Category Archives: hypocritical sanctimony

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.

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.

 

A very sanctimonious morning to you too

Screen Shot 2014-03-04 at 04.25.19A friend of Dalrymple’s

once said to a neighbour, ‘It’s a beautiful day,’ to which the neighbour replied tartly, ‘It’s not a beautiful day in Fallujah.’

All right, Dalrymple probably made this up, but it’s not the less amusing for all that.