Category Archives: charities

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.

Britain’s bogus charities

Screen Shot 2016-08-11 at 08.53.05When you give money to a large charity, writes Dalrymple,

you are not so much being generous as voluntarily paying more tax, for many charities are de facto subcontractors to the State. The government is usually by far the largest single donor.

Therefore you should remember that

he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Such charities, Dalrymple points out, are

misrepresenting themselves to the public.

It is not only financial corruption that you should fear, he says,

but even more the moral corruption of which this dishonesty is an example.

Compassion is better as a retail than as a wholesale virtue

Screen Shot 2016-05-06 at 21.31.17No doubt, writes Dalrymple, there are exceptional people

who are able to feel compassion towards populations or categories of humans. But they are few. The more widely a person’s compassion is cast, the thinner it tends to be spread, until we begin to suspect that it is not compassion but a pose or an exhibition of virtue — humbug, at best an aspiration, at worst a career move.

State-subsidised bogus charity

State-subsidised bogus charity

The welfare state, Dalrymple points out,

  • protects people from the consequences of bad choices and fosters and encourages those choices, which follow the line of least resistance or favour instant gratification over longer-term desiderata
  • undermines the taking of individual responsibility, especially where the economic difference between taking it and not taking it tends to be small
  • favours the undeserving more than the deserving, in so far as the undeserving have a capacity or talent for generating more neediness than the deserving. (They also tend to be more vocal)
  • dissolves the notion of desert. There is no requirement that a beneficiary prove he deserves what he is legally entitled to. Where what is given is given as of right, not only will a recipient feel no gratitude, it must be given without compassion — without regard to any individual’s situation
Save the aid workers

Save the aid workers

The difference between public and private charity

is not that the former does not consider personal desert while the latter does; Christian charity does not require that recipients be guiltless of their predicament. It is the spirit in which the charity is given that is different. That is why large charities so closely resemble government departments: you cannot expect a bureaucracy to be charitable in spirit.

A bogus charity

Screen Shot 2016-04-24 at 09.19.51

Many proud Oxfam employees are richly supported. Indeed they are comparatively very highly paid. The ‘charity’ states that this is owing to the need to ‘attract, motivate and retain highly skilled and committed executives’

By far the largest donor to Oxfam Australia, notes Dalrymple, is

the Australian government, which contributed slightly more than 26% of its total income — almost enough to cover the nearly 29% of its income it expended on raising funds.

It spent $3m last year on

long-service leave of its senior employees. We learn that remuneration for ‘key management personnel’ (number unspecified) rose by 16% between 2014 and 2015, from $821,000 to $952,000. (The head of Oxfam UK is paid somewhat over $200,000 a year.) No explanation for the rise is offered.

Properous employees

Explaining why remuneration is so relatively lavish at what is supposed to be a charity, Oxfam states:

The performance of the Group depends upon the quality and commitment of its senior management. To prosper, the Group must attract, motivate and retain highly skilled and committed executives.

A State-dependent racket that exists for its staff

Dalrymple comes across an advertisement for a job at Oxfam. The ‘charity’ indicates certain selection criteria:

  • experience in defining use cases and business rules and processes with a strong engagement of customer groups
  • experience in successfully mapping and documenting business and technical requirements, process diagrams, scenarios, and test plans based on conversations with the technical team and customers

The successful candidate will be paid $75,783 plus superannuation and

access to generous NFP tax concessions (specifically, a salary packaging scheme offering up to $18,450 of your salary tax-free).

Could this, asks Dalrymple, be

tax avoidance? Surely not. I may be behind the times, but Oxfam doesn’t sound much like charity to me, more like a government-subsidised scheme for those who work in it.

Save the Aid Workers

State-funded Save the Children's grandiloquent new headquarters in the heart of London:

State-funded Save the Children’s grandiloquent new headquarters in the heart of London: salaries can reach nearly £140,000

A bogus charity

The Save the Children Fund, Dalrymple points out, is

not a charity at all, as many similar charities are not. It is a department of state, or at least of the politico-bureaucratic class.

Last year, Dalrymple notes, Save the Children

received nearly two-thirds of its income from governmental or quasi-governmental sources. The British government and the European Union were by far its largest donors. Without such funding it would cease to exist.

Creature of the British State

There are more than 880 employees at Save the Children’s headquarters. The wages bill last year of those employed plus the costs of raising voluntary (privately donated) funds was equal to just over 84 percent of those latter funds; raising the funds alone cost just short of 29 percent of the funds raised.

By the standards of commercial companies, the wage structure was not particularly regressive: the average salary was £27,000, while the two most highly paid received just less than £140,000.

Flush with taxpayers' cash, helping to put second-hand bookshops out of business

Flush with taxpayers’ cash, helping to put second-hand bookshops out of business

Without state funding, Save the Children

would have had just £17m over and above its wage and fund-raising costs. Its brochure says that it raised £370m last year, without mentioning that £228m came from government sources.

In short, says Dalrymple, employees of this fake charity are

publicly funded bureaucrats.

Save the Children has, it should be added, played a leading role in attacking the livelihoods of British second-hand bookshop owners and staff. Among the victims of Save the Children and other disingenuous ‘charities’ are those who used to run second-hand bookshops in, for instance, small towns (as distinct from exclusively ‘antiquarian’ operators serving collectors, or those dealing solely on the internet).

Indeed, many have given up their shops and have shifted to dealing solely on the internet, because the state-funded counterfeit-charity shops like Save the Children with their free book donations make it impossible to compete.

Thus is a worthy trade sabotaged.

Sadistic Murderers Against Famine

Screen Shot 2015-01-20 at 08.43.04Also

Necrophiliacs Against Infant Mortality

We are a hair’s breadth away from these, says Dalrymple, as he draws our attention to a state-subsidised enterprise called Fuck for Forest:

In a world in which rock stars can set themselves up, and actually have people accept them, as moral authorities, it is hardly surprising that pornography has become a charitable activity.

The cry of one of Fuck for Forest’s creators, Tommy Hol Ellingsen, is: ‘How far are you willing to go to save the planet?’ Dalrymple has this to say:

Hayek wrote that a social conscience might be but a mask for selfishness and licence: one’s personal conduct, after all, can scarcely compete in importance with the fate of the world. Ellingsen turns Hayek’s proposition inside out, complaining that his public sex act worried more people than did the destruction of the rainforest. Either one favours Ellingsen having sex in public, or one favours the destruction of the rainforest: no other possibility exists. By this rhetorical blackmail, it is possible to push back the frontiers of the permissible indefinitely, for once a man has declared himself to be doing something for the sake of a good cause, his actions are beyond criticism. The expression of the right opinions becomes the whole of virtue. The more general and more generous-sounding they are, the better the person uttering them. If his opinions are correct enough, he finds himself exonerated from the need to refrain from doing anything he wishes.

(2005)