Western foreign aid is quite often "an excellent method for transferring money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries" [Lord Peter Bauer, quoted at: source].

"Since this is an era when many people are concerned about 'fairness' and 'social justice', what is your 'fair share' of what someone else has worked for?" [Thomas Sowell, quoted at source].

"I have never understood why it is 'greed' to want to keep the money you've earned, but not greed to want to take somebody else's money" [Thomas Sowell, quoted at source].

"You don't get to suggest that stealing money from some and giving it to others makes you a moral human being. It doesn't. It's the reverse" [source].

"I'm fed up with the lies spewed out by self-serving charities such as Oxfam and Save the Children and Christian Aid and UNICEF and all the others of their ilk with their well-paid bosses and child-raping employees. We've been giving and giving and giving to Africa for over 60 years and where are the water wells, and hospitals and universities and electricity plants and roads and all the other things we've paid for time and time again? They don't exist because most of our money has disappeared into the offshore accounts of Africa's billionaire, kleptocrat rulers or the pockets of well-paid charity workers" [source].

"[P]olitical correctness undermines the age-old incentive structure that has driven progress in society, whereby virtues such as hard work, discipline and education are rewarded with success and wealth, and lack of such virtues is punished by failure and poverty. ... PC rewards victim status, ... and scorns ... successful people who are deemed oppressors. By encouraging people to strive for the bottom rather than the top, PC undermines one of the main driving forces for progress in society, the individual pursuit of self-improvement" [Anthony Browne, The Retreat of Reason, p. 45].

"At its most fundamental, political correctness seeks to redistribute power from the powerful to the powerless. At its most crude, it opposes power for the sake of opposing power, making no moral distinction between whether the power is malign or benign, or whether the powerful exercise their power in a way that can be rationally and reasonably justified. Eg (1) ... It is more politically correct for Hamas suicide bombers to deliberately kill as many innocent civilians as possible than it is for Israel to selectively kill the terrorist leader responsible for the wave of suicide bombers while trying to avoid the loss of innocent life because the Israeli government is [seen as] strong, and the Palestinians [seen as] weak; (2) America, as the world's most powerful country, can never do any good, even though it is ... the largest donor of overseas aid; (3) The West, as the world's most powerful cultural and economic group, can safely be blamed for all the world's ills, even though it is largely responsible for the worldwide spread of prosperity, democracy and scientific advance; (4) Multinational corporations are condemned as the oppressors of the world's poor, rather than seen as engines of global economic growth with vast job-creating investments in the world's poorest countries, pushing up wages and transferring knowledge. Conversely, political correctness automatically supports the weak and vulnerable, classifying them as nearly untouchable victims, irrespective of whether they merit such support or not" [Anthony Browne, The Retreat of Reason, pp. 9-10].

"Automatically opposing the powerful and supporting the powerless means that, when presented with a new issue, the politically correct must decide not what is right or wrong, malign or benign, true or untrue, but who is the more powerful and who the less powerful. The PC analytical process enjoys the beauty of simplicity: (1) identify the victim, (2) support them and their interests, irrespective of any other factors" [Anthony Browne, The Retreat of Reason, p. 11].

"PC tells the weak and vulnerable that it is society that is wrong and needs changing, not themselves. ... (1) If, ... someone is poor because they are lazy, ill-disciplined, addicted to benefits and resentful of those who aren't poor, then encouraging them to blame other people rather than emulating them, and supporting their self-inflicted harm through generous benefits, will in fact just perpetuate their poverty; (2) In the US, the widespread use of historical slavery as an excuse for failure ... may be emotionally comforting in the short term, but does nothing to help African Americans take what steps they can to improve their own lives; (3) Persistently blaming the West for many of the Third World's problems discourages Third World countries from facing up to the fact that many, and perhaps most, of their problems are self-inflicted. ... the key to development is largely in a country's own hands. ... Stressing the importance of aid and debt relief may reduce Western guilt, but risks diverting attention from the more important hindrances to development, which in the long run are bad governance, lack of rule of law, corruption, poor education, poor healthcare, excessive bureaucracy, socialism and distorted international trade laws" ... self-inflicted reasons need ... to be encouraged to copy others, rather than blame them, and they need their self-harming behaviour and attitudes to be challenged rather than comforted" [Anthony Browne, The Retreat of Reason, pp. 45-48].

"Since victims are supported not because they are right but because they are vulnerable, critically questioning them is seen as attacking them, and those who do so are vilified as oppressors. In the world of PC, victims can say or ask for anything, not because they are right or deserve it, but because they are safe from public scrutiny or objection. the most overt racism, sexism and homophobia in Britain is now among the weakest groups, in ethnic minority communities, because their views are rarely challenged, as challenging them equates to oppressing them. PC's inherent contradictions make it largely incapable of resolving such objectively simple ethical problems such [sic] as the murderous homophobia of Jamaican rap singers or the cruelties of forced marriages. The ... government tolerates the numerically far greater animal cruelty of halal slaughter and bans the far less significant cruelty of fox hunting simply because the perpetrators of halal slaughter have victim status while fox hunters have oppressor status" [Anthony Browne, The Retreat of Reason, p. 13].

"One of the most successful campaigns for victim status has been by Muslim groups in Britain, notably the Muslim Association of Britain, which increases its lout by ... accusing anyone who tackles its extremist Islamic agenda of 'Islamophobia'. Although it has a thoroughly oppressive agenda ... the MAB passes itself off as oppressed so convincingly that it has fooled the PC establishment, notably the Guardian, Independent and BBC, into promoting it unquestioningly" [Anthony Browne, The Retreat of Reason, p. 43].

"Classifying someone as a victim or oppressor before considering the rights or wrongs of an argument is much easier if you divide humanity up into groups of victims, identified and united by their victimhood: ... It is only one step further from attributing group identities to giving people rights on the basis of those group identities ... If you are black or Asian, you may have a right to affirmative action ... Judging people by the group they belong to makes them ... less likely to be seen as individuals, responsible for their own destiny. it is, ultimately, not just patronising, but dehumanising and counterproductive" [Anthony Browne, The Retreat of Reason, p. 24].

"Double standards: (1) countless groups, associations and publications based on ethnicity which would be unacceptable if they were working for whites; (2) Men are (still) openly legally discriminated against in terms of retirement rights that would be utterly unacceptable if it applied to women; (3) Although European slavery of Africans is endlessly commented on, the Islamic world's enslavement of Africans (and to a lesser extent Europeans) is rarely discussed; (4) Left-wing activists have campaigned hard and passionately against the [sic] Israel's occupation [sic] of the West bank, while being almost totally silent on the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, and pretty mute on the Chinese occupation of Tibet; (5) communist dictators, such as Stalin, are treated far more leniently than fascist ones such as Hitler ... [despite the fact that] communism ... was responsible for far more deaths than fascism" [Anthony Browne, The Retreat of Reason, pp. 25-26].

"We know why many of our leaders accept this double standard [appeasement of Islamic jihadists and condemnation of Western values and beliefs]. They have bought into John Lennon's juvenile utopia in which there is 'nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too'. Shorn of their transcendent, non-negotiable foundations, all our beliefs are now contingent and negotiable, easily traded away for security or comfort. At the same time, multiculturalism bestows on the non-Western 'other' a finely calibrated sensitivity to his culture and religion, no matter how dysfunctional or oppressive, all the while the West refuses to extend such consideration to its own. Why would it? Haven't generations of Western intellectuals and artists told the world how corrupt and evil the West is? Haven't they asserted, as Pascal Bruckner put it, 'every Westerner is presumed guilty until proven innocent'? Having culturally internalized this self-loathing and lack of conviction, we are vulnerable to those who are filled with passionate intensity about the rightness of their beliefs and the payback due to us for our alleged historical sins such as colonialism or imperialism or globalization. And then we wonder why the jihadist considers us ripe for conquest, and destined to be subjected to the superior values of Islam" [source].

"Economic freedom, which gave birth to capitalism, is the means by which people become politically free; it has been the flameholder of the promise for which people by the millions have left their native countries to seek freedom in the United States. What capitalism ultimately represents is an equal chance for all members of society to improve their own lives. Where we've gotten bogged down is in the socialist insistence that everyone deserves not equal opportunity but equal results. The Soviet Union demonstrated how eliminating competition and depriving people of the fruit of their labor destroys ambition and, hence, the quality of life. And yet that is what the Misery merchants would wish on the United States [and the UK]. It's time that we admit the failure of socialism and embrace the benefits of capitalism and competition. No, not everyone will end up at the top of the heap, but most of us will land in a pretty comfortable place. And because we Americans are a generous people, we take care of those who are truly unable to make it on their own. The least we can expect, though, is that everyone tries to participate, giving honest effort. Socialism has had its appeal because it offers, albeit falsely, an environment that appears to be safe and consistent. The free market does not offer those comforts; it demands constant effort" [Tammy Bruce, The New Thought Police, pp. 240-241].

"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it" [Adrian Rogers].

"[W]ho pays for the NHS, the welfare system, the roads, the police, the fire service, the schools, to empty your bins, to light the streets? Capitalism does. Capitalism brings civilisation ... When you want to buy your house or a flash motor do you save up for twenty five years the money you make from your capitalist job? No... you borrow from the bank...which transfers money from the rich into your pocket as a loan...which you pay back but in the meantime you have a roof over your head for 25 years by which time you own the house. So 'redistribution' is a Capitalist idea...enabling you to live comfortable lives you couldn't afford otherwise and puts all that wealth to effective use" [source].

"Why are we such cringing serfs about tax? Our money belongs to us. It isn't pocket money from the State, but our own. If they want it, they should prove they know what to do with it. What evidence is there that the Government, that incompetent waster, would spend money better than Starbucks? Who do you think would pay in the end, if Starbucks paid more tax - why, the customers. Even Leftist politicians are careful not to pay too much tax when (for instance) they inherit property. Leftie BBC journalists are fond of (legal) arrangements to keep their tax low. Why should coffee shops be expected to behave differently?" [Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 09 December 2012].

"A new poll reveals that three-quarters of people have no idea where out £8.8billion foreign aid budget goes - or even if it's well spent. And that's just the Cabinet" [Amanda Platell, Daily Mail, 29 December 2012].

"...[T]he ballooning overseas aid budget ... is mainly used to buy arms, Mercedes-Benzes and finance shopping trips to Singapore and Paris for the wives of cruel African dictators" [Simon Heffer, Daily Mail, 19 January 2013].

"We can only wonder how our troops greeted the news that the UK will soon be gifting £11.3 billion every year to foreign powers, while asking our Armed Forces to cope with further cuts and no fully-functioning aircraft carrier. ... seven out of every ten developed countries in the world have decided to slash their overseas aid, which they consider unaffordable at a time of such grave economic crisis. ... cut the international aid budget by half and give the money to our heroic Armed Forces. It is morally unsustainable that our soldiers die for a lack of resources while third-world dictators are given money to squander on their kleptocracies" [Comment, Daily Mail, 2 February 2013].

"I don't like [Red Nose Day] because people in this country, dressing up in pyjamas, baking cakes, giving £5, think they're doing something good and helping and things are getting better, when they're not. In fact, they are perpetuating the problem. ... I find it obscene that a bunch of white, rich celebrities can produce not even good comedy so that they and we can feel better about ourselves. Friday night was a bit like Christmas Day, hen we give presents to relatives we ignore for the rest of the year, except Red Nose Day is a day of giving to people we don't know and, in fact, don't want to know. It is imposed on us in exactly the same way: media saturation. This year there was even chocolate involved: ... We were shown film of celebrities and children who have raised money by being sponsored to do something entirely pointless. I have never understood the logic of sponsorship; you either care or you don't. Why someone has to walk the Great Wall of China in a bra to persuade me of injustice, I've no idea. We were treated to film of celebrities crouching among poor black people, who are always the victims. These black people are never filmed angry or articulate; they are always supplicant. ... [W]hen you go to these countries where children die of pneumonia or tetanus or malnutrition, you realise not just how damaging these charity-thons are, but how irrelevant and misinformed. Instead of [celebrities] explaining how £5 can inoculate a child, why not tell people why these countries are in the state they are in?..." [Liz Jones, Mail on Sunday, 17 March 2013].

"The catastrophe in the Philippines should remind us what proper overseas aid is - an emergency fund to give as much help as possible to people who are victims of natural disasters. It is not an open chequebook to squander money on Mercedes-Benzes for African despots, to finance their wives' shopping trips to Paris or fund India to send a space mission to Mars. The British public's generosity in donating to Philippine disaster victims should prompt our Government to re-think its misguided £10 billion-a-year foreign aid programme" [Simon Heffer, Daily Mail, 16 November 2013].

"As it's revealed Britain's on track to become the strongest economy in Europe, thanks to austerity measures which have seen us avoid the catastrophe brought about in other nations by unfettered State spending, it's worth remembering that a strong economy - and the jobs it provides - remains the best means of lifting families out of poverty. Or, in the words of one veteran campaigner: 'Commerce [and] entrepreneurial capitalism take more people out of poverty than aid.' His name? Bono. Funny how you never read that on charity billboards" [Amanda Platell, Daily Mail, 28 December 2013].

"Thanks to the foreign aid commitment to give a specific percentage of GDP to the Third World, the economic recovery means a larger amount of taxpayers' money will be on its way into the pockets of foreign despots. It's estimated another £1billion will be found - some of which will go towards their wives' shopping trips and new Mercedes-Benzes. It's the British people who should benefit from the proceeds of our country's economic growth. at the very least, the money ought to be spent on keeping in their jobs our brave troops returning from Afghanistan, rather than making them redundant" [Simon Heffer, Daily Mail, 07 December 2013].

"Socialist politicians like increasing top tax rates mainly because they enjoy taking money from the well-off, and because it wins them easy support. It doesn't really matter to them if the change produces extra money for the Exchequer, which it often fails to do. Ed Balls's plan to restore the 50 per cent top rate is a promise to Labour's remaining core vote of class-war enthusiasts as well as a threat to entrepreneurs and high achievers. It is a dispiriting sign that Labour is once again ready to stir up ancient, dangerous and economically illiterate resentments to seek office. Mr balls knows that the pledge will lose Labour support among important opinion formers in the professions. But he is counting on old-fashioned envy to more than cancel those losses out. He thinks there is a widespread feeling that the better off have escaped unscathed from the recession, while the poor have suffered. Labour's leaders have also belatedly discovered that their record on immigration has made them nearly as vulnerable to UKIP as the Tories - and so they need to shore up their heartland vote with crude populist gestures. It will be a great pity if this works. It is cheap politics, but it is also expensive for the country, driving away talent, reducing the rewards for hard work. it is a sad lapse into short-term vote-catching irresponsibility, and a worrying sign that Labour, bereft of new ideas, is heading back to its pre-Blair days of envy and spite" [Comment: Mail on Sunday, 26 January 2014].

"In the past it was believed that Labour's tax raid on company retirement funds amounted to about £5billion a year - a devastating enough figure in itself. Yet now the Independent Office of Budget Responsibility confirms that the true scale of the state's depredations has been vastly greater. Figures released this week show that under Labour's 'reforms', the Treasury has seized a monstrous £118billion - an average of almost £7 billion a year - that would otherwise have cushioned retirement for hard-working savers. The result has been to lay waste to a system that was the best funded in the world before Messrs Brown and Balls got their hands on it. Indeed, until 1997 it promised almost half of company staff 'defined benefit' pensions, typically worth two-thirds of their final salaries. Now fast forward to 2014, when such schemes exist only in the public sector - funded, of course, by taxpayers in wealth-creating businesses, whose own miserly pensions (and retirement ages) have become a perilous guessing game. Indeed, this pensions apartheid is tearing our society in two. Yet Mr Balls still has his eye on private sector pensions as a rich source of revenue if Labour wins the next election. As he said in September, he is working even now on plans to restrict reliefs, so that the highest earning savers are taxed twice on their retirement schemes - once when they pay contributions in, and again when they draw money out. In their greed for cash to finance grandiose spending plans, Labour did hideous damage to our culture of thrift. Is Mr Balls determined to finish the job he helped to start?" [Comment, Daily Mail, 26 April 2014].

"Like [Gordon] Brown, [Ed Miliband] regards Labour's pseudo-roaring pre-crash economy as a work of Brownite genius (albeit under-regulated), whereas the bursting of the bubble is essentially a capitalist failure that is un-connected to the causes of the bubble in the first place. In office, Miliband would usher in the same economic mess as every other Labour government, because he has the socialist traits in spades: The arrogant self-assessment of left-wing politicians as unusually caring and knowing and therefore beyond reproach; the consequent inability to listen to non-political actors; and the view that scorning wealth creators as 'predators' or similar is a manifestation of insight and of compassion that positions you as some sort of latter-day fiscal Rosa Parks. Miliband was in the Treasury when inflation was stoked and borrowing got out of control; he was in the Cabinet when the banking system came close to collapse and the deficit hit unprecedented highs. But does Ed think he or his colleagues made any mistakes, beyond being insufficiently socialist?" [source].

"The goal is socialism, Islam is simply a convenient means to destroy capitalistic society ... if a majority of voters understood the left's true intentions around economy socialization, leftist leaders would be escorted out of the country on a rail. It would be impossible for perverse radical leftists to convince more than a handful of useful simpletons to act in a manner contrary to their own best interests without lying. My hope is that [the West] has finally awoken to the fact that the far left's collective message is now nothing more than ringing a dinner bell for parasites to feed off of hard working hosts. As a point of incredible irony, the harder people work, the more they are loathed by the the leftist parasites. Yet the more parasites there are, the more hard workers are needed to support them... incoherent logic... implosion. And still, the media is parroting the left's anti-capitalist rhetoric? Why do leftists cheer on the introduction of Third World disease, poverty, and crime into Western Civilisation if they do not support the destabilization of society? Leftists don't seem to be concerned about themselves or their families. The left should move to Cuba where their ideology will be appreciated" [comment at source].

The Frankfurt School

"The Frankfurt School believed that as long as an individual had the belief - or even the hope of belief - that his divine gift of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary to provoke socialist revolution.

Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. To do this they called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the 'oppressive' order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a virus - 'continuing the work of Western Marxists by other means' as one of their members noted.

To further the advance of their 'quiet' cultural revolution ... the [Frankfurt] School recommended (among other things):

(1) the creation of racism offences,
(2) continual change to create confusion,
(3) the teaching of sex and homosexuality to children,
(4) the undermining of schools' and teachers' authority,
(5) huge immigration to destroy identity,
(6) the promotion of excessive drinking,
(7) emptying of churches,
(8) an unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime,
(9) dependency on the state or state benefits,
(10) control and dumbing down of media,
(11) encouraging the breakdown of the family.

One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud's idea of 'pansexualism' - the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would:

(a) attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children,
(b) abolish differences in the education of boys and girls,
(c) abolish all forms of male dominance - hence the presence of women in the armed forces,
(d) declare women to be an 'oppressed class' and men as 'oppressors'."

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil;
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!"
(Isaiah 5:20-21)

   Quotations, Comments, Miscellaneous Information  

Websites and Recommended Materials    |    Scripture References

Education    |    The Front Of It (Chart)    |    The Front Of It (Documentation)

Political Cultural and Social Issues   |   How To Support Bayith Ministries