[Kalkin]

Afghan fathers don't really burn their daughters to death if they catch them reading; that's 1950s-vintage propaganda. In any case this isn't the real reason that NATO is there.

Amnesty International denies working with NATO on this propaganda. But NATO is pushing the same propaganda!

Women's rights: making progress in Afghanistan

Years ago, when I was young and naive, I was a member of Amnesty International. One day I got a mysterious anonymous letter from someone who had obtained access to the membership database. The letter said that Amnesty International was participating in a specific human rights hoax for propaganda reasons.

I didn't believe a word of it. The news was telling me a different story. That's when I was naive enough to believe the news.

Then the soviet union collapsed, and numerous secrets were leaked...and I discovered that what the letter said was true.

If you think about it...some of the high-profile members of Amnesty International seemed to have connections to secret 3-letter agencies. And like its twin Human Rights Watch, whose trotskyite origins are fairly well-documented, it was a child of the cold war.

Its executives have always claimed that their numerous complaints about the "western" countries prove its neutrality. But if you think carefully about the nature of those complaints, they are all either globalist action items, like open borders, or they have little or no impact on foreign policy, like abolition of the death penalty.

And "human rights emergencies" have a way of springing up suddenly just before invasions. And the solution to the "human rights emergency" is always to support the invasion. They've even invited Madeleine "we think [the deaths of half a million Iraqi children] was worth it" Albright to their events!

It's not just Amnesty International. It's most of the so-called "NGOs" (non-governmental organizations), particularly the ones that have official connections to the United Nations. They provide cover for black ops, spying, and propaganda.

And it's even darker than that. As Sibel Edmonds wrote in her book, Lone Gladio, their pretexts have nothing to do with their actual operations; if you were in trouble and appealed to a "human rights organization" to help you--they might just report you to black ops for assassination.

[TooFineAPoint]

This is probably too cynical of me, but I don't trust any charitable effort that extends beyond people helping their immediate friends and family.

The more far-reaching the charitable effort becomes, the more nefarious.

And to put the cherry on top, there is no humanly possible way to act in a manner that is "not for profit". The very fact that an action is undertaken implies assumed profit (of some kind) for the actor.

So non-profit / NGO is weasel language par excellence.

[Kalkin]

(07-14-2016 04:35 PM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

This is probably too cynical of me, but I don't trust any charitable effort that extends beyond people helping their immediate friends and family.

No, your instincts are correct. The charity biz is pretty dodgy. A good example would be when someone opened up a fundraiser for the victims of the Aurora, Colorado cinema shooting--they were mostly working class people, a lot of them uninsured--and then donated all the money to local welfare agencies.

The American Red Cross advertises during natural and man-made disasters but--as it says right on their wikipedia page--they don't really do emergency first response!!!

That "bait and switch" policy is considered ethical in the business--despite most people thinking it's not.

Similarly, almost none of the money raised for Japanese survivors of the tsunami ever even got to Japan.

It's pretty common for charities to be nothing but slush funds. And even organizations like Charity Navigator won't call any but the absolute worst offenders out. Like Central Asian Institute was given a high rating despite being completely fraudulent. And the Clinton Foundation was first unrated due to "unusual business practices", and then de-listed, rather than being exposed for the fraud that it is.

Quote:

The more far-reaching the charitable effort becomes, the more nefarious.

Like when they claim to have operations in war zones. Nobody has operations in war zones. Nobody. It's impossible to get aid into certain parts of the world. I've tried to figure out how to ship crop-seed to war zones, to prevent starvation of civilians. It's impossible. The occupiers aren't going to let you help the occupied--they would see that as "aiding the enemy". Not even food and medicine.

Quote:

And to put the cherry on top, there is no humanly possible way to act in a manner that is "not for profit". The very fact that an action is undertaken implies assumed profit (of some kind) for the actor.

Right. That was one of the things that finally clicked for me is "HOW THE HECK ARE THE AFFORDING THESE OPERATIONS?!" It wasn't my penny ante contributions. And they have full-time staff and offices in expensive parts of the world, and advertising and PR budget, and artwork, and flying people around the world. I would guess that the really well-connected ones have contributions from "off-budget" expenditures of their hosts.