Children's Charities

Not only do many official children's charities help to drive sentimental hysteria, they are very active in fomenting it. Charities like Childline and Kidscape in the UK were expressly set up as anti-pedophile mechanisms (rather than pro-child ones), while the NSPCC (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) has been completely taken over during the last 20 years, and now channels huge resources into child-hysteria-fueled television propaganda. The Swiss Charity Terre de Hommes was instrumental in pressuring governments around the Far East to toe the line with western hysteria, and alter their laws and policing priorities.

More to that, children's charities have become a kind of state-sanctioned kiddy-porn industry, exploiting the faces of small children to separate donors from their cash, and using entirely spurious and bogus "sponsor a child" schemes to imply some level of personal connection between donor and recipient. This new-variant kiddyporn is such a winner, we now have many annual nationwide fund raising events channeling funds exclusively to "children's charities" while ignoring less photogenic needy people. It's patently western to work off one's guilt for abundance through the drive-through nature of children's charities.

Once again, this set up has more to do with adults--this time, alleviating gluttony guilt rather than fear--than it does with making a meaningful contribution to a child's welfare, and for that reason alone it is ubiquitous. Does anyone actually care what child they get paired with? Of course not, any child cute enough will do, imagine the realization then that perhaps dozens of others have been paired up with the same child. They need multiple donors, seeing as the majority of the donated money is flowing towards the charity organizers, it's surprising anything trickles down.

The "children in need" appeal has been running every year since the 1980s, a ghastly spectacle of people doing sponsored stunts to get themselves onto TV. Often of course, campaigns that claim to be support the children drives turn out to invest their funds in third world communities, and not directly to children at all. The so-called innocent faces are often used to get foreign funds to police outfits in third world communities under the guise of "urban development" for which the local political regime can better use to brutalize and subjugate its population.

Now that "children's charities" (many of which are directly supported by the taxpayer) have become the fund source of "child protection agencies," we should be pleased to see these "charities" fold. When people stop believing they can buy away their guilt by indirectly supporting the agendas of these agencies (distracted by the starving child bait), perhaps it will open people up to the real benefits of giving one's time and self over to children on the local, face-to-face, hand-to-hand level instead. This is the only charity that actually works, and the only one CLs ideally endorse. However, the constraints of modern life impose too much--the bureaucracy involved in helping out a real child is designed to scare us away--and sadly, most people run for the hills at the mere suggestion.