Rexamining Individualism
in a world of Collectivism

I was sick with the flu and so I turned on a British television to watch a mindless movie, and then, suddenly, there was the image of a child filling the screen. It was not just any image but an image designed to cause a reaction. This child was certainly below the age of legal consent to agree to her image being plastered over a television commercial for the purpose of raising money. And was this money being solicited in this child's name? No, of course not, it was being solicited to support a big, international organization called 'Save the Children'.

I did not ask to have this organization engage in a child exploitation by using my television set for the purpose of fund raising, in fact I was downright annoyed and disgusted that they had done so. Although Wikipedia by their own reckoning is not a reliable source of information, it is handy source that many people might turn to for the background history on this organization.

It says that "Save the Children is an internationally active non-governmental organization that enforces children's rights..." How is that again? It "enforces children's rights"? How does it do that if it is a non-governmental organization? It says that "Save the Children Fund was founded in London, England, on April 15, 1919 by Eglantyne Jebb and her sister Dorothy Buxton as an effort to alleviate starvation of children in Germany and Austria-Hungary during the Allied blockade of Germany in World War One." Is that right? I thought that WWI was long since done with and that the misery and mayhem had been superseded by WWII?

But fund raisers don't go out of business, and oh, yes, that is what they are engaging in. They are making commercials, buying time for commercials, processing donations and depositing them in banks. That's right, the same banks that recently almost brought the world of commerce to a grinding halt.

Now you would think that with all of their experience that they have dating back to 1919, that they would have this famine thing licked by now, wouldn't you? Of course you wouldn't because if it was not for the mindless adults creating more children in lands of famine that have been raked over by despots galore in civil wars, Save the Children would not have a 'product' to tout to help them solicit money, and yes indeed, that is what they are after.

Now if the Save the Children organization is upset with this editorial, well I am upset that they are using helpless children as merchandise, just like any other child exploiter! Since 1919 there have been plenty of opportunities to go into these lands of famine and bring them the nuts and bolts of a constitutional form of government which could have been created by their own people. But that is not the business that they are in, is it? There is an old saying about giving a man (a child) a fish, and soon that person is hungry again. But teach that person how to fish and they can take care of themselves. Of course, if there are no fish then sex education should take its place, after all, no one in their right mind would willingly create another child that will die of malnutrition, would they? Of course they would and of course they do.

But that is not the lesson Save the Children learned from its founders. Again, according to Wikipedia: "Jebb used many new ground-breaking fund-raising techniques... Save the Children (became) the first charity in the United Kingdom to use page-length advertisements in newspapers." Oh isn't that just dandy! It says that "Jebb contracted doctors, lawyers and other professionals in order to devise mass advertisement campaigns. In 1920, Save the Children started individual child sponsorship as a way to engage more donors. By the end of the year, Save the Children raised the equivalent of ₤8,000,000 in today's money."

Now pardon me for asking, but I thought that a gigantic socialistic experiment came to life in Russia at about this time. It was called the USSR, and like all top-down governments (masquerading as a 'Peoples' government - what a joke that was!), it eventually fell apart and revealed a legacy of slave labor camps that gave Heinrich Himmler a run for his money. Himmler fed the more ghastly system while the Nazi regime lasted, but the USSR carried out its share of terrorism and it outlasted the Third Reich.

Now wouldn't it be interesting to take a tour of the Save the Children executive offices? Somewhere along the line there are fat cats going to work on the donations that it is raising, and obviously they have become so used to the sight of starving children that they have become akin to undertakers working in a morgue. It does not affect them any more on a personal level.

Did someone say cynicism? This is not an unsolvable problem. For one thing the parents need to be told to stop having kids in the lands of famine. You say that is impossible? I don't think so, because the Western World now holds parents responsible for the kids they create. However, that is not the primary concern of this 'charity'. Perhaps they have their priorities in the wrong order? If there were no kids being born, there would be no kids to starve, and I guarantee that the fat cats in their nations' capitals are all living 'high off the hog!' (Pardon the expression if you personally do not eat swine.)

But isn't it interesting that this monolithic charity began in the land that promoted human slavery in the name of its Crown institution? The last time I looked Liz had not abandoned Buckingham Palace, and neither was she urging it to be sold to raise money in order to save the children of the so-called United Kingdom. Right, there are plenty of kids in need in this kingdom, but Liz is not in a tizzy about saving them. What is interesting is that her daughter Anne is the President of this organization, so I guess Mum (Mom) could simply make some big donations and save the need for these intrusive television commercials? No way, the Royal Family are free-loaders who prop up the institution of the Crown that sits on top of a secretive Privy Council which dominates a half-elected legislative chamber that rules by the seat of its pants without a Constitution written and ratified by 'The People'.

By the way, I have now switched TV channels because that child exploitation commercial has come on the screen again for the second time since I began to write this! Meanwhile I have been scanning their own Trustees' Report on the Internet and I am now up to page 20, and only just finding some mention of the money! In 2010 they claim to have raised ₤291.5 million! On page 22 they switch currencies and claim to have raised $1 billion worldwide, which according to the Google currency converter is ₤612.857756. It is interesting to note that of the total sum, ₤8 million of it came from 'retail' operations! This is certainly big business with all bases covered. The cost of raising this money was ₤18 million! That would disrupt a few television programs with obnoxious commercials! The ₤18 million went towards paying "Fundraising and Investment Management Fees", and a further ₤1.9 million of it was spent on "Governance and Property". But this does not begin to address the matter of 'expenses' that are obvious attributed to other accounts.

I came across an interesting site at http://www.squidoo.com/child-organizations - even though its information is out of date (meaning that these salaries are now higher). But here is what they reported on the Chief Executive's Salaries of childrens' organizations:

Children International (Oct 2007- Sept 2008)
CEO: Salary $357,097 + $61'183 + $17,838 = $436,183

World Vision (Oct 2007- Sept 2008)
President: $336,472 + $44,382 + $40,327 = $421,181

Save the Children (Oct 2007- Sept 2008)
President: $354,081 +$66,805 +$5,735 = $426,621

Child Fund July 2007-June 2008
AKA Christian's Children's Fund
President: $249,231 + $32,994 + $12,000 = $ 294,225

Compassion International July 2008 - June 2009
CEO: $214,943+ $34,743=$249,686

Pearl S Buck (July 2008-Jun 2009)
President: $132,652 + 12,001=$144,653

Christian Foundation for Children and Aging (2008 Calendar Year)
President: $105,756 + 16,239 = $121,995

Children, Incorporated (2006-2007)
President: $95,503 + 2749 = 98,252
Those are some nice salaries, especially in this day and age! This same web site concludes by reminding its readers that if a charity CEO earns $400,000, and the organization is asking the public to donate $20 per month, then the first 1,666 donations go directly into the pocket of the CEO, before the organization can ever dream of doing anything to assist children. To my mind this is a racket, because these kids are being brought into drought-plagued areas due to misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance by corrupt governments in control of those land areas. Added to this are the wars that are launched by those governments using weapons made by developed nations and bought using the same money that should have been used for the benefit of their indigenous populations.

Clearly instead of seeing starving kids from some far off land on British television sets, someone needs to place commercials that harp on about Liz and her family being freeloaders; the Crown being an undemocratic institution; the Privy Council being secretive and unelected; the legislature of Parliament being only half-elected, and the fact that 'The People' of the so-called United Kingdom have been denied their freeborn rights to both writing and ratifying a Constitution.

But that could not happen, could it? You can't buy political advertising on British television (or radio)!

July 30, 2011