Category Archives: charitable-bureaucratic complex

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

 

Defeat of the little platoons

The UK’s social policy, writes Dalrymple,

has been to smash up all forms of social solidarity or support for the vulnerable that do not pass through the state.

He points out that the crushing of the little platoons

has been thorough: most large ‘charities’ in Britain are now dependent on government rather than on private funding, and hence are in effect departments of state.

Miracle of disorganisation at a bogus charity

screen-shot-2017-01-14-at-12-19-19Dalrymple comments:

I have seen the future: it is Tesco plus pauperisation.

Finding himself in the High Street, he wanders into a British Red Cross fake-charity shop, and recalls that according to the British Red Cross’s accounts for 2015, it derived £29.9m from its retailing activities, raised by 631 paid employees and 6,346 volunteers. But the expenses incurred in raising the £29.9m were £25m.

So all this activity generated a profit of £4.9m. For every pound that is collected in charity shops, only 16.3p reaches the charitable coffers of the Red Cross, of which a not inconsiderable proportion is expended on the salaries of those who work for it.

Dalrymple asks:

How can the British Red Cross raise so little money from its retail operations? After all, it receives most of its goods and a large part of its labour free of charge, and it pays reduced local taxes (a policy that should, of course, cease). It is a miracle of disorganisation, at least equal to anything seen in the National Health Service: I hesitate to call it by a name less morally neutral than disorganisation.

Dalrymple calls upon the public

to give no money to charity, at least none that runs a shop.

Charity begins at home

Screen Shot 2016-06-01 at 07.56.38Save the Children certainly believes so

Dalrymple points out that Save the Children, like so many charities in the UK,

is not a charity, at least not in the normal sense of the word. It is part of Britain’s charitable-bureaucratic complex. Like most bureaucracies, it is there to serve itself.

Save the Children

  • spent £88m on humanitarian assistance in 2009 and £58m on staff wages. (It was far from the worst in this respect: the Child Poverty Action Group spent £1.5m of its income of £2m on wages.)
  • In 2009, its chief executive was paid £137,608 which, while not vast by the standards of commercial chief executives, was more than six times the median British wage at the time. This is certainly not what individual donors might think or hope their money is spent on; and it is certainly not what I think charity is.
  • Fourteen of its staff earned more than £60,000, and 150 between £30,000 and £40,000.
  • It ran a fixed-benefit pension scheme.

This ‘charity’

  • spends about £500,000 a year on efforts in Britain; local government makes donations to it of about £500,000.
  • The largest donor to the ‘charity’ by far in 2009 was the government, at £19m. The European Union chipped in with another £12m, the US government with £11m.
  • Private donations have been going down as a proportion of the total income of the ‘charity’ (and the expenses of fund-raising are equal to 31% of the funds raised), while government contributions have been rising.

Large charities in Britain

are increasingly in hock to the government and its bureaucratic machinery, with its statist outlook, and share its vocabulary. When I looked on one website advertising charity jobs, I found 21 with salaries between £50,000 and £80,000, with titles such as corporate development manager. Is this really what the old ladies who volunteer at charity shops think they are raising money for?

Save the Children

is not trying to save the children of Britain, it is trying to save the jobs in the British welfare bureaucracy.