Do-gooders create the anguish that they are supposedly trying to cure—if the humanitarians can't find some poor unfortunate to help, then they will then make you suffer until you beg for assistance. The good Samaritans will always make you hurt enough until you get on your knees and ask for their charity. Altruists will invariably stick a knife in your back until you implore them for mercy. Benefactors will seize every last cent from your pockets until you plead for alms. The idealists will make you suffer until you promise to be better.
1. Charity perpetuates misery. In order for charity to exist, the do-gooders must first be certain to create enough misfortune. Poverty is caused by the very government programs that seek its eradication—after all, if impoverishment were ever truly eliminated, those well-paid bureaucrats would be the first to lose their jobs. In this way, social workers would be the last group that would ever want to eradicate hardship—a just society would mean the end of their paychecks. Humanitarians produce suffering in order to make themselves look virtuous. If a bureaucrat actually eliminated some injustice, he would put himself out of a job; but if the manager were to expand the injury, then the administrator would have done enough work to justify a promotion.
2. Charity expands and increases misery. No matter how much money you donate, charities always want more cash. Even if you were to give some non-profit everything you own, they would still tell you that you must do more. Since a charity can never claim success in eradicating some harm, they take an opposite approach and claim that hardship is growing. In order to give themselves a bonus and a better pension, the social worker has got to make the problem look worse. If poverty rates were to somehow decrease, then the charities would logically require less funding—and the percentage that could then be pocked by the administrators would then be woefully reduced. Only if the extent of the misfortune were to be ever-expanding might the humanitarians then be able give themselves the kind of lifestyle they believe that they deserve. Increasing misfortune means increased funding.
3. Charity perpetuates dependence. In order to make sure the caseworkers get a regular paycheck, they first need returning cases. If the charity could heal some sort of disease with a single tablet, they would put themselves out of business with their benevolence. Instead, the non-profit needs loyal regulars, not remedies. Charities don't require cures—as much as consumers. In order to get those repeat customers, a charity generates dependence among the population it supposedly helps.
4. Charity is a deliberate insult. The people running a charity have a psychological need to feel themselves superior to the unfortunates that they are supposedly assisting, so they need to make the citizens receiving handouts acknowledge their subservience. In order to get a free meal, the altruists make the beneficiaries humiliate themselves—and the bureaucrats believe that the act of humbling is for their own good. Only by demoralizing a dependent clientele can the charity be assured of repeat business.
5. Charity destroys the human spirit. Alms-giving damages the personality—not of the recipient, but of the financial donor. The motives of the administrators of a charity are understandable: sheer greed. The motivations of the needy are undeniable: utter self-interest. However, the altruists that provide the monetary contributions are acting out of a sort of guilty masochism.
The bleeding-heart feels righteous by harming himself. Ultimately, all charitable giving is psychologically damaging—destroying your personality by causing you to seek virtue in deeds that injure yourself. The more you give, the more you weaken yourself. Giving money to the "needy" is the financial equivalent of an adolescent girl slashing at a limb with a razor blade; both the do-gooder and the teenage cutter will do anything to their assets in order to stop feeling so empty. An act of charity is just economic self-mutilation. In the final analysis, donating to a charity will just make you feel that much more unfulfilled—and all the more unhappy when you finally see the gouges in your bank balance. Even if your charitable giving does not leave you completely impoverished, even if the highschooler's bloody wounds are not life-threatening—it still is unhealthy. There is something downright unhygienic about a person who needs to suffer in order to feel worthy.
6. Generosity is a moral failing. Kindness is a way of postponing the acceptance of your own true nature: human beings are innately self-centered. Benevolence, then, is not merely an attempt to impress others, but a way of deceiving yourself. Generosity prevents you from truly knowing yourself. Anything that keeps you from expressing your darkside is bound to have unfortunate consequnces in the long term.
Without a doubt, there is plenty of suffering in this life, but charity only makes it worse. To be sure, there is plenty of pain in this world, but the last people that are going to do anything about it are the humanitarians. The prime directive of a charity is to perpetuate the charity.
Ultimately, the only people that charity is going to help are the persons doing the helping. Volunteers do it to you for your own good.