The cost of a child: 61p ha ha ha
The toe rags at UNICEF have been at it again. They are trying to con money out of the hard of thinking and deep of wallet. Their advertising is full of doe-eyed kids, sad stories, big promises and even bigger lies.
UNICEF's big promise is that for 61p they can save a kid's life. If they can save the Kostov's kids for 61p, they are welcome to have a go, but trying might bankrupt even the spendthrifts at UNICEF. The 61p will "pay for the medicine to save a child's life". They reckon that they could save 3,400 kids a day or 1.24 million kids a year, all for 61p. Surely only a heartless bastard, or Count Kostov, would not give up 61p to save all those kiddies.
Now let's look a little further. The cost of saving the 1.24 million kids is about £750,000, or $1.5 million if you live on the roadkill-for-Jesus side of the Atlantic. UNICEF's annual budget was $2.78 billion in 2006. In other words, UNICEF could fund all the medicine for all the kids by spending just 5 cents out of every $100 of their income. Where does the other $99.95 cents go to? One way of finding out is to go to Timbuktu, where you will find all the aid agencies floating around in vast 4x4 vehicles with outsize ariels; their staff live in nice accomodation with local servants and drink and eat at nice expatriate watering holes. In other words, they are latter day colonialists but with the moral hypocrisy of spending other people's money while affecting their moral superiority over mere mortals like Count Kostov.
So now let's guess where your 61p will actually go. Will it:
a) go on saving kiddies lives (5 cents chance)
b) be spent on frapuccinos, large cars and international flights for UNICEF functionaries who like to maintain the lifestyle associated with such morally superior beings? ($99.95 chance)
Next time the CEO of UNICEF goes out for a nice $100 lunch, he will have the joy of reminding himself that his meal has cost the lives of over 100 kids, according to his own organisation's publicity. If there is a choice between cutting back on the CEO's restaurant bill or letting kids die, which decision does he make....?
In the unlikely chance that any of the money lands up with the kids, not with the UNICEF plutocrats, the result will be that our overpopulated planet will become even more overpopulated. For many centuries the Kostov estates did very well through war, famine and pestilence: it kept the population at a sustainable level. The black death was a bummer because so few peasants were left that they started to think they could gain thinks like money and democracy: a few generations of over-breeding re-established the natural order. Now we have overbred so much that the greenest thing the human race can do is to have a massive cull of itself: some combination of global warming, global pandemics and a few nutcases with nukes may provide for the involuntary cull of humanity that is required. Meanwhile, UNICEF are adding to the problem, not curing it, by encouraging ever-greater over-population. Hopefully, they are so wasteful and inefficient they will fail in their mission.
In the meantime, Count Kostov would like to get a list of the suckers who donate to UNICEF's scam. They should be ripe for the latest Kostov project: letting western investors buy up virgin forest on the Kostov estates to save them and reduce global warming. So far, my land agent has successfully issued certificates of title to the same plots five times over: the few people who come to check the forest have no idea that at least four other people have also bought the forest. And because it is a green investment, no one is allowed to touch or develop the forest which remains perfectly preserved for the Kostov hunting season.
UNICEF's big promise is that for 61p they can save a kid's life. If they can save the Kostov's kids for 61p, they are welcome to have a go, but trying might bankrupt even the spendthrifts at UNICEF. The 61p will "pay for the medicine to save a child's life". They reckon that they could save 3,400 kids a day or 1.24 million kids a year, all for 61p. Surely only a heartless bastard, or Count Kostov, would not give up 61p to save all those kiddies.
Now let's look a little further. The cost of saving the 1.24 million kids is about £750,000, or $1.5 million if you live on the roadkill-for-Jesus side of the Atlantic. UNICEF's annual budget was $2.78 billion in 2006. In other words, UNICEF could fund all the medicine for all the kids by spending just 5 cents out of every $100 of their income. Where does the other $99.95 cents go to? One way of finding out is to go to Timbuktu, where you will find all the aid agencies floating around in vast 4x4 vehicles with outsize ariels; their staff live in nice accomodation with local servants and drink and eat at nice expatriate watering holes. In other words, they are latter day colonialists but with the moral hypocrisy of spending other people's money while affecting their moral superiority over mere mortals like Count Kostov.
So now let's guess where your 61p will actually go. Will it:
a) go on saving kiddies lives (5 cents chance)
b) be spent on frapuccinos, large cars and international flights for UNICEF functionaries who like to maintain the lifestyle associated with such morally superior beings? ($99.95 chance)
Next time the CEO of UNICEF goes out for a nice $100 lunch, he will have the joy of reminding himself that his meal has cost the lives of over 100 kids, according to his own organisation's publicity. If there is a choice between cutting back on the CEO's restaurant bill or letting kids die, which decision does he make....?
In the unlikely chance that any of the money lands up with the kids, not with the UNICEF plutocrats, the result will be that our overpopulated planet will become even more overpopulated. For many centuries the Kostov estates did very well through war, famine and pestilence: it kept the population at a sustainable level. The black death was a bummer because so few peasants were left that they started to think they could gain thinks like money and democracy: a few generations of over-breeding re-established the natural order. Now we have overbred so much that the greenest thing the human race can do is to have a massive cull of itself: some combination of global warming, global pandemics and a few nutcases with nukes may provide for the involuntary cull of humanity that is required. Meanwhile, UNICEF are adding to the problem, not curing it, by encouraging ever-greater over-population. Hopefully, they are so wasteful and inefficient they will fail in their mission.
In the meantime, Count Kostov would like to get a list of the suckers who donate to UNICEF's scam. They should be ripe for the latest Kostov project: letting western investors buy up virgin forest on the Kostov estates to save them and reduce global warming. So far, my land agent has successfully issued certificates of title to the same plots five times over: the few people who come to check the forest have no idea that at least four other people have also bought the forest. And because it is a green investment, no one is allowed to touch or develop the forest which remains perfectly preserved for the Kostov hunting season.
posted by Count Kostov at
8:04 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home