It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ulterior Motives for "Charitable" Organizations to Help 3rd World Countries

page: 1
10

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 01:31 PM
link   
I've been thinking a lot about "philanthropists" and celebrities who actively involve themselves in 3rd World Countries, Charitable Organizations and Causes, etc. Now I'm fully aware of some amazing charities and foundations, that truly do make a difference in the world, and are doing what they claim to be doing. But I'm specifically talking about organizations (and individuals) with ulterior motives for being connected to "charities".

Take for example ultimate scumbag narcissist and fake U2 front man, Bono and his "ONE Foundation". They were under scrutiny a few years back when it was discovered that just over 1% of their funds were actually going to charity.

Bono's ONE foundation under fire for giving little over 1% of funds to charity

With funding from Bill and Melinda Gates (aha, no surprise there!), and the platform of Bono being a globally recognized pop star, this One Foundation had access to resources and connections 99% of charities do not.

With a real opportunity to make a difference (the resources, the network, the recognition, etc.), One Foundation doesn't seem to do a whole lot other than "campaign" and "advocate" to fight poverty, yet all those resources and efforts could be invested in ACTUALLY helping to fight poverty...

George Soros' son, Alex Soros, another "philanthropist" continually shares selfies with him and celebrities and political figures on Instagram. He recently posted one of him and Bono, praising him for all the amazing things he has done. Coincidentally, there have been calls to "ban" Soros-backed NGOs from places like Hungary (where George Soros is originally from).

It is evident to me that power brokers like Soros, perhaps Rupert Murdoch, and many others, like to become involved in 3rd World Countries under the guise of "philanthropy" for their own political and financial agendas, unrelated to the causes and charitable activities they claim to be there for.

One common theme I've noticed with Soros "big picture" impact in the world is that by being a major proponent for mass refugee migration, like that we've seen in Europe, Soros hopes to see the more developed nations fall into chaos, while sitting back and finding ways to profit off of the issues that will result from this.

Again, Alex Soros is seen on Instagram praising the NY Mayor who says that ICE Agents will be barred from entering schools, hashtagging "sanctuary cities", etc. You get the point...

I can only speculate but it seems to me that with NGOs and similar organizations, these types of people can wield greater political and economic influence than they can in other places. Even with millions of dollars, you need to get the right players on your side in the Developed World. In 3rd world countries I can only assume it is much easier to "turn" people towards your cause without risking legal ramifications.

Calling their organization a charitable "NGO" allows these players to "shape shift" (so to speak) the organization into whatever they want it to be. In the under developed world where cronyism is common and bribery is easier to get away with, it is also likely easier to "steer" contracts to people.

From the perspective of a celebrity like Bono (
), having his name as a "Founder" and posterboy for a charitable organization, it's positive publicity. He can even use this BS organization to sell more records by saying something like "10% of profits from album sales will go to One Foundation". I'm not saying he has specifically done this, I'm illustrating an example of how celebrities can use fake charities (for lack of a better term) to further their personal gain and positive public image.


edit on 23-3-2017 by FamCore because: added links




posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

I think charity should be as local and as anonymous as possible. It seems to have a much more lasting and meaningful impact at that point.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Very well-said. I would bet you've been involved in local charitable activities being part of the Lodge (I apologize if that was presumptuous, I'm not well versed in Freemasonry).

I personally am involved in working with athletes who need adaptive equipment and techniques due to mental or physical conditions, and it's one of the most enriching and life-changing acts I've had the opportunity of participating in. And it doesn't require boatloads of money or political advocacy - 96% of the workforce for this organization consists of Volunteers, and the few who are paid employees receive their salary and necessary funds from donations and a few grants that we are able to renew every 2 years or so.


edit on 23-3-2017 by FamCore because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: FamCore

I think charity should be as local and as anonymous as possible. It seems to have a much more lasting and meaningful impact at that point.


I agree with the anonymity, but I have no problem with going beyond 'local'. Mrs. Canuck and I were recently on the Honduran island of Roatan, and spotted a "Samaritan's Purse" shoebox on a porch rail in a remote village. Nice to connect the dots.
edit on 23-3-2017 by JohnnyCanuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: FamCore
Very well-said. I would bet you've been involved in local charitable activities being part of the Lodge (I apologize if that was presumptuous, I'm not well versed in Freemasonry).


I may, but I try not to discuss specifics. Mrs. Masonicus and I have our things that we donate/spend time on but we keep it as quiet as possible.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

But to me, that is local. You just happened to be in a different locale then where you reside.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Then there's the spectral hidden hand of the IC behind and involved in some world "charities."

Yes, keep it local, keep it real.
edit on 23-3-2017 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: FamCore
Very well-said. I would bet you've been involved in local charitable activities being part of the Lodge (I apologize if that was presumptuous, I'm not well versed in Freemasonry).


I may, but I try not to discuss specifics. Mrs. Masonicus and I have our things that we donate/spend time on but we keep it as quiet as possible.


Same here.. we keep it local. Even local the demands are over the top.. the need exceeds the availability of resources. Its shocking to me. We keep it on the major down low. I definitely learned my lesson telling others about things I was involved in hoping theyd be inspired to join or contribute something.. anything.. but hoo boy people are weird! LOL!



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Many charities are businesses in disguise, tax dodgers, guilty rich people, out right scammers, whatever.

Remember Bernie Madoff bilked lots of them, they wanted a quick investment scam at hi risk to make money from, and lost their shirt . Madoff preyed on their greed. What came out of that is that most charities give only about 5% of their money to people that actually need it.

Then theres the Clintons and their "foundation". Out and out scammers, they preyed on Haiti and Katrina aftermaths. Remember the commercials?

Post Katrina Ads, Bush Sr. and Clinton

G oodwill headquarters

Salvation Army International Headquarters

Then theres guys like Sean Penn, who, despite the personal risks actually went to Haiti, stayed there and helped the people himself...

Daily News



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

Most donations go to "administration fees" which is slang for 'take the money and run.'

As our resident Freemason astutely pointed out it is better to go local because you can see for yourself how your money is spent. I sponsor rural flying doctors and rescue helicopters because they are not cheap to stay in service.

On the other hand some organizations claim that "for 30 dollars a month you can feed a hungry child" BS. For 60 dollars I can buy two pounds of rice and send it myself and that will feed a family for a month.

These Bono's and Bob Geldofs have no idea, put food in mouths instead of singing about it in a vain attempt to stay relevant.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie




...organizations claim that "for 30 dollars a month you can feed a hungry child" BS. For 60 dollars I can buy two pounds of rice and send it myself and that will feed a family for a month.


This is a great illustration of the impact you can have if you simply DON'T use these organizations to try to make a difference. Thanks for this contribution, a star for you my friend



posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Open your arms to our vaccines - celebrity



posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: ChelseaHubble




Open your arms to our vaccines - celebrity


/ Bill & Melinda Gates...



posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: FamCore

On the other hand some organizations claim that "for 30 dollars a month you can feed a hungry child" BS. For 60 dollars I can buy two pounds of rice and send it myself and that will feed a family for a month.


is there some sort of typo or other mistake here? first off 2lb's of rice simply will not feed a family for a month, 2lb's of rice per day maybe. for 3 people we go through over 55lb's of rice per month. and 2 of the 3 do not eat near the amount of rice that most people do, especially those who can not afford much if anything to go with the rice. $60 for 2lb's of rice is an insane price, not even in North America is rice anywhere near that price. your costs and amounts as listed here just have no basis in reality.



posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: generik

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: FamCore

On the other hand some organizations claim that "for 30 dollars a month you can feed a hungry child" BS. For 60 dollars I can buy two pounds of rice and send it myself and that will feed a family for a month.


is there some sort of typo or other mistake here? first off 2lb's of rice simply will not feed a family for a month, 2lb's of rice per day maybe. for 3 people we go through over 55lb's of rice per month. and 2 of the 3 do not eat near the amount of rice that most people do, especially those who can not afford much if anything to go with the rice. $60 for 2lb's of rice is an insane price, not even in North America is rice anywhere near that price. your costs and amounts as listed here just have no basis in reality.


I guess shipping 60 dollars worth of rice to a third world family would make things easiest in the long run?

If only a phonebook can list each social class in each country with address/contact info, we could do away with charities for profit, huh?

I'm down.





posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie




On the other hand some organizations claim that "for 30 dollars a month you can feed a hungry child" BS. For 60 dollars I can buy two pounds of rice and send it myself and that will feed a family for a month.


what?

IT would be better to pool money to buy rice for a whole village.

1 ton of rice on alibaba goes for about $400/ton
I have no clue what the shipping would be on 1 ton.

Yes it is a scam tho.

Another scam is white kids going to africa to "help" them by doing barely anything and taking selfies. When the plane ticket could have fed a couple people.
In most instances unless someone is a doctor or an engineer/construction related its not worth it to actually go there.



posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: loveguy

actually shipping rice to most third world nations is a huge waste of money. you can generally buy rice (and other foods) cheaper where it is needed. the exception is emergencies like natural disasters, and a lack of food in the area. not to mention the waste of money on shipping. and it takes a long time (normally at least 3 months for a container ship, air freight is extremely expensive) to get there. and while i don't know about rice, we have found that shipping pasta is a very bad idea. as bugs that are in the pasta (from the manufacturer, remember things like FDA regulations allow for certain amounts of things like bugs and eggs in food products) tend to hatch before it gets to it's destination. the same thing can also happen with things like cake mixes and other pre packaged foods as well. then there are issues like theft by port employees and government officials, as it enters the country. a very real concern. as well as tariffs and duties charged for any great amounts of products to be allowed to enter the country. for example you might only be allowed to bring in 12 of any certain item, without having to pay duties and tariffs on it. and you don't want to be nailed with smuggling it in, and yes even rice is a majorly smuggled item.

in all honesty money to buy local foods is the best course, unless you want some specialty items that might not be easily available. like candy for a special treat. although you do need someone trustworthy to use that money on the receiving end. it allows for more people to be helped with the same amount of money spent.as well as avoiding many possible problems.



posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   
in all honesty there are issues with even the most well meaning charity organizations. lack of proper planning and waste. as well as people who are completely forgotten, who desperately need help. sadly especially in times of disaster PR is key. areas that get a lot of coverage, supplies and help come pouring in. yet sometimes even worse hit areas sometimes only miles away, are completely ignored and get no help at all. all because their "area" didn't make the news in a major way. everything seems to go to where the "news crews" are. and that is also typically where the richer and more affluent people are. and it happens all the time. friends in India witnessed this with the big earthquake a couple years back. where there was major coverage, in a richer more built up area was literally swamped with the red cross, and all sorts of disaster and medical help. yet not too far away were poorer areas that did not receive any help for some time. and they were in worse shape than the area where all the help was.

the same type of thing happened in the Philippines after a bad typhoon (Yolanda, in 2013) in areas that normally don't get hit. rich areas were swarming with help and press coverage. a group of doctors who had been in the country on a general medical mission extended their stay and hired a boat to take them. they were not even allowed to land. the help there was so over abundant that all the help was getting in their own way. as they left they saw a signal for help on a small close island. so they decided to see if they could help there. this island had lost all their communications due to the storm. they were in severe need of help. yet not one other person or group had even checked on them. they were all to busy where the press was to even think of helping anywhere else. and to make matters even worse there were areas where the typhoon didn't hit hard. but due to the 7.2 earthquake that hit about two weeks earlier was devastated. it seemed for many what the earthquake didn't destroy, the typhoon finished off. and due to the typhoon gaining the world's attention they didn't get the help they needed. and all the help dries out rather quickly as the world looses interest (press coverage).

i mentioned the lack of proper planning and waste. i went to that area in 2015. to help build a house for some acquaintances. their house was still kind of intact, and in all honesty was structurally unsound. cement/brick walls falling down, supports crushed and weakened. but it did have a roof. yet nothing had been done for them, because they were far better off than many. and were not in a "main area". traveling to their place i saw TENTS and temporary huts everywhere that people were living in. and destroyed buildings standing everywhere. now remember this is two years after the earthquake and storm. when we got to the property i saw a pile of cement and other construction materials for a house sitting out in the open with a bit of a roof built over top, and a dug foundation that was covered in grass and had obviously been dug a long time before. i asked about this. that was for a neighbor, who's house had been completely wiped out. those supplies had been sitting there with the foundation dug for TWO YEARS, waiting to be built. i asked why they didn't just build it themselves. and was told they were not ALLOWED to do it. and besides the design of it took tools and skills they did not have to build. and the building crews were still busy building other houses (and i did see on that trip that the crews were indeed busy building houses). i looked at the stuff. the metal was rusting, and the cement had all been destroyed due to getting wet and hardening in the bags. WASTED, those supplies were completely wasted. why were the not kept in a warehouse until needed? why leave them out in the open for TWO YEARS while waiting? and by the way this was not some small well meaning group, with no real experience, but "Habitat for Humanity". and by the way, that house was just finally built just a couple months ago, FIVE YEARS after the earthquake and storm. so due to poor planning that house ended up using at least twice the amount of materials needed, due to letting the first materials get destroyed by sitting in the elements for more than two years. if the design had of been one that the people were capable of building, and they were ALLOWED to build it (the people for that house, helped build the house i helped with. using materials and techniques they could do), they could have lived i a house for five years instead of a TENT. that is INSANITY. but that is the way the big charities work.



new topics

top topics



 
10

log in

join