When did NGOs become so prevalent?

When did NGO become de facto government agents?

Did they start under George W Bush as faith based initiatives?

NGOs are facilitating illegal immigration and providing shelter and food.

How long has this been happening?

I’m guessing NGOs became corrupted during Obama


First, consider the possibility that the roles are reversed.

There also is the question of which government.

And there is the question of other third-party involvement.

The result appears to be one where foreign governments and certain private actors use control of NGOs to give their agents in the US government an excuse to act against American interest.


Right! This is the heart of the grift. The NGOs are everywhere and for everything. It is an elegant design for laundering.


Let’s start with: who provided and paid for those big white air conditioned buses bringing people up to our border? I cannot effing believe nobody even asks that question.
LOOK at these people: they’re chubby, well if not tastefully dressed, blindingly white sneakers….these bozos did not walk hundreds of miles over mountains and through the desert.
And I think you may be on the right track. If these organizations purport to be “faith-based”, it’s hands off by our government cuz of First Amendment. No fed taxation, which eliminates one arduous level of scrutiny. So yeah, why wouldn’t foreign govts use such orgs to operate with impunity?
Cant we just briefly detain one or two of these young Chinese men we see jogging into the U.S. and ask who paid for their plane tickets?
For that matter, what airport are all these Chinks and Africans flying into? Can’t we, y’know, get a little surveillance goin’ there? I mean what is the CIA for?

(No, scratch that: we now know what it’s for: to fight “Christian nationalism” within our own country.)


I did read that Catholic Charities and the Red Cross were organizations “helping” migration.

Excuse my desire to pontificate.

As I’ve emphasized previously, the contemporary definition of charity poses a significant challenge. In my view, true charity involves direct, person-to-person assistance, where both the giver and the recipient experience character-building benefits. The giver gains the satisfaction of helping others, while the receiver learns to trust in the inherent goodness of people.

Let’s examine this through the lens of my Catholic upbringing. In my youth, the Catholic community provided local education and hospitals, allowing givers to witness the direct impact of their charity and derive emotional satisfaction from it. However, a disconnection emerged as the receiver attributed their benefits to the Catholic organization rather than individual givers. This disconnect intensified as Catholic charities extended their reach to far-off lands, making it challenging for givers to appreciate the direct impact of their contributions.

Complications arise when Catholics discover that their donations may support causes they do not find charitable or even oppose. The once-personal act of charity transforms into a detached force, with the charitable organization evolving independently of the individuals providing the funding. This shift underscores the challenge of maintaining a genuine connection between the giver and receiver in modern charitable endeavors.

I believe that this has huge implications. One of which is the breakdown of the cohesiveness of communities and the nation.

Today, the school of my youth is closed.


Yuh. With a lot of these orgs, you’re “funding” the CEO’s obscene salary.

But,y’know, people seem to LIKE wasting money! Witness the rise of “B corps”— benefit corporations. You”invest” in them because you like whatever they say they’re doing, but the corp is relieved of any obligation to make money for its shareholders! (And that, I learned in law school, is the sole and primary purpose of a business corporation)
pretty neat, huh? See “nonprofit corporations” aren’t supposed to make a profit. Duh. But these B corps are for-profit, it’s just, they don’t have any obligation to make a profit nor to share it with shareholders if they do. Win-win!


Stakeholder capitalism is the idea that a corporation should focus on the needs of all its stakeholders. Shareholder, customer, supplier, employees, community, and society as a whole. It has infected nearly all corporations. Like all bad ideas, it hides behind the veil of “being good”.

It offers a great foundation for PR. If you can claim a concern about everyone, who can be opposed. Compare that to maximizing shareholder value. Doesn’t that sound like you will do anything to make money?

The lefty’s use this as a trick to force their agenda.

The public has been told that their are marginalized groups and the need for equity. Political groups then use this to ask, given stakeholder capitalism, what Miss CEO are you doing to help marginalized groups? I have a DEI organization and we are making strides to hire and promote marginalized people.

Are the shareholders asking or just leftist individuals or groups? Is Larry Fink asking because he is a lefty or is he asking because the true shareholders care?

There is a difference between running your business as per the owners and being forced to do things to satisfy the pressure from political organizations.

In a business, the ultimate decision-maker is the owner or owners, not the managers. The responsibility for deciding whether to adopt stakeholder capitalism or prioritize specific values lies with those who own the company. Corporate managers don’t have the authority to unilaterally choose stakeholder capitalism; it’s a decision within the purview of the owners.

If the owners desire value maximization, that becomes the company’s focus. Conversely, if the owners prioritize employees, diversity, or addressing global warming, the company’s attention shifts accordingly. In essence, the owners’ preferences guide the overarching direction of the company.

It is like your neighbor shouting at the crew painting your house that the owner wants the house painted purple.

All that needs to be said is that corporations must follow the desire of the owners. There is a reason they don’t say this while trying to convince everyone that stakeholder capitalism is really what the owners want.


Not exactly. Before, if you were a business corporation, your board wasnt s’posed to, like give away money that could be distributed to the shareholders. The B corps are a new category of corporate form. Yet, it seems people DO “ invest” in ‘em. I personally can’t imagine why.


Among the larger and more famous U.S. brands on the list are Ben & Jerry’s (food products), Patagonia (apparel), and Seventh Generation (cleaning products).


The B Corp movement was founded in 2006, with the first companies certified in 2007. The early adopters were mostly like Patagonia—niche brands with purpose-infused missions. Now, Rose Marcario, Patagonia’s CEO, sits on an advisory committee dedicated to helping massive multinationals make the transition to B Corp status.


I hafta say,the kind of people who would buy exorbitantly expensive Patagonia sportswear, when they could get equally warm, serviceable polartec stuff far cheaper at Walmart, are JUST the kinda people who would invest in B corps!
But query: whence the Walmart wares? Mebbe…China? Calls out for tariff! I mean the stuff is REALLY cheap, it could ber a considerable tariff burden before it ceases underpricing Patagonia.


Where Are Patagonia Clothes Made? 2024 Overview - All American Made

Patagonia sources materials from 16 countries, including the USA, but over 50 percent of its products come from outside the United States. The brand has 43 factories, with only one of those factories being in the United States in Mount Airy, North
Carolina, which only employs 190 workers. …

Patagonia makes an estimated 24 percent of its products in China, and 68 percent of its products come from Asia. The company works with nine contracted facilities in China. The company produces products in several countries around Asia. They claim that they do this because of the expertise and price in China.

This is great! The kind of person who buys from Patagonia:
(a) gets to feel superior to Walmart shoppers,
(b) pays a much higher price for items probably made in the same Asian exploited-labor factories as Walmart, and
(c) provides a much higher profit margin to Our Betters, who laugh at their Patagonia shoppers all the way to the bank.