Looking beyond the “ re:, neat, what a great person” faç ade of effective auism, one clearly finds a level of narcissistic cynicism and a drive to the long lasting power that financial immortality affords that is only matched by the amount of funds becoming dispersed.
The gifts offered by today’s billionaires— the Silicon Valley crowd, et al. — sound great (-ish— extremely -ish), but to discounted the obvious underlying reason is to fail to grasp the insidious nature of their beneficence.
In the past, the rich tended to fund things— museums, universities, libraries, parks— when they offered their money away. This stuff were meant to accomplish two goals: to keep the benefactors’ names alive so future generations would “ seem them up” and to generally uplift society. Museums received to the masses not as the monolithic lump, but because discrete individuals who could choose— except for fourth graders on field trips— to take benefit of them or not.
But effective auism eschews such methods, focusing on leads to and organizations— organizations that can be controlled indefinitely by controlling the flow of funds— in an effort to exert current plus future societal control. Signing up for the Silicon Area obsession with physical immortality is now the idea of financial— and therefore sociopolitical— immortality.
The development of philanthropic LLCs to divvy up tech and other zillionaire dollars perpetuates the “ lives” of contributor by allowing them to forever manage politics, policies, and culture. This control also becomes a form of eternal nepotism, because it has the side benefit of actually, really helping donors’ person descendants keep at the middle of power and fund (the “ Smith Initiative” will always hire a Smith and will always have a Jones on its board).
A key aspect of this particular “ mauism” is its ability to extend control through soft-sounding enterprises. How can something with “ open” plus “ democracy” and “ save” in its name— as well as a nonpartisan, nonprofit entity to boot— be anything but great?
As to philanthropic LLCs, they are seemingly the most well-liked way of doing the charity company of our current (and, these people hope, forever) overlords. In a nutshell, they are not traditional charities, yet organizations that can mix for-profit and nonprofit activities beneath the same umbrella. For example , theoretically, by making money investing in x , you can give more money to y .
Even better, you can decide whether to leave your profits in the “ charity, ” enjoy certain (admittedly limited) tax benefits, and— as opposed to regular charities— you don’t need to tell anyone where the money comes from or, more importantly, where it is going.
Better still, you can do something charities really can’t: play politics. Such LLCs are legally entitled to engage in political activities like advocacy, lobbying, and, in the case of Silicon Valley’s own Chan Zuckerberg Effort (CZI) , significantly influence present-day elections (a really big more better).
A guilt-ridden-but-not-THAT-guilt-ridden plutocrat can get helpful advice on how to generate LLCs from many resources, including the California-based Milken Institute (yes, also ironically, THAT Michael Milken). The useful fact sheet notes that will “ (A)n LLC framework provides not only flexibility but also greater integration of various social change efforts to expedite progress. . . LLCs hybridize for-profit and charitable activities, allowing philanthropists to generate financial and social comes back. ” All are advantages greatly tailored to accomplish the goal of building a for-profit charity.
The donors who control where the money goes are usually insulated from any internal or external criticism by their ability to turn off the spigot whenever they wish. In other words, may irk, for example , the Gates Foundation because they are going to end up being around forever, and your grandkid may need a job someday.
The politics of this putative philanthropy are brazened. If one looks at anyone who has taken the Providing Pledge , one sees a list that could easily be mistaken for a list of the particular owners of the private planes that jet to Davos for the annual World Financial Forum (WEF) meeting.
The WEF, it appears, could be called the hub of the numerous rich and important spokes in the wheel that have essentially changed international politics during the past twenty years. From your Great Reset pandemic reaction to emphasizing the growth of the social economy , the influence of the WEF and the people who support this cannot be underestimated. (Note— 10 % of the economy of the Eu is now classified as social economy or the third sector, therefore guess what types of entities, exactly what stakeholders, make up the social economic climate. )
It should also be noted that individual direct campaign donations can also be part of the overall program of sociopolitical power; though in the United States, the 537 people chosen by the public to federal government office are seen as mere speed bumps to be got around or avoided entirely ( hence the particular growth of the regulatory and deep state and their intimate connections to the tech community).
Certain government exclusions are made, though. In the case of the particular sandy nations of the Middle East, the government’s cash is actually theirs. And in the case of poorer leaders, many they have to do is ribbon and bow down to hedge fund plus NGO-driven Environmental, Interpersonal, and Governance (ESG) financial processes such as Sri Lanka did, and then they will get to sit at the large kids’ table.
In fact , the web that weaves from WEF to NGO in order to foundations to media in order to government to consultants to stakeholders to experts towards the financial world to national politics and back to effective auism is both unmistakable and intentional.
Some of the moneyed meddlers do not exactly fit the above mold. George Soros, at least, is extremely up-front about using his cash to buy influence, destroy the American justice system, dodgy the media, and, generally, attempt to bring down Western civilization as we know it. Soros produced his money in finance, which includes his infamous shorting of the pound in 1992 which usually netted him $1 billion dollars in a day or so, even if it came at the expense of the British people— plus here’s his website .
Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) also practiced efficient auism; of course , he achieved it with stolen money, yet he says he meant properly. Bankman-Fried, however , could be seen as an mirror universe of a Soros or a Zuckerberg or Bezos or eBay’s founder Pierre Omidyar or Reed Hastings and his wife, what’s her name, all of whom really began buying global power— sorry, donating to worthy causes— only after they got actually made a ton of real cash.
SBF obviously knew early on that he would definitely need legal, social, political (the amount of money handed over to Democrat/woke causes is enough to create eyes water), and mass media protection at some point. . . and he clearly got it as he is now sitting in his (also very politically/Silicon Valley– connected) parent’s multimillion-dollar home within Palo Alto instead of rotting in a rat infested, nonvegan Bahamian jail. (It’s also clearly why he had been arrested the day before this individual was scheduled to testify in front of Congress— nobody “ on the inside” wanted that to happen, no way no sirree. )
It does not take future that is at the center of this issue. The agencies and people involved talk about impact investing, data-driven giving, and using evidence and reason to plan their permanent programs.
They don’t talk about giving for today— they talk about investing in the future.
Because they don’t think it really is our future. They know it is already theirs.