"There is an indifference that is more helpful than your blabbering about being humane, as the right hand pets some of us like Mother Teresa, and the left hand swings the sword of the tribunal against others. Little devils of goodness. Humanity hyenas. There is no one less open to suffering than you official humanitarians. Marsbodies that appear as the protectors of human rights... The people here have become as evil as they are not. And the war has made you tourists as evil as you are."

-- Peter Handke, Dugout Canoe, The Play About The Film About The War

You may be taught to believe that it is great how wealthy people donate amounts of their money and time to some "humanitarian" cause. But it's not. It's disgusting, instead. First of all, it is useless: the world is more and more divided among the lucky ones and the unlucky ones, so the system obviously doesn't work. But also, it is a race for hypocrisy so disgusting and shameful it can't even be called evil: it must be called shameful, so that we don't waste time with exceptions, like those who do it not because they're "evil" but because they're "good", those who didn't mean it that way, those who went there in person, those who just wanted to do good, those who "wanted to see", those who couldn't find a place for them at home, those who made so much money they "felt it was right to...", etc.
For example, on the past week's issue of TIME.

( Parenthesis: I made the mistake months ago to subscribe for $5 to TIME magazine in order to access their archive on line. I wanted to read some stuff happened on the year I was born. The stuff wasn't interesting at all, but I have been receiving their crappy magazine every week since then, although I have canceled my subscription as soon as the trial period expired. And every time I read it, I know there is something in it that gives me the creeps. )

So, on the past week's issue of TIME there was a list of the supposed 100 "most influential" people of the world. Well, typical TIME's crap, I guess. "Influential" according to their lousy point of view of course.
I browsed the article terrorized to find Berlusconi's face in it. Luckily there wasn't.
Among them though, looking upward so that his double chin doesn't show, with his "I'm so committed" smile, was obviously Bill Gates (and wife). They were on the cover of another disgusting issue of TIME with Bono few weeks ago already, and it was all about how much good they were all making to Africa. The caption about Bill Gates went: "Giving money and Hope to the world". See, he "gives money to the world". He's not part of the band of brothers who drain money from everywhere wishing for a crowded unhappy world where everybody uses his cheap products. He actually gives hope.

Not surprisingly, more than a half of the names in the TIME's list are of American fellows whose supposed merit is to give away part of their money to some "association". The fact is always citied among the great things they did in life for which they turned out to be influential.

It's interesting to learn why affluent men of rich societies tip around more than women. Even if they do it with all the discretion in the world, the reason is always public. Psychologist Geoffrey Miller explained why in his impressive and fascinating book "The Mating Mind" (a must read, first book I ever read to give a reasonable explanation to why creativity exists): tips and donations are part of a sort of "peacock tale" extended behavior. It is all about the show of fitness we use to extend our right of choice in our circles under many forms. Everybody does it, in a way or another, you know, just to be "influential" in his own way, just as we all do creative things or test jokes around to allure the other sex, or friends.
The way I see it, though, to donate to Humanitarian Associations is particularly hateful in the picture, even though is almost a must now, especially in the US. Because the unhappiness of the world is transformed into your personal triumph, and everybody would be disgusted and ashamed by the deal if it wasn't for the physical distance between the tragedies you throw money at, and the living rooms where you can announce how you threw the money.
After all, all you gave is just your money, but nothing permanently good can come from the money itself.

I always thought that most of humanitarian associations devoted to the developing of "peacock tales" of affluent or middle-class men around the world should be banished and neglected, so that the evidence of the problems our richness create around wouldn't have any excuse.

Now, when I read that this is a world where in survivors camps peacekeepers in Liberia exchange beer food and cigarettes -- and trips to town on large SUVs -- with sex with boys and girls and kids recluse into the camps, I am not really surprised. I can perfectly imagine how and why this happens. What strikes me though, is that nobody seem to notice how this is obviously in the nature of "Humanitarian" help. It is bound to happen in this context.

In the "Humanitarian" world, in fact, everything is supposed to relay on the "Humanity" of the people involved, because nothing else in the order of things is ever discussed: not the unjust world, not the wars, not the price some pays for our Oil or Gas or goods and all that sort of stuff. It all relays on the fact that someone is "Human" enough to go there and do something without changing anything in the long term. "Human" enough to go there and face all the problems knowing there's nothing effective to do about them, grinding his teeth for the moment he will be cheered getting back home -- that "human".
But "Human" is also sex desires, greed, perversions, deceit, the fascination of one self's power, the unbearable sight of others' pain, the long hot days idling far from everything you know, the routine of misery, the temptations of corruption etc. It's all so human, just like craving to be influential is. Because being human never meant being good, how come we always forget it.

-- in picture above: another engraving by Bruegel