The world of care and aid comes from a good heart, but the problem is it does not work. The reason why it does not work, especially for me, is because it has no freedom for the recipients and there are terms and conditions attached to it. The real issue in getting the autistic community and for myself is that I need the power to achieve my ambitions.
Last week I wrote a post for United Politics called ‘Poverty Profiteers: Enfranchising the Poor‘. It was a story that I wrote in response to the Oxfam charity scandal where some of it’s employees were demanding sex from impoverished people in return for aid. This is my post to extend on that issue on matters that are related to the what value I get in the care from altruism. It also has a lot to do with my own situation in that I can get the right to be independent of welfare and show the creative and intellectual abilities of autism.
In the past I have argued with leftist social justice warriors and liberals about acceptance of autism into the world as a force for positive and proactive growth. They disagree and refuse to accept any good in my right wing ideas for autism. The reason is because they believe that the disabled and neuro divergent people should be allowed to have the liberty to be addled and excluded from the mainstream. These altruists think that the freedom to think for oneself isn’t good enough because having too many minds free to think creates chaos and disorganisation. Therefore the autistics and other disabled people should be denied creativity and the freedom to have control of their own lives. It is in their nature to serve the agenda of the altruists and follow their judgement of what their impairments make them.
This way of thinking is leads me to accept conservatism and objectivism. I stand up for myself by rejecting the judgement of others towards me, for they can not provide with a decent standard of living. What I get in welfare handouts is peanuts in a poor man’s tin. I deserve better than that. Right wing thinkers support creativity and the ability to think independently for oneself and to positively empower those who can build something better. It is in the nature of business people to win, win, win. That is a very strong and powerful wisdom of nature.
The way that charities operate to give hope to the poor isn’t just about giving them something to survive, it’s to take advantage of their suffering and to make money from their situation. Now there are nations that are economically sustainable and capable of providing their own people without aid. An Indian minister once said that the amount of aid money that we give to India is peanuts by comparison to their GDP per annum. But the reason why we still give to them isn’t out of compassion, it’s to keep the charities and NGOs in business.
Over the last 40 years charity has become an industry and that means that it’s part of a global poverty industry that relies on the existence of the poverty and injustice in order to stay alive. In effect the poor need to be kept poor so that companies like Oxfam can survive. Of the money that is sent to the poor it isn’t sent to them directly and unconditionally, there are terms and conditions attached to it.
Take a look at this graph from Poverty, Inc. The graph shows how the distribution of the aid money works. The NGOs, charities and consultants rely on government money in order to run their operations. So in effect we are not only giving aid to foreign countries, we are also giving money to keep the poverty industry afloat.
This is why I think we have been unable to fully eradicate poverty and injustice in the third world at all. It’s because we are indirectly stopping the third world from emerging and breaking free from dependence on foreign aid. Hence the term ‘poverty profiteers’. Oxfam uses images of despair and destitution in their advertising to promote their mission and it makes people think that places like Haiti, Kenya, Nigeria and parts of Indonesia are cesspits with barren landscapes and no hope. But they are lying.
Some of these countries are capable of providing for themselves. But the charities and NGOs use that aid money to their advantage to get richer. The poor souls they feed are kept back from economic liberalism and creative enrichment. They even dismiss the complaints from the locals about what they are doing is harming them. Some farmers have seen their food prices at rock bottom prices because of the enormous subsidies put on their land by donor nations.
There is a quote from Machiavelli that perfectly sums up this system. ‘The reason there will be no change is because the people who stand to lose from change have all the power. And the people who stand to gain from change have none of the power’. That is just about as much as my situation goes, as it is with these poor people. To enact the change that I want to get I must have the power to make it happen.
However governments around the world are very mindful about this, especially my own government here in Britain. You see one of the reasons why these charities and a lot of liberals, leftists and altruists wanted to remain in the EU two years ago was because the leaving of Britain would open the floodgates to allow the developing nations to come to us to sell their goods. In the process they would also make the monopolies of these Remain supporters bankrupt. Take Richard Branson for example, he has ownership of the two main railway lines on the East and West coast services. With the EU protection racket gone his shareholders and investments now have a lot of competition to deal with. Branson is also a noted philanthropist and has invested in charities. Some of whom play a part in creating more poverty.
What these altruists, business people and governments also fear is a tip in the balance of power that can see them weakened by international trade without protection. By barring them from gaining power they can control the geopolitical landscape. Thirty years ago China was a communist nation with an economy largely based on agriculture and lived on a wage less than one hundredth of the average American. Now they have become a powerful nation responsible for manufacturing one third of the world’s consumer products and has so many rich people that China can now buy property, commodities and businesses in the west. As a supporter of British industry and business I can understand this but I would rather give the poor the freedom to make their own money rather than make them enslaved to the dependency of altruism and serve a superior.
There is also the issue with people of the arts, media and sports who endorse these charities. They claim to be ambassadors for good causes by supporting these charities and they even use the media as a platform to air their views. However what they don’t seem to realise is that their professional lives and their knowledge of political issues make them incompatible with being political activists.
Celebrities engage in activism because they believe that by having a strong presence in the media they have a monopoly on compassion with the left. I know this from my experience of having a background in the arts and I have seen how they preach their politics and associate themselves with liberal and socialist ideas. Their profession teaches that in order for their egos to be validated they need to be liberally active and reject reason. This leads to think that they are above the norm of reality and that they have the freedom to be rude and dismissive if they please. Hence their arrogant, patronising and condescending manner.
Now with a big following of fans and admirers they have a large group of people who they use to push their own agenda. Celebrities use their followers to orchestrate society to love the system that endorses their agenda. Even though they are rich and influential they don’t have the power to enforce their views directly on the government or to help the needy.
Russell Brand was once asked why he didn’t take up politics and try to run for government himself, instead of making a show out of social problems that he likes to talk about. He responded by saying that he wouldn’t want to because he would probably ‘end up like them’ in ways that he didn’t agree with. But there again he doesn’t seem to realise that he hasn’t even got the qualities of a politician neither.
Many celebrities think they are exempt from criticism and are rude and dismissive, even to those whom they are supporting in their charity work. You can’t be a political activist and act rudely to your followers like that. That kind of thing loses you votes and approval ratings. It can even ruin your media career because it will put your fans off buying your product. These people are not interested in solving world problems, they are only interested in burrowing other people’s problems to exercise their own egos.
I think that may be about as much as I can cover here. The big issue that this represents isn’t just for gaining change, it’s about fighting for power. I don’t need to use problems or those of others to make my ego bigger. My ego is self sufficient.