Catherine Austin Fitts promotes the Solari investment model which aligns financial wealth and natural wealth and encourages diversified ownership and creation of wealth. She is uncomfortable with the use of philanthropy as part of a comprehensive strategy of financial warfare to centralize and consolidate ownership and control of global resources. As a weapon of centralization, philanthropy has been used to cleanse dirty money and promote the brand of numerous individuals and organizations engaged in a wide variety of covert and criminal enterprises. Philanthropy has been used to encourage people most interested in solutions to embrace not-for-profit models that are financially dependent on large governments and corporations. By doing so, the practice of philanthropy ensures that people who are committed to real solutions are not in a position to address root causes and will have little or no ability to build or attract financial wealth while the process of starving small business, small farms and a broad based diversified economy and centralizing capital into large corporations and banks continues.
From Catherine's blog I took these links to our rapid loss of Constitutional protections. How, I wonder, can "the Solari investment model which aligns financial and natural wealth and encourages diversified ownership and creation of wealth" restore the rule of law? Maybe there is a secret connection between owning a successful closely held business, or a farm, and being independent enough to push back when pushed into a corner? But, still, doesn't restoring the rule of law require citizen organizing and outcry? (As opposed to merely investing, producing and consuming within a social capital market.) Not that philanthropy tends to promote activism, to conserve our republic, but still, some givers do promote such ends. Those dollars are few and precious.
Mr. Yoo benefited from the dollars givers invested in the American Enterprise Institute and the Federalist Society. Where you find resistance to the deterioration of our rights you find, for example, the ACLU. So it is a battle in part of giver against giver for the soul of this nation? Can we avoid that conclusion, whatever other benefits we might also draw from decentralized, community-based, social investing?