The worst thing for BLM would be racial harmony. And with no climate alarmism, advocates would nash their teeth and cry.
Every advocate needs to be asked, what would happen to your social status and your finances if the problem you want to solve were solved? Are these advocates monitising resentment?
If you believe in the importance of free speech, subscribe to support uncensored, fearless writing—the more people who pay, the more time I can devote to this. Free speech matters. I am a university professor suspended because of a free speech issue, so I am not speaking from the bleachers. The button below takes you to that story if you like.
Please subscribe and get at least three pieces /essays per week with open comments. It’s $5 per month and less than $USD 4. I know everyone says hey, it’s just a cup of coffee (with me, not per day but just one per month), but if you’re like me, you go, “Hey, I only want so many cups of coffee!” I get it. I don’t subscribe to many here because I can’t afford it.
But I only ask that when you choose your coffee, please choose mine. Cheers.
_______________________________________________
Monetizing Grievances: The Perverse Incentives of Charity and Non-Profit Advocacy
We look at intentions, which are always a soupy, contrived swill. We need to look at incentives, particularly money and status.
In the world of charitable organizations and non-profits, noble missions abound. Racial harmony, climate stability, economic equality, and the eradication of hate are ambitions that resonate deeply with any thoughtful person. But let us take a step back and consider an uncomfortable question: how many of these organizations would cease to exist if the problems they aim to solve were genuinely resolved?
Imagine a world where racial harmony reigns supreme.
Racial harmony is a laudable goal, yet organizations focused on race often find themselves caught up in a paradox.
The eradication of racism, while desirable in principle, could undermine the need for their existence. If BLM and similar groups were to succeed in fostering racial equity and understanding, the flow of donations might slow, and they might not get another mansion out of the deal.
George Floyd was their cash cow. They loved it. They dream of another George Floyd; right now, Daniel Penny, a white guy who defended a train of innocent people against a lunatic man of colour who was threatening the lives of an underground train, is BLM’s new gravy train.
The BLM gang believes that if anything goes wrong with anyone black and a white person is involved, the black person is a victim of racism. If it is a black-on-black crime, they don’t mind; they just make sure they have a big house in a nice, safe white neighbourhood.
These organizations have become skilled at monetizing real injustices and the perception of grievance. This is not to dismiss the existence of racism but to question whether perpetual activism and escalating rhetoric are truly conducive to progress—or merely to the survival of the organization.
What would happen to organizations like Black Lives Matter or others that have built their brand and budgets around combating racial injustice? Would their raison d’être vanish alongside the problem? That’s quite the incentive structure: organizations are rewarded for persisting or even amplifying the grievances they claim to address.
Advocacy carries with it perverse incentives.
What happens to the climate crusader if climate change is discovered to be an uncontrollable or overstated problem? What if it was clear that mitigation strategies were the best step forward?
Where do the professional anti-racist, the DEI facilitator, and the enormous amount of humanities professors whose status and financial wealth are based on racial strife go if they achieve what they claim is their desired outcome of racial peace? What will the race baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do? The humanity! They might not get on TV, and their annual income might drop below half a million. The humanity.
Racial tension and bitterness are their bread and butter; Jackson is worth over 10 million dollars. He may talk about poverty, but he certainly isn’t hurting. Do these race baitors, in their heart, want racial peace?
These queries are not meant to denigrate these causes but to interrogate a fundamental contradiction at the heart of certain advocacy groups: the tension between solving the issue and sustaining the organization and the individual involved’s status and paycheck.
Climate change is a significant challenge that merits attention and thoughtful solutions. Yet, the rhetoric of some organizations stretches into the realm of alarmism, with dire predictions of imminent planetary collapse. Alarmism and histrionics are money in the bank for them. More contributions, government grants, and positions created with the word green or diversity (maybe together?)
Can you tell me one top-ten climate change alarmist whose personal carbon footprint is not ten times that of Joe Soap, and by that, I mean you and me, dear reader? John Kerry and Al Gore, climate alarmism have made bank for them.
Consider the cottage industry of grants and research projects tethered to the climate crisis. Governments and private donors funnel billions into these initiatives, and a narrative of doom ensures continued funding. But what happens when progress is made, or alternative solutions that do not align with the apocalyptic script are proposed? Suddenly, the movement faces a conflict between acknowledging success and maintaining relevance—and funding.
Do you ever wonder why so many billions of dollars are spent on the Indigenous in Canada, and the same problems persist? Part of it is that the Indigenous industrial complex is full of lawyers, bureaucrats, consultants, civil servants and well-paid chiefs - they siphon off a lot of the money. Indigenous pain has been very, very good to them.
Those people, of course, are inclined to want to see enormous amounts of money spent on the same causes in perpetuity; it is against their interests for such causes to disappear.
Should these advocates want the indigenous to be independent and economically successful? No. Not if they are acting in their interest. Are the indigenous capable? Damn right, they are. It wasn’t enough when people openly screwed them over; now they have people who put up dreamcatchers and who claim to be helping in their best interests but are actually - long term - once again, screwing over the Indigenous.
It’s not a matter of bad will or dreaming of the perfect man who works against their interests, and it’s about aligning self-interest with organizational interest.
Discussions of good or bad faith are always speculative, but it is clear that people act in their financial self-interests.
It’s like expecting someone who works for the CBC to vote Conservative; they won’t, and we shouldn’t expect them to. The danger is that when the government hires so many civil servants, they guarantee votes; it is not in the federal government's interest to cut the number of civil servants. Again, it’s all about incentives. We need to be realistic and not confuse our idealism with realism.
The incentive driving politicians is always votes and power, assuming altruism is dangerous. It will hurt the people that we claim to care about.
The issue with causes is that they see large amounts of, most often, taxpayer money being flung at them with little long-term improvement; it is that creating infantilization and bitter roots in the groups they claim to serve harms those groups.
Victimisation, teaching people that their locus of control is purely external, benefits the granting agencies and offers a sugar high for the recipient - but it is clear that the organisation’s self-interest - money and status and the continuation of the problem - works against the organisational goal of solving the problem.
Furthermore, the problem with this false empathy does not stop there - if someone, perhaps out of white guilt, suicidal empathy, cowardice or desire for attention, preaches a narrative to someone that exacerbates their feelings of victimization, it may temporarily make both parties feel better, again the sugar high. Still, it comes at the cost of agency and leads to misery. Let’s jump back to the Indigenous and sidestep to the NAACP. What degree of hopelessness do you have when Indigenous youth are sniffing gasoline? How does a black person feel when a white person, Rachael Dolezal and her amble supply of bronzer take over the NAACP? Those are tragedies; that is what happens when you destroy agency in those you claim to want to help.
This is the tragedy of white saviours.
Agency is hope, it is empowerment, the confidence and assurance that your actions can better your future. Mankind or even Trudeau’s peoplekind cannot live without hope. It is the foundation of a free society.
We need to stop giving people who destroy hope marks for good intentions. It is a terrible practice. Of course, they say they have good intentions. Prisons are full of guilty men who claim good intentions.
What matters is outcomes.
And we need to be savage in our judgements on outcomes.
Israel finds itself at the centre of a deeply polarizing debate. Advocacy groups that oppose Israel’s policies or even its existence thrive on the conflict. They frame Israel as the perennial oppressor, ignoring or downplaying the complexities of the region.
A peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would dismantle the financial and ideological infrastructure of many organizations on both sides who are devoted to the cause.
What would Gaza and West Bank citizens do if the billions stopped rolling in? Here, as an aside, are the Hamas vampires that feed on strife and who put their greed before the health and life of Palestinians and Israelis. They are the real devils. They want the war to go on because they make millions from smuggling and selling arms, as well as stealing food sent by the UN and the Israelis and selling it back at inflated prices to the Palestinians.
Musa Abu Marzouk: As the deputy chairman of Hamas’s political bureau, Marzouk began fundraising in the U.S. among wealthy Muslims in the early 1990s and established multiple banking enterprises. His fortune is estimated between $2-3 billion.
Khaled Mashaal: Former head of Hamas’s political wing, Mashaal has reportedly accumulated substantial wealth, with estimates suggesting he is a billionaire.
Ismail Haniyeh: The former political leader of Hamas, Haniyeh, was reported to have a net worth of $4 billion.
Yahya Sinwar: As a senior Hamas leader, Sinwar was estimated to have a net worth of $3 billion. Note: You can’t spend it where you are there, Yahya, my dear. But be assured you are amongst many friends in hell.
These groups are not incentivized to support nuanced discussions or compromises, as doing so might undermine their narrative. Instead, they often perpetuate a one-sided story, ensuring their followers remain engaged—and angry.
Anger, after all, is a powerful fundraising tool.
The Palestinian Arabs are case studies of the damage to a people and culture when their entire raison d’etre is focused not on getting land but on removing the conditions in which they must live next to successful Jews (and Arabs) in Israel.
Nourishing a poisoned plant in a psychological sense, watering grievances on plants with long bitter roots that always search for nourishment serves only the interests of resentment and anger, is paralyzing; it is an abdication of agency and personal hope for change. It creates hopelessness.
Suppose the Palestinian Arabs keep their entire hearts consumed with destructive ambitions, and they brainwash their children to see Jews as monsters and have them play “Kill the Jew” games. In that case, they condemn their people to poverty, hate, resentment and the ugly jihadi dream of martyrship.
Many experts who critique the effectiveness of charitable giving often argue that teaching dependency rather than self-sufficiency is a major reason why billions of dollars in aid have failed to produce lasting change. Charity is invented to keep the charity going, not to develop self-sufficiency.
Charities have more power with the man they give handouts to than the man they teach to feed himself.
Of course, detractors of dependency-driven charities label them heartless monsters, but the detractors have a point. Why is their point rarely listened to? Perhaps it is because the self-righteous enforces of the status quo are vested in not seeing improvement, and perhaps they love to get high on their sense of moral superiority. It is an excellent high.
Providing free food in impoverished areas can temporarily alleviate hunger but may discourage local farmers from growing crops if they cannot compete with free goods.
Unconditional financial support can create a reliance on external funds instead of encouraging recipients to seek sustainable employment or income sources.
Many charities prioritize immediate results (e.g., meals served, houses built) over long-term solutions because they are easier to measure and market to donors. Donors want clear results; education and job training are less tangible.
Charities, in general, are chest-deep in the dependency paradox.