Charitable propaganda

In September I speculated that the plethora of news articles concerning ill-treatment of Rohingyas in Myanmar and Uighurs in China were the result of lobbying efforts by pro-Muslim groups awash with zakat money. I’d like to see a study done on how many “news” items are simply campaign propaganda, paid for by political organisations masquerading as charities with too much money. Take this CNN report, for example:

Beef isn’t good for the planet. But you probably knew that already.
You might know beef is responsible for 41% of livestock greenhouse gas emissions, and that livestock accounts for 14.5% of total global emissions. If you didn’t, you’ve probably heard about the methane — a greenhouse gas 25 times more potent that carbon dioxide — that cattle produce from both ends.

This is one of several reports I’ve seen over the past few weeks claiming eating meat is bad for the environment and everyone needs to drastically cut down their meat consumption if the planet is to be saved. These stories appear on major news sites littered with question-begging statements coupled with wholesale acceptance of the most extreme climate change predictions. So who’s putting this garbage on newsroom desks?

Firstly, it must be understood that environmental campaigning, vegetarianism, and veganism are western, rich people’s hobbies. I read somewhere that Greenpeace gets the bulk of its donations from Germans; apparently they’re sanctimonious bores who like to tell others what how to live. Who knew? The last decade has seen the number of environmental groups multiply, probably as a result of government money being hosed at anyone who sings from the climate change hymnsheet, but also because societies – particularly those in northern Europe, north America, and Canada – have got richer. People – particularly those in mid-career with disposable income and no children – are more inclined to donate money to environmental and green charities, allowing them to lecture others on sustainability before jetting off to the Bahamas on holiday. Hell, some of them might even believe they’re helping.

What is certain is these environmental groups are awash with money. One proof of this is how much they spend on salaries and marketing campaigns: it runs into the millions. Only they’ve come under a lot of pressure recently to spend more on charitable activities, which to you or I means going outside and getting your hands dirty to help those in need. But the wealthy social science graduates who run these organisations aren’t going to do that; so instead they spend the money on “awareness” campaigns which can just about pass muster as “frontline services”. They’ll call up their friends in media and ask them to run some nonsense about how everyone must go vegan to save the planet, and they’re only too happy to oblige. It’s cheap and it’s free for starters, and they don’t even have to leave the building.

As I said, I’d love to see a study done on how many supposed news reports are simply media campaigns put out by charities. But what I’d like to see even more is the government carry out a thorough investigation into these alleged charities, strip them of their charitable status, and start treating them as political organisations. It’s high time the public started treating them that way, too.

Liked it? Take a second to support Tim Newman on Patreon!
Share

24 thoughts on “Charitable propaganda

  1. Unfortunately the charity commission is happy to harrass legatum and IEA for putting out “if we have no deal then here is how to be an open, rich economy”, but has zero interest in say the innumerate oxfam inequality propaganda.

    Given the kind of person who is going to work (be hired into) roles such as the charity commission they are never going to do anything useful, and indeed are likely to use their legal power to harass classic liberals. A far far more limited remit is appropriate and let both sides propaganda away.

  2. “strip them of their charitable status, and start treating them as political organisations”

    Why would the government want to do that? These organizations play a vital role in the parasite ecosystem by pretending to be the source of what is in effect government propaganda, thus deflecting a potential backlash against the government. What’s not to like?

  3. Why would the government want to do that?

    Well, yes. I meant the government once Mr Ecks is in charge.

  4. ” I meant the government once Mr Ecks is in charge”

    Hold on to your hats; it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

  5. Small things I know but they love to trumpet their success in getting rid of plastic bags and straws etc. Never mind hygiene or convenience lets just march backwards into the past. Schools are at it too, I’ve one daughter at the moment I’m explaining about Islam to ( schools version is very cosy) and another about the rainforest (luckily she’s a macdonalds lover)….I should get a job.

  6. Ivan:
    Agreed.
    There are literally charities whose main/only function is to lobby government bodies. Who are they funded by? Government bodies.
    Why wouldn’t governments just cut out the expensive middle man? The way things work now they look like they are responding to the will of the electorate. The electorate, of course, have no idea that they wanted these unpopular measures in the first place and that they are being doubly fleeced in the process.

  7. I remember a common theme of DK was what he called ‘fake charities’ or charities which receive substantial funding from the Government itself, and then lobby the government in support of its own policies. I remember ASH was particularly egregious here.

  8. There are literally charities whose main/only function is to lobby government bodies. Who are they funded by? Government bodies.

    This is a colossal problem we need Mr Ecks to fix as well, but don’t underestimate the millions charities collect from virtue-signaling middle and upper classes in wealthy countries.

  9. Everything that any government has a hand in is propaganda. The Strasbourg gunman who fled to Germany has now been shot dead in Strasbourg. How do we know he was the gunman? Might he be another Brazilian electrician?

  10. So, we get blamed for stripping the West of massive herds of buffalo. Then we get blamed for having herds of cows.

    If they weren’t so pasty looking, I’d suggest we switch to herds of vegans…

  11. don’t underestimate the millions charities collect from virtue-signaling middle and upper classes in wealthy countries.

    I’m not sure how one squares this with the right to give the fruit of one’s labour to whatever private organization they wish. I don’t think there’s any “stripping these organizations of their charitable status”; they’re already incorporated as non-profits and I suspect the vast majority of womicumalobus people donating to them aren’t doing so for the tax breaks.

  12. I don’t think there’s any “stripping these organizations of their charitable status”;

    In the UK there is. US is probably different. Same for those donating.

  13. How many societal problems has the tax on income created? Everyone (very understandably) rolls or glazes their eyes when I get on about taxes, but I believe the introduction of the income tax, especially when it was coupled with automatic withholding, fundamentally altered the relationship between government and civil society and will eventually collapse both.

    Privacy, charity, religion, civil institutions, (true) welfare, class relations, sound business decisions, and many other things are tainted by a government responsible for determining “how much is too much earnings” and “good spending” vs “bad spending”. There’s no perfect tax but one on income is absolutely ripe for graft, grift, and efforts by would-be social engineers.

    But discussions about radical tax reform don’t have the same appeal as talking about how best to morally preen to your fellow countrymen.

  14. How is a tax on income not just slavery with more steps?

    Only when there is a contract to provide services to back it up. The US constitution looks better and better.

  15. Jobs in the humanitarian industry are high-paid and high status and you will most likely get lots of chances to be on television. What’s not to like?

  16. White quilt is over. Now chosen nation rattles fourth and back to find something to put us back in cage. Haven,t you noticed that climate change is issue again after so long time.

    They try to save their power network hidden behind of NGO,s or “independent” media or some other interesting name.

    Now question. Can the enemy army act in your soil when it is formally NGO ? For example, Putin steps back and launches Open Society Foundation who promoting immigration of young talented persons who are by some weird coincidence all young males and look like Spetznaz ?

  17. It’d help if they got their fucking science right. Cows do not produce methane. The bacteria in their stomachs do. Because cows, like all animals, can’t digest cellulose. And that cellulose will get eaten, one way or another. By other animals. Beetles are big eaters of cellulose. And producers of farts. Because their guts contain much the same sort of bacteria. Or by bacteria in the ground. But anywhichway, methane will be produced. Because methane’s a breakdown product of cellulose.
    And plant cellulose will be produced on that land. If not grass for grazing cattle, some other plant. Because that’s what nature does. Optimise the energy from sunlight. So unless you spray with defoliant the same methane will be emitted. Just how it works. Cows, beetles, worms. Makes no difference

  18. Warplanes do not produce bombs. Military factories in their home countries do.
    Because warplanes like all other things can,t carry everything all the times, then bombs like all heavy items must fall somewhere sometimes.

    Because of that, the 1940 London bombing had nothing to to do with German ethnic group, so the mass immigration and climate warming all modern madness have nothing to to do with the one certain ethnic group.

    Because of what you got triggered…?

  19. Subsidies for owning land on which beef is produced or animal feed to produce beef have to stop, imv.
    But you won’t hear ‘progressives’ say this because the system of subsidies comes from government. Either the so-called progressives love government or love land-owner kok. There is no other conclusion from their failure to mention the hand outs.

  20. Ye Gads,

    Bongo’s back on the “rich farmers” record again.

    For clarification: I’m against all state subsidies, bribes, inducements, price control etc.

    Want “Green” elec. then pay for it just as others pay for Organic/Free-range food.

  21. @bloke in spain on December 14, 2018 at 9:46 pm

    +1

    Humans produce methane too, more vegan fruits one eats more flatulence emitted.

    Personally, I enjoy emitting a large (unsmelly) f4rt.

    😛

  22. In the UK there is. US is probably different. Same for those donating.

    My point is that the relatively small donations coming from the preening middle class probably aren’t being done for the tax breaks in the first place, so stripping the organizations of their charity status won’t put much of a dent in them. The people donating to them are aware on some level that these are political advocacy organizations; it’s why they donate.

    That said, I’m skeptical that such preening middle-class donations make much of a financial difference to these organizations, except perhaps as PR cover. Here in Canada, there’s well-documented proof that most of the funding anti-oil-sands environmentalists get originates with US oil companies after being laundered through a number of intermediaries.

  23. Incidentally, the methane generation process I described above has been going on since the first arthropod crawled out of the sea & started chewing on the first leaf. There is no chance that human activity can have the slightest effect on the production of methane and thus contribute to global warming. Unless of course we detonate sufficient nuclear weapons to sterilise a significant area of the planet, reduce methane production & contribute to global cooling. But I don’t supposed we’d be concerned about 0.001 degree changes in global temperatures then, would we?

  24. If they weren’t so pasty looking, I’d suggest we switch to herds of vegans…

    Not that I’m suggesting cannibalism ( not least because they’ll be nutrient deficient) but you can’t tell much about skin colour from a steak 😉

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *