To note; Bezo's is slated to step down this month. Was this a parting gift to help WaPo or is he slowly losing, or lost, control & oversight of his own paper?
Isn't she exactly in the center of the money-making machine of government, foundations, philantrophy, science and industry together with fraudci?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280624828_The_New_Washington_Consensus_Millennial_Philanthropy_and_the_Making_of_Global_Market_Subjects_with_Matthew_Sparke
"Yet there are also some critically important differences between the earlier era
and the millennial moment. Whereas Carnegie and Rockefeller were interested in
the benefits for capitalism that would follow health and education improvements,
many of the philanthropically funded interventions being developed today create
benefits for business—for big pharma, for education management organizations,
and for a wide range of enterprising consultants and data managers. Moreover,
and more importantly, coming after the many disastrous pro-market policy exper-
iments of the 1980s and 1990s, early 21st century innovations in philanthropy
are characterized by a distinctive pattern of offsetting market failure using market
tools to develop market subjects. ..."
"... Ultimately our attempt at repoliticizing philanthropy returns to the homily of all human lives having equal value. Making this idea real was what Marx and Engels described in terms of socialist struggle; it is what Žižek argues must be maintained asthe “communist hypothesis”, despite all the devastating contradictions of 20th century communist government.When efforts to honor this sentiment are made by some of the world’s wealthiest, it seems particularly germane toask about its contradictions and limitations in the contemporary era. In today’s transitional period these limits and contradictions are those of time, space, and market competition. The sites and programs developed by millennial philanthropy are only sustainable as long as there is grant money to fund them. And notwithstanding the mega-wealth of today’s philanthropists and all the Fortune-style fascination with the billionaires involved, the grant money is actually quite limited in relation to the government budgets it presumes to supplant and/or steer. As a result, all the targeted investments in health and education tend to lead to sporadic and spatially selective interventions that remaindistinctly exclusionary. ..."
Isn't she exactly in the center of the money-making machine of government, foundations, philantrophy, science and industry together with fraudci?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280624828_The_New_Washington_Consensus_Millennial_Philanthropy_and_the_Making_of_Global_Market_Subjects_with_Matthew_Sparke
"Yet there are also some critically important differences between the earlier era
and the millennial moment. Whereas Carnegie and Rockefeller were interested in
the benefits for capitalism that would follow health and education improvements,
many of the philanthropically funded interventions being developed today create
benefits for business—for big pharma, for education management organizations,
and for a wide range of enterprising consultants and data managers. Moreover,
and more importantly, coming after the many disastrous pro-market policy exper-
iments of the 1980s and 1990s, early 21st century innovations in philanthropy
are characterized by a distinctive pattern of offsetting market failure using market
tools to develop market subjects. ..."
"... Ultimately our attempt at repoliticizing philanthropy returns to the homily of all human lives having equal value. Making this idea real was what Marx and Engels described in terms of socialist struggle; it is what Žižek argues must be maintained asthe “communist hypothesis”, despite all the devastating contradictions of 20th century communist government.When efforts to honor this sentiment are made by some of the world’s wealthiest, it seems particularly germane toask about its contradictions and limitations in the contemporary era. In today’s transitional period these limits and contradictions are those of time, space, and market competition. The sites and programs developed by millennial philanthropy are only sustainable as long as there is grant money to fund them. And notwithstanding the mega-wealth of today’s philanthropists and all the Fortune-style fascination with the billionaires involved, the grant money is actually quite limited in relation to the government budgets it presumes to supplant and/or steer. As a result, all the targeted investments in health and education tend to lead to sporadic and spatially selective interventions that remaindistinctly exclusionary. ..."
4 -> remember that weird Gates/Colbert interview where he eluded to this one readying is for the "next one" ?
UFO invasion is coming ? ;)
To note; Bezo's is slated to step down this month. Was this a parting gift to help WaPo or is he slowly losing, or lost, control & oversight of his own paper?
an interesting CV she has: jay rockefeller, mc kinsey, walton family foundation, clinton, obama, john podesta, bill gates
https://ballotpedia.org/Sylvia_Mathews_Burwell
Isn't she exactly in the center of the money-making machine of government, foundations, philantrophy, science and industry together with fraudci?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280624828_The_New_Washington_Consensus_Millennial_Philanthropy_and_the_Making_of_Global_Market_Subjects_with_Matthew_Sparke "Yet there are also some critically important differences between the earlier era and the millennial moment. Whereas Carnegie and Rockefeller were interested in the benefits for capitalism that would follow health and education improvements, many of the philanthropically funded interventions being developed today create benefits for business—for big pharma, for education management organizations, and for a wide range of enterprising consultants and data managers. Moreover, and more importantly, coming after the many disastrous pro-market policy exper- iments of the 1980s and 1990s, early 21st century innovations in philanthropy are characterized by a distinctive pattern of offsetting market failure using market tools to develop market subjects. ..."
"... Ultimately our attempt at repoliticizing philanthropy returns to the homily of all human lives having equal value. Making this idea real was what Marx and Engels described in terms of socialist struggle; it is what Žižek argues must be maintained asthe “communist hypothesis”, despite all the devastating contradictions of 20th century communist government.When efforts to honor this sentiment are made by some of the world’s wealthiest, it seems particularly germane toask about its contradictions and limitations in the contemporary era. In today’s transitional period these limits and contradictions are those of time, space, and market competition. The sites and programs developed by millennial philanthropy are only sustainable as long as there is grant money to fund them. And notwithstanding the mega-wealth of today’s philanthropists and all the Fortune-style fascination with the billionaires involved, the grant money is actually quite limited in relation to the government budgets it presumes to supplant and/or steer. As a result, all the targeted investments in health and education tend to lead to sporadic and spatially selective interventions that remaindistinctly exclusionary. ..."
Page 3: Impact of Rockefeller and B&MG Foundation: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/144147199.pdf
thank you, and I am a lady pede
So, WAPO was the entity that released these emails? Dog and pony show continues...
an interesting CV she has: jay rockefeller, mc kinsey, walton family foundation, clinton, obama, john podesta, bill gates
https://ballotpedia.org/Sylvia_Mathews_Burwell
Isn't she exactly in the center of the money-making machine of government, foundations, philantrophy, science and industry together with fraudci?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280624828_The_New_Washington_Consensus_Millennial_Philanthropy_and_the_Making_of_Global_Market_Subjects_with_Matthew_Sparke "Yet there are also some critically important differences between the earlier era and the millennial moment. Whereas Carnegie and Rockefeller were interested in the benefits for capitalism that would follow health and education improvements, many of the philanthropically funded interventions being developed today create benefits for business—for big pharma, for education management organizations, and for a wide range of enterprising consultants and data managers. Moreover, and more importantly, coming after the many disastrous pro-market policy exper- iments of the 1980s and 1990s, early 21st century innovations in philanthropy are characterized by a distinctive pattern of offsetting market failure using market tools to develop market subjects. ..."
"... Ultimately our attempt at repoliticizing philanthropy returns to the homily of all human lives having equal value. Making this idea real was what Marx and Engels described in terms of socialist struggle; it is what Žižek argues must be maintained asthe “communist hypothesis”, despite all the devastating contradictions of 20th century communist government.When efforts to honor this sentiment are made by some of the world’s wealthiest, it seems particularly germane toask about its contradictions and limitations in the contemporary era. In today’s transitional period these limits and contradictions are those of time, space, and market competition. The sites and programs developed by millennial philanthropy are only sustainable as long as there is grant money to fund them. And notwithstanding the mega-wealth of today’s philanthropists and all the Fortune-style fascination with the billionaires involved, the grant money is actually quite limited in relation to the government budgets it presumes to supplant and/or steer. As a result, all the targeted investments in health and education tend to lead to sporadic and spatially selective interventions that remaindistinctly exclusionary. ..."
Page 3: Impact of Rockefeller and B&MG Foundation: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/144147199.pdf