Social Credit Views

Saturday, 13 February 2016 00:19

Charities? Bah, humbug!

Written by M. Oliver Heydorn
Rate this item
(0 votes)

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.

Leave a comment

Make sure you enter all the required information, indicated by an asterisk (*). HTML code is not allowed.

5 comments

  • Comment Link Wallace Klinck Friday, 28 December 2018 09:44 posted by Wallace Klinck

    Could not agree more. The "Charities" (although donors may be of good intent) are actually supporting the present dysfunctional, oppressive and exploitative Banking System of legalized counterfeiting by encouraging citizens to share their increasingly inadequate consumer incomes (inadequate consequent to fraudulent banking principles), thereby to distract attention away from these Banking institutions as the primary source of our economic problems. We do not need an exponentiallly growing mortgage on our futures. We need universal National (Consumer) Dividends and Compensated (Retail) Prices with elimination of the need for consumer debt. Unfortunately, people seem more easily influenced by emotion than to engage in rational thought.

  • Comment Link  Milenko Bernadic Monday, 12 February 2018 00:25 posted 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.

  • Comment Link  Mark Anderson Monday, 12 February 2018 00:24 posted 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

  • Comment Link  Louis Cook Monday, 12 February 2018 00:24 posted 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.

  • Comment Link  Wallace Klinck Monday, 12 February 2018 00:24 posted 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,

Latest Articles

  • Living Beyond Your Means
    We are often told that people should not ‘live beyond their means’, that is, that no individual person, nor any corporate entity like a business or a government, should spend more money during a given period than they take in as income or as revenue. Doing so is judged to be profligate, irresponsible, and only setting oneself up for pain in the long run. For countless centuries, if not millennia, the balanced ‘budget’ has been regarded as the sine qua non of fiscal prudence and ‘sound’ finance. And yet, if we look at our economies over any given period of time, it is quite normal for individual consumers, considered in the aggregate, to spend more than they receive in income, for governments at all levels to spend more than they take in viataxes, and even for businesses, considered again as a whole, to spend more money (thanks to long-term capital…
    Written on Monday, 15 July 2019 13:21 Read more...
  • Why Overt Monetary Financing of a UBI Need Not Result in Demand Inflation
    When one explains to the common person the proposal of a National Dividend as a state created and distributed monetary gift given to all as a credit for the nation’s total production, there is one very common objection or concern that people often raise. They think that there is a danger that this will result in inflation or a devaluing of the nation’s currency, a devaluation that may even been as bad as the hyperinflation that has recently taken place in Zimbabwe or Venezuela as a result of severe political corruption, incompetence, or foreign interference. But before one can understand why a 'debt-free' 'basic income' is not inflationary, or need not be inflationary, one must first understand something of the economic and monetary theory upon which this suggestion is based, namely Douglas Social Credit.
    Written on Monday, 08 July 2019 14:09 Read more...
  • Financing a Basic Income Through the Money Creation Powers of the Bank of Canada
    "The money creation process employed by the Bank of Canada is quite simple and mirrors the money creation process which, through the private banking system, is responsible for the greater majority of our money supply.[1]Contrary to what many people assume, banks are not borrowers and lenders of pre-existing money, but are rather creators and destroyers of the money that they issue in the form of bank credit. The same holds true for the Central Bank. Whenever an auction of new government securities is held, the Bank of Canada buys a certain percentage of these securities by creating digital accounting entries in the Federal Government’s deposit account with the bank. This deposit is recorded as a liability of the bank, while the newly purchased security is recorded as an asset on the Bank of Canada’s balance sheet."
    Written on Sunday, 07 July 2019 18:28 Read more...