Charity has become a dirty word, as revelations from Oxfam on the sex for aid scandal has been uncovered. It was revealed that some of it’s workers gave aid to the people of these countries that Oxfam operates in exchange for sexual favours. It was revealed by whistleblowers within the charity sector who had complained to their bosses but never took action. The news has shocked the charity sector to the core and it has led to a backlash of donors withdrawing their funding and some ambassadors resigning.

Oxfam’s GB head Mark Goldring claimed the criticism is ‘blowing the story out of proportion‘ and likening it to being accused of ‘murdering babies in their cots’. The truth is there is more to the story than the use of prostitutes in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake. Oxfam and other charities might have done some good for humanitarian values but what has it achieved with it’s millions of pounds in donations? I should know because I have been a recipient of charity for my autism and I have not earned much good for what donors have contributed large to it.

A few years ago I discovered Poverty, Inc., a documentary that shattered my support and belief of the charity industry. It has some strong thought provoking notions. For a long time I used to be an avid supporter of charities, until I saw Poverty, Inc. The film showed a number of built in problems with the way we give money to charity and how it operates. Oxfam is one of them. The central theme of the documentary isn’t compassion, it’s power.

Oxfam’s advertising and leaflets portray developing nations and the helpless in states of despair. Vulnerable, defeated and often in hopeless situations. This leads people to think that they live in barren, desolate slums on the verge of death. Well that is false advertising, these people and their homelands are not as hellish as they seem. Take Kenya for example, this country is a place that Oxfam and several other charities work in. Kenya has actually got a good economy of it’s own, but the charities are disrupting their ability to become independent of aid.

Kenya once had a very strong cotton and textiles industry. In the 1980s you could buy a t-shirt that said ‘Made in Kenya’ on it and provided jobs for the cotton farmers and the retailers. But now thanks to the excess donations of free clothes and shoes none of the locals bother to buy their own produce. This has led to a wholesale devastation of the country’s cotton and textiles industry. With no one buying their produce the poverty industry has effectively created more poverty.

The donors of these items have been led to believe by charities that Africa is so underdeveloped that it’s people are stupid and incapable of building things for themselves. That’s not true, they have some very talented creative people whose dreams and ambitions are being drowned out by the highly powerful services of NGOs, charities and social entrepreneurs from the West. This has led to a colonisation of these countries by non-governmental companies who are making money out of their misery and poverty and henceforth excluding them from the global economy.

Those developing nations have got no freedom of bettering themselves. When I was campaigning as a Leave activist in the EU referendum I highlighted this. It just goes to show why multi-millionaire liberal philanthropists wanted to keep Britain inside the EU. They wanted to protect their monopolies on the poverty industry and stop those developing countries from the freedom to bring their produce to the outside world. They have effectively become beggars trapped in poverty for life.

Philanthropy and aid used to be a well respected and noble practice of gifting money to the poor. Now it’s all about profiteering and enfranchising the poor into altruist practices and enterprises. The aid money that Britain gives to developing countries isn’t just sent to the countries directly, they are also given to the aid agencies and NGOs for their projects. The money that the countries receive has also got several conditions attached to it that does not permit them to use it to help their own industries and services serve their economy.

Machiavelli perfectly describes how the world’s aid system works today. ‘The reason why there will be no change is because those who stand to lose from change have all the power, whilst those who stand to gain from change have none of the power’. This explains why celebrities and charities tend to choose poor people in foreign countries more often than in their homelands. As a charity recipient in Britain I can complain and press charges to a charity or celebrity that belittles me. Whilst a Kenyan disabled person can not challenge the NGOs in his homeland because he does not have access to the courts or lawyers to fight his case.

The celebrities that endorse these charities have been silent on the Oxfam sex case. They won’t speak out on the matter because the charities that they support have provided them with a means to make money. By releasing charity singles and donating proceeds to them they are getting publicity and money out of the existence of the poverty and injustice.

One reason why the Oxfam sex scandal was kept hidden from the public is because the charity industry has no accountability. Celebrities make perfect ambassadors for this cartel. They are politically and economically illiterate and have no real interest in the politics but just use them for their image. They wouldn’t even bother to denounce Oxfam because there is money to be made from being kind and compassionate to the poor. If they helped them become free from poverty then they would lose a sales channel for their products. So they make it fashionable to be poor.

Many recipient nations have branded them as ‘patronising and condescending‘. I know what it feels like to be a charity recipient without the power to achieve change. Some of these people think they have a monopoly on compassion and that their critics are just heartless. Well if you are running a business helping people or engaging in a political activity, you can’t be dismissive like that. It just makes you look like a tyrant who is keeping vulnerable people hostage. It is an evil practice of altruism.

When I was receiving support from autism charities I had the same patronising attitude towards me. The National Autistic Society did little to help me find employment when I started to enter the world of work. They insisted that I look for specific types of jobs. They wouldn’t even support my book ‘A Puzzle in a Tunnel‘ because they were not interested in my aspirations or my desire for change, only a duty of care to my needs.

One time I was called a supremacist for trying to find my own independence by a fanatical autistic liberal. She even called said that my autism makes me stupid and unemployable and welfare benefits is all I deserve. If anything I am an autistic rebel fighting for my own freedom. I’d rather be an independent fighter than an insufferable, pathetic urchin receiving peanuts. I’m better than that, and so are all those subjects of Poverty, Inc.

Previous article2018 for Scottish Politics: Everyone in a state of flux
Next articleWhy Libertarianism may be the answer
Charlie Keeble is an activist, writer and science geek. Self styled Autistic Conservative with an interest in minority sports, reading, travelling, science and technology. His work for United Politics as a feature writer covers localism, British affairs, sports and community, autism and social and civil issues. Campaigner and aspiring archer for the Commonwealth Games. Conservative Party member focusing on geeking up the government. Leading to a positive reinforcement of creative, intellectual and advancing ideas for Britain.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.