This is a very important subject which finds the heart of true love. To begin with I shall present a simple scenario.
Q, “My landlord has terminated my lease due to my lack of income”,
A, “Ah ok, as a friend, I wish you well”,
Q, “How will your wishes solve anything?” “If you had any real sincerity, would you not offer charity?”
A, “That’s not very nice, I meant well”,
Q, “If you truly meant well you would do everything in your power to find a resolve”.
Western culture works a little differently to others, but conscience is more or less universal. In essence, everyone asserts physical support is not a requirement of the manifestation of love. Instead, invariably vain, emotional encouragement must suffice, or superficial love. Indeed love is mostly based on leverage and control. My husband loves me because he does not copulate with other women. Immediately those circumstances change, love is rescinded. How was there any love in the first place, unless it was superficial? Families place enormous expectations on the kindred that break protocol. Similarly disownment demonstrates a lack of love and a selfish ambivalence determined to control. The western philosophy, in particular, sees physical support limited to non-vital resources, except in cases where there are physical or emotional advantages gained by tendering support. Generally speaking though, except in exceptional circumstances, non-vital resources would be off limit.
Support would be limited to excess resources. Therefore, would be givers stretch their definitions of resource allocations. Just about all resources are vital all the time with sparse non-vital funds pretty much always earmarked for something, so may as well be vital. Excess resources are for rich people. It is funny that even billionaires know of rich people. Taking money out of the equation, the dynamics suddenly change. Let us say an individual procured one ton of fresh bananas but could only offload eight hundred weight commercially. In the interest of maximising value, he would rather give the remaining two hundred weight away than let them rot. Psychologically he has clocked up an advantage directly with the receiver who, under the terms of that perceived contract, morally owes the giver. In cases where no direct advantages could be figured, karmic points are accrued. Headline “The American Fruit Company gave away a quarter of a ton of bananas to the homeless”. A gushing article fails to promote harsh facts such as oversupply, the company was lumbered with too much fruit for their market and if they did not give it away the fruit would have rotted.
The power of being seen to be doing good deeds is that great, that some companies donate a percentage of their profits to charity. This is not just for tax reasons as it is also good public representation. There is a rather more sinister motive. Evidence can be found in the London Stock Exchange. I have not checked recently, but years ago the Custodian of Charities occupied second place to British Telecom. Charity is big business and offers jobs for the boys. Having a few aristocratic friends, I knew how the game was played. One uncle was receiving twenty five thousand pounds a year for attending one meeting a month! I forget his “title”, but I think your disgrace would be appropriate. There is also the problem of charitable motives and suppliers. Readers will no doubt remember the Christmas attack on the Muslims by “God” in 2004. If this was the case, God was adequately aided by the Draco and HAARP. Zionists tweaked a dormant underwater volcano in the Sumatran region to dramatic effect. Thank goodness they killed off their “own” in those plush Thai hotels. I don’t think that operation will repeat itself any time soon. Or maybe I am wrong. Australia, in particular, made a big drive for charity on the back of the tsunami.
Indeed that was met with a tsunami of dollars, allegedly totalling one billion. The Christmas 2004 attack on the Muslims was effectively an act of war, so how can any sincere Zionist control centre administer charity for the Muslims that survived? Australia sincerely is a Zionist control centre, as are all Western powers along with several other nations. One Australian Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, looked as though he was going to break rank, but ended up being “killed” by Rupert Murdoch – now famous for illegal wiretapping. Gough plausibly described Murdoch as a characterless subordinate. I cannot find the quote, but it is beautifully worded and heart-warming for every crusader of virtue. After the collapse of Whitlam’s government there was no turning back. The treasurer of the ultra-conservative party “the Liberals” at the time of the Asian tsunami was Peter Costello. His brother, Tim Costello, ran a children’s charity. Directly after the event this charity launch an advertising campaign (funded by Peter Costello, if I remember correctly) declaring flocks of paedophiles were roaming the stricken Indonesian Bad Lands like zombies in search of orphans.
Thus is the mentality of these tyrants. Similar to the cascade of once famously respected Jimmy Savile, accusations and hearsay have replaced honesty and due diligence. At times of inquisition, witches were tried, convicted and executed on a whim backed by hearsay. Though then some of the unproven accusations delved into the realms of magic, what has changed today? The infamous Little Rascals American “childcare paedophile ring” had infant witnesses describing adult sexual acts along with dragons and fairies. Due diligence did reign on appeal, but the lives of the accused had been destroyed beyond repair. Fair and just (sic) law enforcement representatives were unrepentant, for this is a war where fantasy opponents are easy targets and easy prey.
Back to tsunami aid, very little of the $1 billion amassed actually reached those that needed it; perhaps none. Indeed, the principal of charity is to stock pile money, which can leverage the money markets. At the times the crusaders of virtue are loud enough to become annoying, funds are released to friends of Zion with over priced goods (probably “surplus”) and services as “official” contract suppliers. What a lark? Of course, some charities do attract ignorant volunteers. This they can use as PR. Most charities of size support a large infrastructure work force. Every one of these workers is primarily there in order to survive. This is not to say they do not feel strongly about the potential of the organisation they represent. However, I must remind reader of the opening lines of this essay – meaning well is not doing well. Isn’t Jimmy Savile being judged by well-meaning people? They see no evidence. It is unlikely the jury has seen any evidence. Just as with the Michael Jackson case, endless testimonials support or deny judgement. We know Michael Jackson had enough money to influence support in his favour. I do not question Jackson or Savile’s innocence or guilt. My investigation is into the universal hatred of humanity. How can so many people hate so much, they believe someone to be guilty on hearsay with zero evidence? Jackson and Savile have granted mindless, ignorant human beings a license to hate.
Charity has become the easy option for conscience outsourcing. Give a little money to the local collection plate and we will save your sins. Now the first world is atheist, the charities hold the collection plate. Physically assisting those that repulse you can be distressing, but even helping those that are loved but outside the circle, conflicts on the parent/child value base manufactured by the current system of atheism. Parents have been in place to break the will of the developing individual for as long as history records. As the child is a mirror of both mother and father, biological mothers and fathers must be the best guides, logically. Children, currently, are treated as currency; a commodity to be exploited by the system. Indeed, as I have argued in another post, if commerce management systems that are labelled governments truly governed, why are there one hundred million global charities? Why are there any charities? Enablement of commerce systems, does not regrettably undermine the development of the human identity, it relies on its repression. Repressions caused by government are supposedly alleviated by charities. It is no wonder that government has ensured that charities are, at best, ineffective. Or rather, should I say, the effective charities are outlawed or unknown. Indeed, charities are an extension of the commerce system. Allocated funds both prop up the finance markets and remove the burden from government. Is that the real reason some are able to donate to charity for “tax reasons”? Thus, most importantly, if charities were outlawed, government would be forced into meeting its responsibility.
I would like to conclude, by discussing the final line of the opening conversation. “If you truly meant well you would do everything in your power to find a resolve.” Because, in our current first world state of atheism, corporate propaganda promotes love of number one (yourself and various proscribed ideals), we could not possibly unconditionally and indiscriminately love our brothers and sisters. Thus, and even though we were all born helpless and in need of nurture, finding a resolve, we have been conditioned into assuming, is not our responsibility. Wrong, wrong, WRONG. Those who really want to demonstrate they are powerful should dedicate their lives to the resolve of others. Crusaders venting hatred or commercial interests are not powerful and cause conflict only. These are the well-meaning frauds that precipitate selfish desire, often solely motivated by revenge. To truly reach the point of enlightenment to find the power to resolve you must love the one you used to hate the most. Support your most bitter enemy and you have shown true charity.