Posted on: February 13, 2016 by M. Oliver Heydorn

Category: Social Credit Views

Charities? Bah, humbug!

     At the end of Mass last Sunday, we were treated to an urgent appeal on behalf of the community food drive. I find these appeals incredibly annoying.

     I dislike charities, all charities ... and it is not because I am not a charitable person. Nor am I denying that, under current circumstances, some charities do indeed provide appropriate relief to people in genuine need (as opposed to charities that are outright scams, charities that actually do more harm than good to the people they are supposed to be helping, charities that are social engineering fronts or globalist change agents, and, on the other side of the equation, as opposed to individuals who rely on charities to subsidize irresponsible behaviour).

     I categorically dislike charities insofar as the legitimate need for charities, such as the food banks, only arises because the current, structurally dishonest financial system does not allow for the goods and services, which can be produced in such abundance by modern technology, to be effectively distributed to those who need them.

     Charities are thus a sign of economic failure ... a failure which is entirely artificial in its causes and hence entirely unnecessary in its existence.

     To make matters worse, charities continually reinforce the distribution bottleneck by helping to prop up the oligarchic financial system, maintaining it in its dysfunctionality. They act as pressure release valves by mopping up or masking some of the mess which the existing economic order generates, thus allowing 'business as usual' to continue for another season.

     Now, I'm quite sure that various charities also make some of their organizers and donors feel very good about themselves because they are 'helping the poor'. However, if such individuals were really interested in helping the poor, they should be fighting for a rational reform of the financial system, one that would enfranchise every citizen as a shareholder in his economic association. What people need, in strict justice, is a National Dividend, not handouts from their betters. True, this would make the charities redundant and destroy whatever political, economic, and social power that the sponsors and organizers of charities currently leverage on account of them, but that is the best possible result from the point of view of a genuinely charitable, i.e., not self-interested, individual.

     Alas, dear reader, try explaining any of this to the hoi polloi and see how far you get ... I dare say that the experience will nevertheless be instructive: you will begin to grasp, if you haven't already, the tragic nature of our predicament.

 

 

 

 

 


Comments

Posted: February 13, 2016

By: Wallace Klinck

Hear! Hear! The charities act as shock absorbers to protect the banking system from the consequences which otherwise would fall upon the financial system consequent to its economic and social depredations--and upon the politicians who condone and support our iniquitous system of financial cost-accountancy which has appropriated the communal capital and sabotaged the cultural inheritance of society,

Posted: February 14, 2016

By: Louis Cook

Bravo Oliver,
I would say most charities in Australia are 'tax deductible gift recipients' which further entrenches the system and distorts the perception of the organisation. Please ask for an audited copy of their accounts.
This is further enhanced by the abuse of volunteers to the advantage of 'service' providers. Communities would breakdown overnight if all volunteer services were withdrawn. The commissars run courses for their minions "How to get more out of your volunteers".
The adoption of Social Credit principles in society would soon reduce the Power over others and the reason it will be resisted.
Christian charity is given without seeking something in return and cannot be understood by the collective mindset.
I hope I have made myself clear.

Posted: February 16, 2016

By: Mark Anderson

Exactly right, Oliver.

When I was at Mass recently, a well-meaning
bishop gave a pulpit appeal for aid to Haiti (the
implication is ALWAYS that starving Americans, whose numbers
are growing, couldn't possibly be in need. You see,
Americans are always the "rich" donors. We
Americans and Canadians are all millionaires. WHO
KNEW!!!???)

I left the
church and instead of handing him his envelope, that he had
just handed out, with my money in it, I gave him a copy of
the Social Credit book From Debt to Prosperity, festooned
with my phone, email and Skype contact info. I think I said
something like, "Here's the real remedy."

He seemed rather disinterested
and I never heard anything.......yet anyway.

I think you touched on there
being a psychological element in charity, in that many in
the laity will hear a preacher over and over say that
"the right hand should not know what the left had is
doing" and that alms should be a very private affair
without publicity or personal glory or gloating.

But the Congregation goes
right out and sends a check to "feel good," or
plasters their name in the local paper under the banner
"Look at how charitable I am. Did I mention how
charitable I am?" "I'm charitable and
you're not"

Then
the IRS gives tax deductions for charities to keep it firmly
in place as the release valve you mention.

I even have a degree of
problems with missionaries. Ah, the noble, selfless souls
who do everything but actually help the victimized people in
a lasting, meaningful way. Yes, some do good things. And
"good intentions" are everywhere. It's always
raining good intentions. But some get their heads chopped
off or simply disappear, since the economic defects that
cause the hardships they respond to march ever onward.

Bah! is correct

Posted: March 08, 2016

By: Milenko Bernadic

Charity is a term that has been drastically reduced. There will always be need for charity. But this is not only in the economic field.
A good example is the hymn of San Pablo.
In the economic field almsgiving it can only be a single event to an urgent necessity; but you have to pursue the correction of structural injustices.

Post a Comment


Reload Image