Samantha Power, again, makes for the perfect illustration. She misused and abused the Rwandan genocide to further her own sinister agenda. I feel the liberal media, like Power, enjoys guilt-tripping Westerners, and acts as if ALL Westerners have so much that we constantly need to give to the impoverished. Granted, there are definitely those that are GENUINE within this mix, but I feel like no one has the decency to say: “let’s take power away from the overly-wealthy elites FIRST, make sure everyone in OUR societies are healthy FIRST, and THEN focus on humanitarianism. (All the while allowing the REAL humanitarians to perform their natural karma.)”
It should be pretty obvious by now that Samantha Power and the more sordid liberals have been using talk of humanitarianism to cover up blatant and savage imperialism exactly the way liberals did during European colonialism. All the financial-aid that has been given hasn’t been effective because it’s given disingenuously. It’s done only as a means to conceal the more sinister intention of the West and truly is equivalent to carelessly throwing bones and scraps at the problem when taken as a whole (though again, I’m not trying to invalidate those who genuinely do such things for the right reasons.)
There is a problem that needs to be addressed and enter the realm of public discourse:
When Westerners are bombarded with images of starving African children and made to feel the need to give, one must remember that those who are disproportionately wealthy can always match the donation of the common person and then some in order to create the guise/illusion of benefactor and humanitarian. (And sometimes only the more decent people with only meager income take a hit by sacrificing some of their own wealth in order to give while the very sinister and very wealthy give nothing at all.)
Thus, continuously throwing money at problems for insincere reasons can actually be a means for systems of control (fed by biological human fickleness) to maintain unjust elitism.
I would like to see a very wealthy person give away 60% of their total assets. If they are truly that wealthy, they can get by on 40% of what they have. Only then will I see a truly wealthy person as a real humanitarian.
I think what needs to start happening is for common people to demand the basics of life from the rich within our own societies first. This will allow for more altruistic personalities to come to the forefront because when the basics of life are guaranteed, people will finally be able to speak their mind properly. REAL freedom of speech will allow Westerners to put greater constraints on wicked Western tyranny. Wealth would start flowing back to the people. Eventually this could lead to the spilling over of excess wealth to the Third World which is far better than disingenuous charity that is done as a façade to hide the true sinister forces at work. (Yes, I said sinister. Yes, some people are evil. Why is it not okay to say that?)
In reality, what most Westerners probably need to do is continue to give what they can while trying their hardest to demand a guarantee of the basics of life and a limitation to the lack of constraints on the very wealthy. We need to change our focus and intent. This doesn’t mean someone who is about to make a donation should hold themselves back. No. It means we need to stop the fake humanitarian propaganda and revert back to more natural forms of altruism, in my opinion.
End benevolence; abandon righteousness
The people return to piety and charity
–Tao Te Ching
We also need to be more honest about our intentions. If we are focusing on ourselves at the moment, we just need to say so. It’s better than covering it up in phony-benevolence.
I have no problem with “moralizing.” The only problem is phony-moralizing that serves selfish aims. The Tao Te Ching alludes to how getting rid of such things altogether will get rid of the latter problem and since it assumes that most people are naturally decent anyway, it makes the conclusion that without this disingenuously contrived notion of responsibility and the sinister judgement society hypocritically places on those who are not “acting as humanitarians,” people will return to a more natural state of generosity and hospitality. And there may be a lot of truth to that. (The common person has a sixth sense for when something is done or forced on them disingenuously though it’s not always easy for the average person to articulate. It does, however, seem to result in a type of natural indignation to such spurious forms of guilt and coercion.)
Thus, perhaps it should be changed to: “End phony benevolence and abandon righteousness put on as a façade to conceal self-serving interests.”
We also need to end our own oppression first before we can really help end the oppression of others.
Why does the media focus so much on “ending poverty” in the Third World, but next to no time focusing on the plight of the homeless and starving all around us within our own communities?