

  4. The Bill Gates story is interesting. Lots of clues that he’s tied to Epstein’s “lifestyle”, something Musk and his ex-wife have openly said. Trump has hinted he will release evidence in that case, something the FBI has blatantly and illegally refused to provide the US Senate.

  5. they may believe they are doing philanthropic work

    No they don’t. They believe in investments, not philanthropy. All philantrhopy is geared toward some kind of benefit to the robber baron. Here is a quote about the University of Chicago:

    A solid investment

    Founded in 1890 by the American Baptist Education Society and oil magnate John D. Rockefeller, the University’s land was donated by Marshall Field, owner of the legendary Chicago department store that bore his name. Rockefeller described the donation as “the best investment I ever made.”

    http://www.uchicago.edu/about/history/

    It’s no use going to the link because the bastards at the University of Chicago scrubbed that quote, which I had sent to myself in an email about 10 years ago. What’s the problem in keeping that in their history page, I wonder? Are they trying to hide that quote? Here is the link in the Wayback Machine (while it’s still up, because I think “they” — Trecherous Hebrews, Evil Yids — are going to trash it soon):
    http://web.archive.org/web/20140312182603/http://www.uchicago.edu/about/history/

    Now why was this such a good investment? Well, Rockefeller was well on his way of founding the Chicago School of thought in economics, which basically spread his worldview, which is nothing but a Jew view of the world. The bastard spawned thousands of robber mini-barons, a grotesque spectacle of miniature rockie-fellers who wrecked untold damage upon the world. But Rockefeller did it all sneakily, under the cover of “philanthropy”, which just makes him seem like a crypto-Jew:

    … Rockefeller’s fetish for secrecy: “Men who entered into running agreements with Mr. Rockefeller were cautioned ‘not to tell their wives,’ and correspondence between them and the Standard Oil Company was carried on under assumed names …

    The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty
    By Peter Collier, David Horowitz

  6. A Professor at UC Berkeley CA wrote the book

    Rockfeller’s Medicine Men.

    https://archive.org/details/rockefeller-medicine-men_202105

    about the history of modern medicine, the modern medical school structure, and all the philantrhropic work around it.

    Funny thing is the guy writing it is both very liberal, and supportive, yet he also begins to question whether all this “good work” isn’t actually detrimental to people’s medical freedom and health…

    Someone needs to do a sequel for Fauci/Gates/et alli. This is getting to” cartoonish bond-villain” levels of evil. And these guys were Baptists, not even ((tribesmen)). They did it for the greater good… (so they said).

    [MORE]

    The crisis in today’s health care system is deeply rooted in the interwoven history of modern medicine and corporate capitalism. The major groups and forces that shaped the medical system
    sowed the seeds of the crisis we now face. The medical profession and other medical interest groups each tried to make medicine serve their own narrow economic and social interests. Foundations and other corporate class institutions insisted that medicine serve the needs of “their” corporate capitalist society.

  7. ivan says:
    @anonymous

    Seeing that the Muslim Fundoos were put in place by the Americans through their armed support of the mujahiddung, during Reagan’s time in the 1980s, I would say that Amnesty was making amends for all the propaganda the Pakis and the Arabs and the Muslims and their American sponsors put out against the Soviets who were only helping a modernizing Afghanistan. You had better get a proper handle and most of all stop playing games with chronologies.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


Remember My InformationWhy?
Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Hans Vogel Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The evidence is clear — but often ignored