deceit

perpetuating the fraud of patriotism

Submitted by antarchi on September 30, 2010 - 03:06

The more difficult the government finds it to retain its power, the more numerous are the men who share it. In former times a small band of rulers held the reins of power, emperors, kings, dukes, their soldiers and assistants; whereas now the power and its profits are shared not only by the government officials and by the clergy, but by capitalists - great and small, landowners, bankers, members of parliament, professors, village officials, men of science, and even artists, but particularly by authors and journalists.

And all these people, consciously or unconsciously, spread the deceit of patriotism, which is indispensable to them if the profits of their position are to be preserved. And the fraud, thanks to the means of its propagation, and to the participation in it of a much larger number of people, having become more powerful, is continued so successfully, that, notwithstanding the increased difficulty of deceiving, the extent to which the people are deceived is the same as ever...

— Lev Tolstoy

On patriotism

10 pence in every pound

Submitted by antarchi on August 19, 2010 - 19:36

UPDATED:
- letter to Oxfam

Oxfam has the following claim up on its website - under the rubric 'Bin the myth'.

Oxfam spends all its money on admin

This one's definitely not for recycling! The fact is we spend just 10p in every £1 donated to Oxfam on support and running costs – money vital to keeping an effective, professional organisation going. Everything we do depends on it – running efficient projects, getting people, equipment, supplies and funds to where they're needed. The whole life-saving shebang.

Bin the Myth: 'Myth' no 2

I wonder how most potential donors interpret that claim. They probably assume that 90 pence out of every pound donated goes towards direct assistance to those who need it most - perhaps on famine relief, medicines, building wells, buying tools or machinery. Some of them may also realise that part of the money will be used to train and build up the skills of local groups and individuals, and may therefore go towards the salaries of Western consultants or 'experts'. But most will probably assume that Western salaries are counted as 'support' and therefore come out of the 10 pence, rather than the 90. And most will probably assume that 'running costs' include those run-up in the local offices, as well as those incurred by staff employed at central office in the UK.

They would be wrong. The claim does indeed imply that all 'support and running costs' are covered by the 10 pence, not the 90. But support and running costs within each country in fact come out of the 90 pence, not the 10 - as we will see if we look at the small print, hidden away at the bottom of page 60 of Oxfam's 2009 Annual Report and Account, long, long after the pretty picture (on page 42) informing readers how the funds were used:

business as usual in chile

Submitted by antarchi on May 29, 2008 - 18:52

The files clearly show that British planners in Santiago and London totally welcomed the coup [in Chile] and immediately set about conducting good relations with the military rulers as repression increased, even secretly conniving with the junta to mislead the British public.

British officials were completely aware of the scale of atrocities. Three days after the coup, Ambassador Seconde reported to the Foreign Office that ‘it is likely that casualties run into the thousands, certainly it has been far from a bloodless coup’. Six days after, he noted that ‘stories of military excesses and mounting casualties have begun increasingly to circulate. The extent of the bloodshed has shocked people’.

— Mark Curtis

Unpeople

rotting systems

Submitted by antarchi on July 7, 2007 - 12:53

Corruptness: lack of integrity or honesty; use of a position of trust for dishonest gain (from Definitions of corruption on the Web

Corruption is pretty normal nowadays. In the business world I can almost regard it as fair play: part of the sordid rules of that game. The latest Saudi arms deal was nothing surprising. We know that's how the world works, how the Blair government works, how the arms trade works. Shocking, perhaps, that we have become so inured to this that it no longer even surprises - let alone shocks - us. But it doesn't.

What does still shock (me, anyway) is corruption in spheres where you don't expect it, where the rules of the game do not demand it, where very few consider it, let alone engage in it. I don't just mean fiddling the books, which is indeed normal in every ngo and probably every institution (and maybe the rules of the game demand it). I mean deliberate deceit for personal gain, 'use of a position of trust for dishonest gain', in a world - such as the ngo world - where personal gain is publicly, demonstratively put in second place. Or that is the idea anyway.

The foundations on which our ultimate, unlimited faith in human beings rest are so incredibly fragile. The examples of human duplicity, brutality, ignominy are so horrifying and so widespread that it sometimes seems that those foundations must crumble. But we shore them up, determined that ignoble behaviour is always the result of corrupted rules of the game, of unfortunate circumstance, of the system, rather than the individual.

I had always imagined that the ngo world, even if corrupt in its own small way, was a relatively safe haven. When that too starts to rot; when the individuals appear to be moving the system towards corruption, rather than vice versa; when they look at the rot as if it is normal and the safe haven eats up the rot as if nothing has happened – then one wonders what on earth it is that we are trying to shore up.

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

Submitted by antarchi on May 18, 2007 - 05:40

Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

— Downing Street Memo

Minutes of the Prime Minister's meeting, July 2002

Emperors With No Clothes

Submitted by antarchi on February 25, 2007 - 01:26

Do the emperors know they have no clothes? and is it worse to know you are naked and lead others to believe you aren't, or worse to manage even to deceive yourself?

Perhaps it depends on why you feel you need the deceit; and perhaps on whether you really do (need it).

We aren't allowed to judge as HR 'educators': we are only asked to understand. So even if they didn't seem to us to need the deceit - they clearly 'did'. Otherwise they wouldn't have deceived (being good and honourable human beings).

I want to be told if I am looking naked (or ever looking like an emperor)

Syndicate content