British Democracy Forum - View Single Post

Baron von Lotsov · 21-03-2008, 02:54 PM

It's a contradiction in terms I know and I'm sure you have never heard of one but that does not mean they don't exist.

First off, what is a charity? The law defines it as an organisation that does some benefit to society. Another word for benefit might be help, as in a charity helps people and often in the context of some disadvantage. Traditionally we have had quite a few charities that help people with medical conditions or disabilities. I think they may have originated from the church a very long time ago since the church was the very first charity. They taught the poor to read and write so they could read the legal documents that the ruling class asked them to sign, often with a cross because most could not write their name. So charities were a good thing and the stuff of saints.

However fast-forward to 2008 and something different is happening. Charities have always had an easy ride in that they have not had to pay any tax and the council give them good high street shops tax-free and in our town there are more charity shops than anything else. Each time a shop closes that used to serve some staple need, e.g. furniture shops, mens wear, a laundrette, a second hand house clearance shop, another cloths shop and so on you get a charity shop come and replace it. I think we have about ten in a town with a high street that has a population of about 10 000 to give you and idea of charity shop density.

So what on earth is going on? What do these charity shops do? Here are a few odd bits I have found out about some of them. Cancer Research has an annual turnover of £330 million and supplies funding to drugs companies to develop drugs to 'help' treat cancer. Notice the careful avoidance of the work cure, as it seems they are now focusing on treating the condition to stabilise it so that people live longer. Is this good or bad? Well a person who dies quickly is not so good for the drugs companies' balance sheet, so here is point number one.

Next we have Oxfam with its palatial headquarters in a huge country house on the outskirts of Oxford, just stones throw from the uber establishment Oxford University. I did a bit of research on this one and I understand it gets tens of millions per year in government funding (your money again!) and it is, as the Americans would say a revolving door into the New Labour Party. The work they do overseas has also been criticised on numerous occasions because not only are they in bed with the UN but the entire UN/NGO operation is making matters worse in the third world and one reason is that aid is destroying any fledgling remnants of a free market economy. Farmers can't compete with free and so the best jobs in those countries and the ones all the children aspire to is to be an aid worker under the auspices of the UN, i.e. where all the money is.

Next we have that old chestnut Greenpeace, or Greenpiece, as I like to call them. They rose to fame as an eco terrorist group with a Canadian who was rumoured to have links with British Intelligence when that standoff occurred with e Rainbow Warrior (funny name for a peace boat). They break the law as and when they feel like it and have been seen trespassing in John Prescott's northern mansion putting solar cells on his roof, taking doors of government offices in that new £500 million MP's offices block despite state of the art security and indeed every day they campaign as a charity breaking charity law concerning being a political organisation. They were kicked out of Brazil because the nuclear industry fought back and exposed them by making a film showing that those 'slaughtered seals' were actually slaughtered by them for their publicity propaganda. In Germany as well the German government recently decided that they would review their charitable status. They have an annual income of over $200 million and spent over $50 million on new office blocks in Germany I think it was. Not short of a few quid in other words. They also challenged the government in the High Court to block new nuclear power stations being built and if that isn't political please tell me what is? That reminds me, Christian aid spent huge amounts on a free concert to campaign against climate change. It was meant for 10 000 people but a friend reported to me about 300-400 actually turned up.

Now back in the UK David Cameron says he wants to widen the role of charities and at a guess I think they would like this inconvenient rule about political campaigning to be relaxed, but this is only a guess, we don't really know what he wants to do, we just know what the charities would be pushing for. And last but not least and the reason that inspired the thread is that on Radio Four today they showed a peek inside a classroom full of young kids just starting to learn to read. They were all given a book on disabilities to read and asked to comment by the teacher. Most weren't that impressed and said that the story should just have the character appear naturally and thought it was a bit contrived. We later learn that the teacher was teaching from a programme provided by a charity, no guesses which kind!

Anyway if you think about what the Communist Manifesto was about and the fundamentals of the movement there are a few things I think that tend to characterise it. The first being the destruction of the free market economy and then we have a kind of totalitarianism that means there is no democracy and all decisions are made by some kind of committee process. The most deadly of all though and the one that often gets missed out is that the Communists tried to replace the family unit by the state. Destruction of the family unit is therefore one part and the replacement of it by state is the other. Notice the broadening in subjects being taught at school, they nearly always broaden out into 'life skills' being a euphemism for state as nanny. Do charities further this agenda. You decide if they are another Communist Trojan horse 'doing good to help people'.

21-03-2008, 02:54 PM	#1 (permalink)
Baron von Lotsov Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 829	Communist charities It's a contradiction in terms I know and I'm sure you have never heard of one but that does not mean they don't exist. First off, what is a charity? The law defines it as an organisation that does some benefit to society. Another word for benefit might be help, as in a charity helps people and often in the context of some disadvantage. Traditionally we have had quite a few charities that help people with medical conditions or disabilities. I think they may have originated from the church a very long time ago since the church was the very first charity. They taught the poor to read and write so they could read the legal documents that the ruling class asked them to sign, often with a cross because most could not write their name. So charities were a good thing and the stuff of saints. However fast-forward to 2008 and something different is happening. Charities have always had an easy ride in that they have not had to pay any tax and the council give them good high street shops tax-free and in our town there are more charity shops than anything else. Each time a shop closes that used to serve some staple need, e.g. furniture shops, mens wear, a laundrette, a second hand house clearance shop, another cloths shop and so on you get a charity shop come and replace it. I think we have about ten in a town with a high street that has a population of about 10 000 to give you and idea of charity shop density. So what on earth is going on? What do these charity shops do? Here are a few odd bits I have found out about some of them. Cancer Research has an annual turnover of £330 million and supplies funding to drugs companies to develop drugs to 'help' treat cancer. Notice the careful avoidance of the work cure, as it seems they are now focusing on treating the condition to stabilise it so that people live longer. Is this good or bad? Well a person who dies quickly is not so good for the drugs companies' balance sheet, so here is point number one. Next we have Oxfam with its palatial headquarters in a huge country house on the outskirts of Oxford, just stones throw from the uber establishment Oxford University. I did a bit of research on this one and I understand it gets tens of millions per year in government funding (your money again!) and it is, as the Americans would say a revolving door into the New Labour Party. The work they do overseas has also been criticised on numerous occasions because not only are they in bed with the UN but the entire UN/NGO operation is making matters worse in the third world and one reason is that aid is destroying any fledgling remnants of a free market economy. Farmers can't compete with free and so the best jobs in those countries and the ones all the children aspire to is to be an aid worker under the auspices of the UN, i.e. where all the money is. Next we have that old chestnut Greenpeace, or Greenpiece, as I like to call them. They rose to fame as an eco terrorist group with a Canadian who was rumoured to have links with British Intelligence when that standoff occurred with e Rainbow Warrior (funny name for a peace boat). They break the law as and when they feel like it and have been seen trespassing in John Prescott's northern mansion putting solar cells on his roof, taking doors of government offices in that new £500 million MP's offices block despite state of the art security and indeed every day they campaign as a charity breaking charity law concerning being a political organisation. They were kicked out of Brazil because the nuclear industry fought back and exposed them by making a film showing that those 'slaughtered seals' were actually slaughtered by them for their publicity propaganda. In Germany as well the German government recently decided that they would review their charitable status. They have an annual income of over $200 million and spent over $50 million on new office blocks in Germany I think it was. Not short of a few quid in other words. They also challenged the government in the High Court to block new nuclear power stations being built and if that isn't political please tell me what is? That reminds me, Christian aid spent huge amounts on a free concert to campaign against climate change. It was meant for 10 000 people but a friend reported to me about 300-400 actually turned up. Now back in the UK David Cameron says he wants to widen the role of charities and at a guess I think they would like this inconvenient rule about political campaigning to be relaxed, but this is only a guess, we don't really know what he wants to do, we just know what the charities would be pushing for. And last but not least and the reason that inspired the thread is that on Radio Four today they showed a peek inside a classroom full of young kids just starting to learn to read. They were all given a book on disabilities to read and asked to comment by the teacher. Most weren't that impressed and said that the story should just have the character appear naturally and thought it was a bit contrived. We later learn that the teacher was teaching from a programme provided by a charity, no guesses which kind! Anyway if you think about what the Communist Manifesto was about and the fundamentals of the movement there are a few things I think that tend to characterise it. The first being the destruction of the free market economy and then we have a kind of totalitarianism that means there is no democracy and all decisions are made by some kind of committee process. The most deadly of all though and the one that often gets missed out is that the Communists tried to replace the family unit by the state. Destruction of the family unit is therefore one part and the replacement of it by state is the other. Notice the broadening in subjects being taught at school, they nearly always broaden out into 'life skills' being a euphemism for state as nanny. Do charities further this agenda. You decide if they are another Communist Trojan horse 'doing good to help people'. __________________ "A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have..."