Category Archives: bogus charities

A blueprint for all that was most harmful to development

The currency was called ‘pictures of Nyerere’

Julius Nyerere’s Tanzania, writes Dalrymple,

illustrated best and most clearly the politicisation of life that foreign aid promoted.

It was regarded by silly Western intellectuals as

a beacon to Africa, if not to the world. Mwalimu, or Teacher, was admired because of his apparently modest manner and lifestyle. Because of the uncritical high regard in which he was held, the economist Peter Bauer called him ‘St Julius’.

What had Teacher taught, and what were the miracles that St Julius had wrought? The country

was impoverished, with young men walking around in Western women’s coats, sent out in bundles by charities from Europe. There was nothing to buy. The currency was called ‘pictures of Nyerere’. Everyone was thin except for members of the Party of the Revolution, who were inclined to be portly. You could tell a party member in the countryside by his girth.

Party of the Revolution

Dalrymple explains that every 10th household had a 10-cell leader,

a man whose certificate of political reliability it was necessary to secure even for a child to continue beyond a certain age at school. This became a system of bribery that reached into the tiny interstices of life. It created, in conditions of penury, a cadre who were not only the eyes and ears of the régime, but loyal to it for the small advantages it gave them. (One thinks here of Freud’s phrase, the narcissism of small differences.)

Nyerere

was adept at talking the language of left-wing European intellectuals, while blinding them—in all conscience, not a very difficult thing to do—to the natural consequences of the forcible collectivisation of peasant agriculture and the removal of millions of people from where they were living, on the supposition that it was only thus that equal and equitable development could take place while the government provided the population with its inestimable services.

The maintenance of this system required tyranny and corruption even on a micro-level. Dalrymple had a patient, an Indian trader,

who had contracted tuberculosis in a Tanzanian prison, to which he had been sent for six months during one of Nyerere’s so-called economic crackdowns, conducted by the army to search out people who had supposedly dealt on the so-called black market (which Bauer would have preferred to call the open market). My patient—one of a class of admirable people, small merchants who had begun their careers by bringing a few simple consumer goods to remote rural areas where it was still possible to be attacked by a lion, and who had gradually reached a modest prosperity—had been found to be in possession of six cups and saucers for which he did not have a receipt.

Foreign aid paid for this iniquity. (Dalrymple also was a small beneficiary of the aid, buying his first house from the proceeds.) The collectivisation

was predictably such a disaster, economically, that there was only one solution: more foreign aid. 90% of the people lived on the land, but still the population could not feed itself, and produced practically no cash crops, they being subjected, if grown, to forced requisition by state marketing boards.

Nyerere recognised the nature of his system when he explained why he refused to devalue the currency.

Such a devaluation would have destroyed his powers of political patronage, for access to foreign currency to favoured persons was a way of ensuring their loyalty. ‘And I would lose everything I have,’ were Nyerere’s precise words.

 

Oxfam, criminal conspiracy

Dalrymple writes that for years he banged on that Oxfam was

a criminal organisation.

People, he says,

would roll their eyes.

He asks:

Are they rolling their eyes now?

Orgies with underage prostitutes in Haïti are, Dalrymple writes,

the least of it. The orgies are a market-driven stimulus for the Haïtian economy, if an extremely tasteless and immoral one. That is more than can be said for most of Oxfam’s activities.

Bogus charity’s extreme hypocrisy

Oxfam’s real aim, he points out,

is to provide employment to those who work for it. (Governments are of course the biggest donors to this corrupt scheme.)

Legalised fraud

Money donated to Oxfam ends up in the pockets of those who work for it, including the staff, numbering 888 at the last count, at the fake charity’s grandiloquent head office in London.

Dalrymple notes that

the hypocrisy of this legalised fraud is symbolic of very many modern activities.

Oxfam

is not the only criminal in this field, and may not be the worst. The field itself is criminal.

Do not give to fake charities

…unless you want to fund full-on filmed Caligula orgies

Dalrymple points out that most people, when they drop a coin into an Oxfam rattling tin or make a regular contribution by standing order,

think they are paying for blankets for the young victims of earthquakes, not orgies for Oxfam staff.

Previously they had only a hazy idea of where their money went. Now they have a clearer view.

Many other bogus charities are guilty of the same kind of waste, of course.

Inspiration for the Oxfam orgies

Looking up the accounts of the British Red Cross online, Dalrymple discovers that

of the 8% that the commerce branch of the Red Cross turned over to the charity, a fifth went in advertising and more than half in the salaries of the people working for the Red Cross.

Further investigation of the accounts of large British charities demonstrates that

for most of them, charity definitely begins at home.

Oxfam, for instance,

employs 888 full-time workers at its headquarters.

Oxfam’s Caligula orgy of money-grubbing

Big Charity at play

Oxfam speaks as from the moral high ground; its actions are very different

Dalrymple notes that Oxfam, the state-funded faux charity, actively promotes

the single most disastrous economic idea of all time, that the economy is a cake and a slice for me means crumbs for you.

Oxfam speaks

as from the moral high ground, but is far from morally unimpeachable. The group’s self-presentation is grossly dishonest.

Charity is no longer charity

Dalrymple draws attention to the single most important fact about Oxfam, that

the majority of its money comes from government — from the forced contributions of taxpayers in various countries. An organisation so financially dependent upon forced contributions cannot be called a charity at all.

An odious soi-disant charity, then, one which

systematically misleads its volunteers. It promotes highly contentious views on the one hand and is less than scrupulous in its dealings with its supporters on the other.

A state-dependent racket that exists for its staff

Oxfam so loves the poor, writes Dalrymple,

that it is safe to predict that it will never abolish itself no matter how rich humanity becomes.

There is no market, he says,

in which there is no rigging, either formal or informal, but I suspect that Oxfam’s preferred solution to an inevitable degree of rigging is complete rigging by philosopher-kings such as themselves.

The appeal to envy and hatred

Oxfam’s propaganda, Dalrymple points out,

is an incitement to envy, one of the seven deadly sins.

It doesn’t sound much like charity at all, does it? It is in fact, Dalrymple points out,

more like a government-subsidised scheme for those who work in it.

Up at the Oxfam villa

 

Godless people in the grip of sentimentality hold up their ikon

Dalrymple writes:

In a country in which sentimentality has so powerful a grip, no one could criticise the late Jo Cox’s ‘commission on loneliness’ without appearing heartless.

Cox

was already a secular saint: she had spent much of her career in a senior position in Oxfam, the antipoverty ‘charity’ whose largest contributor by far is the British government and which derives by far the greater part of its funds from public bodies. Her husband worked in another such ‘charity’ whose largest donor by far was also the British government.

Decay of the second-hand bookshop

screen-shot-2016-11-05-at-15-12-34Dalrymple writes that he has been

obsessed by books all my life,

and today he feels

the melancholy that I suppose old artisans must once have felt when their trade became industrialised. All these years I have been on the wrong, or at least losing, side of history.

In England, he points out, second-hand bookshops have been killed by

  • the internet
  • the odious soi-disant charity Oxfam
  • the loss of interest in browsing other than on a computer

Western policy is terrorism’s ally

Screen Shot 2014-06-03 at 12.39.04It is not just Oxfam, Save the Children, etc., that have become contemptibly bogus charities; the same thing has happened to many Muslim NGOs. Some of these bodies may very well, indeed, be financing Boko Haram. Dalrymple writes:

[The Niger president] mentioned that Islamic ‘charitable’ non-governmental organisations might be funding Boko Haram. He offered no proof, but it struck him (as it strikes me) as likely. Boko Haram’s arms came from Libya, he said, after the Western overthrow of Colonel Gaddafi; the arms, alas, were liberated with considerably more success than the country as a whole. Therefore Boko Haram might even be called Gaddafi’s revenge (or rather, one of his revenges, the other being the war in Mali). Western policy, then, was terrorism’s ally.

 

Oxfam’s falsity

Screen Shot 2014-04-07 at 03.38.39A bogus charity that appeals to envy and hatred

Oxfam, the state-funded faux-charity, has played an important part, among other things, in ruining large numbers of secondhand bookshops and other simple honest businesses.

Moreover it actively promotes, writes Dalrymple,

the single most disastrous economic idea of all time, that the economy is a cake and a slice for me means crumbs for you.

Oxfam speaks

as from the moral high ground, but…is far from morally unimpeachable….The group’s self-presentation is grossly dishonest.

The bogus charity raised, in a year, £118.5 million by voluntary donations, but spent £101.8 million during the year on staff salaries.

Since the Oxfam website shows a picture of happy, smiling, formerly impoverished people saved from their misery by Oxfam, I doubt that paying the salaries of staff is what most contributors had in mind when they dropped their coins into the rattling tins. Suggestio falsi, suppressio veri comes to mind.

Charity is no longer charity

Dalrymple draws attention to the single most important fact about Oxfam, that

the majority of its money comes from government…from the forced contributions of taxpayers in various countries.

Such funds amounted to £170.1 million as against £118.5 million genuinely charitable contributions.

An organisation so financially dependent upon forced contributions cannot be called a charity at all.

And the staff of this parody of a charity are, of course, very far from egalitarian where their own income is concerned.

There are three staff in Oxfam paid between $166,000 and $182,000 a year….such a salary represents considerably more than a living wage, which is the most that one would expect a true charitable worker to earn. What’s more, Oxfam runs a defined-benefit pension scheme, of which most workers today can now only dream. The chief executive incurred $80,000 in expenses in 2013. I doubt that the average donor, thinking of the relief of starving babies with flies on their eyelids, is aware of this as he makes his contribution.

Oxfam

systematically misleads its own volunteers….it peddles false impressions….If ever the argument tu quoque were justified, it is here. Oxfam promotes highly contentious views on the one hand and is less than scrupulous in its dealings with its own supporters on the other.