These were all first page results, hope this helps comrade. Try to do your own search next time.

• https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/10/15/wiki-o15.html
• https://observer.com/2016/10/obama-makes-first-appearance-in-wikileaks-receives-admin-list-from-big-banker/
• https://newrepublic.com/article/137798/important-wikileaks-revelation-isnt-hillary-clinton
• https://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/10/wikileaks-bombshell-emails-show-citigroup-had-major-role-in-shaping-and-staffing-obamas-first-term/

I don’t think utilitarianism is a useful tool for analyzing structural problems. Which is what I was trying to condense into a funny quip. If you look at Peter Singer, the most prominent modern day utilitarian, you still see that he has terrible takes on pretty much anything geopolitical and isn’t an anti-capitalist. I actually don’t have a problem with consequentialism generally, but the materialist analysis is just more effective. I have limited philosophical knowledge so I probably can’t answer your actual question.

Instead of dismantling the machine that runs on human blood we will limit the amount of blood to the smallest quantity that can allow the machine to run at maximum capacity.