Aristotle makes the same point Scalia did in "Nicomachean Ethics". He talks about how the recipient of charity hates his benefactor. The benefactor derives a nice feeling from donating money to a poor person, so he ASSUMES [wrongly] that the same feeling is generated in the object of his charity. Wrong!
As Aristotle points out, someone who is in debt to someone else DREAMS of them dying (so that they no longer feel indebted). Imagine if you took out a loan to a bank and the bank died, thus absolving you of the debt? You'd be in ecstasies.
Likewise there is an unreciprocated love between benefactor and pauper.
Long story short: White people, don't imagine that you can buy the love of black people and other minorities. The more you "try to be charitable," they more they resent you . . . the more they see your gift as an "entitlement".
Racism in its heyday affected 10% of the population. Anti-white racism affects 70% of the population.
By any metric, 70% is worse than 10%. (But, oh, so much more lucrative. Creating slushfunds predicated on transferring wealth from people who never owned slaves to people who never WERE slaves . . . and administered by shadowy Middle Men, who will embezzle the money-flows.)
- Footnote: In related news, the Holocaust generation is dying out, ending the opportunity for what Norm Finkelstein characterizes as graft and corruption. It's almost as if the people running the lucrative international "racial grievance Industry" have to open up new revenue streams. Do me a favor. Get me a list of the surnames involved in promoting anti-white racism. I'd be curious to see if a pattern emerges.
We would take walks and listen to audiobooks on an MP3 player . . . and then pause and discuss it at intervals.
I think we started with Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics". You can get sound files for this from Librivox.com for free.
I uploaded the files, and we would do circuits at this field (where they intended to build a shopping plaza but never did). So no buildings exist on the land, but roads do. So we'd walk around and listen. And then, when a hard part came up, or a part that I thought might use explaining, I'd pause the Mp3 player and talk about it with him. And then hit "Play" again, after we were done talking.
By this method, we got through the 300-page book. It took us months. But it was worth it. Because it gave him certain bedrock concepts and vocabulary words. We built on these next with Plato's "Republic".
Basically, each book builds on the last.
Here's a link to Vibrivox: https://librivox.org/the-nicomachean-ethics-by-aristotle/
- P.S.--Sometimes I'd get the hard copy of a book, too, so he could both listen and follow along with the text visually, when we read together at night. We did this with Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations". We'd always incrementally pause and look up Youtube videos on certain difficult concepts mentioned in the book. This, as I said, can take a long time. But I think it's worth it, because by the end, the child really understands the material. It also constitutes "together time" with the parent.
Those aren't "self-hating comments". That's race-hate from ethnically Middle Eastern people toward Western European Christians.
Their names are Ben COHEN and Jerry GREENFIELD.
From Wikipedia: "Cohen was born in Brooklyn, New York, and raised in the town of Merrick, New York, on Long Island by Jewish parents Frances and Irving."
As for Greenfield, Wikipedia has him listed under "Jewish-American Philanthropists".
Sorry, but Middle Eastern Jews calling for the murder of Western European Christians is not "self-hate". It's just hate.
Feuerstein killed by her own golem. Who'd a thunk it?
Wow! Look at the eyes. This is what brain damage (from chemicals like the birth control pill) and MK-Ultra look like.
These people are literally brain-damaged. You're not going to "argue them out" of their mental illness. When these psychopaths reach that level of moral anomie, the only solution is a bullet to the back of the head.
An Israeli diplomat said, "In America, you can question God himself, but you're not allowed to question the Holocaust".
That gives you an insight into the current religion that's in power in the West.
You can place images of Jesus into jars of urine (as one artist did), and you will draw no adverse consequences. But use another group's religious symbolism in the same way and you'll end up fired, beaten or in prison.
A meme going about now is "Imagine a group so disgusting they have to make it illegal to not like them"?
The point is: As institutions start losing power, they become more authoritarian to maintain their slipping grip on it.
Like Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausecu. As he and his wife were being stood against a wall before the firing squad, he was barking out orders to the men about to shoot him. This was his natural instinct when he sensed he was no longer in charge: To become MORE authoritarian.
This is why we're watching the total lockdown of society now under the pretext of Covid. The old power structure is bankrupt, collapsing, discredited. And to maintain it, they're going to have to start letting loose The Inquisition.
NEXT STOP: THE REFORMATION!
I don't hate homosexuals, by any stretch of the imagination. On the contrary, I've always been friends with them. (At one point, I was hazed because I didn't shun a gay guy at work, and instead became friends with him . . . a mutual love of literature constituting a bond.)
I lean more on the artistic side, so I've always been in circles with homosexuals, and have never been averse to them as individuals.
For instance, I like "Walk Away" founder Brandon Straka. I think he's done some great work (and he's gay).
I would never suffer anyone to be mean to him, or to make him feel like anything less than a good American.
I just don't consider him a "conservative," in the classic sense.
We're in a post-conservative, post-liberal phase, anyway. Those are now largely discredited brands, because the definitions have been so twisted and abused.
What's happening is we're transitioning from a republic to a democracy. (Remember in Aristotle's "Politics," Cicero's "De Republica" and Plato's "Republic," they describe a democracy as the decayed form of a republic.) As it goes into decline, certain sociological phenomena occur. Plato for instance, writes: "Such is democracy;—a pleasing, lawless, various sort of government, distributing equality to equals and unequals alike."
He talks about how, in a democracy, standards erode and everything is equalized: good and ill. He says that, in a democracy, the citizen and the illegal alien will be treated as equal; the parent and the child; the vice-ridden and the virtuous. He says that in a democracy "Anarchy is the law, not of the State only, but of private houses, and extends even to the animals. Father and son, citizen and foreigner, teacher and pupil, old and young, are all on a level; fathers and teachers fear their sons and pupils, and the wisdom of the young man is a match for the elder, and the old imitate the jaunty manners of the young because they are afraid of being thought morose." This last part reminds me of Oscar Wilde's quote: "In America, the young are always ready to give to those who are older than themselves the full benefits of their inexperience."
Plato goes one step further and says that, in a democracy, the fetish for equality will be so pronounced that animals will be held to be on par with human beings.
Needless to say, this has happened recently, with animal rights advocates claiming that animals should have human rights. See here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-17116882
What has happened within the last few years is that we moved away from a republic (whose end-goal is "the promotion of virtue among the people") to a democracy (whose end-goal is "equality").
We've become indiscriminate, removing benchmarks, objective standards of reality, and dedicating ourselves to the proposition that "all things are equal".
Toward that end, within the last ten years, great strides have been made to normalize statistical aberrations [especially related to sex]. For instance, not even Barack Obama was for gay marriage in 2008. Go watch Youtube clips on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhp_DDHe_X0 The Republican Party in 2021 is now to the left of Obama in 2008. To me, this is astonishing.
But leaving politics aside . . .
Evolutionarily, being homosexual (while not making you inherently "evil") IS less than ideal. Akin to being an albino or a hemophiliac.
In evolutionary terms, any animal that doesn't breed dies out. Homosexuality is definitionally a dysfunction, and has always been held to be so (before the last 5 minutes). This isn't the Bible speaking. This is Darwin.
Just mathematically, homosexuals are "outside the statistical norm". They're outliers, anomalies. There is no moral judgment here. Just objective reality.
It's a habit of the left to take the exception to the rule, and to try to make THAT the rule.
"All blacks must be portrayed as computer scientists,' say the left.
"Gays must be portrayed as . . . er . . . uh . . . equal to and identical to straight counterparts."
My reservation with the equalization of "all things" is that you're now promoting a fringe identity as if it's on par with the main archetype of a society. We use archetypes as role models. What a healthy society does is promote behaviors that strengthen the society: lionizing men of integrity, people who start families, individuals whose efforts promote the civilization's posterity.
To raise gays up to the level of "role models," or "civilizational archetypes" is (to me) akin to spending an inordinate amount of time obsessing on dwarves or left-handed people.
I'm not a religious man. I'm more of a Greco-Roman. I hold with Marcus Aurelius who said "The gods do not punish us. There are no punishments. Only consequences".
Why I fear turning gays into "role models" is that its' like promoting amputation fetishists as role-models, or people who cut themselves.
After all, there are consequences for being gay. According to studies, gays die 22 years sooner than straight counterparts. (For lesbians, it's 11 years.) To put that in context, smoking shaves 8 years off your life.
So to promote homosexuality as if its a path that leads to happiness and fulfillment is like telling 6 year-olds that smoking is good for them. Or seeing someone with anorexia and telling them, "It's deterministic! You're 'born that way'. Nothing you can do. Anorexia gene or . . . er . . . uh . . . something."
I have no problem with someone pursuing that path, just as long as they're honest about it and understand that reality has consequences.
As a function of capitalism, we're in a reckless time-period where marketers want to decouple behavior from consequences. Like when AIDS happened and, by modifying your behavior, you could avoid it. But they didn't want to modify their behavior. "Just use science to remove the consequences, so we can act the same". (What's that Einstein quote? "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.")
Same thing with the birth control pill. "I want all the sex I can have, and no consequences!"
But there ARE consequences, as it turns out. The birth control pill has tons of deleterious effects on the body and thins the frontal lobe leading to bipolar disorder in women.
There are massive consequences to monkeying around with nature.
But that seems to be the trend today: Getting people to do unhealthy things and lying to them, saying, "There will be no consequences".
Like giving hormone blockers to little kids. These children grow up with undersized internal organs and all sorts of health problems that result in early (and painful) death. But you'd never know this from watching TV. (It's supposed to be a secret: "Shhhhh!")
Look at lesbian cancer rates, as another example. When a woman has a baby, certain hormones are released which alter her body chemistry and stave off the formation of cancer cells. Since 98% of lesbians don't breed, they end up having higher rates of cancer. Higher behavioral problems related to hormonal imbalances, with sky-high domestic abuse rates. These are not happy people. And over top of all that, they have the prospect of dying 11 years earlier than heterosexual counterparts.
So my position is, "Do anything you want. You're an adult. You can use your freedom in any way you choose. But don't lie to my children and tell them that aberrant behavior has no consequences. That vice and virtue lead to the same place. That a lifestyle of ethics and a lifestyle of hedonism are "equal". Because then I must register a strident objection."
I'm reading about Martin Luther now with my son. I, too, was struck by the parallels from 1500 and today.
In 1500, the printing press spurred literacy and woke up the masses. This led to destabilization of the old order as people started to question things.
In 2021, we have the internet. This led to a very similar erosion of power for the ruling elite.
In 1500, the church controlled the schools, the charities, did infrastructure, ran the universities, and provided all the imagery that society used to see itself. That's why paintings and statues were so important to iconography. It provided the language that the people used to craft their own myths, culture, etc.
In 2021, the imagery is not Christian imagery anymore. It's . . . well, let's just say it owes more to a certain famous mercantile group. They control all media, all universities, all financial centers and institutional power.
Heresy is not questioning Jesus, but questioning a certain event from World War Two.
This group (like the old corrupt Catholic Church) does NOT want to give up power. But power is slipping away as people are starting to doubt the veracity of their narratives.
Control-by-guilt is no longer working.
"You're inherently evil and racist and bad, but you can offset this by giving money for indulgenc---- er. . . uh . .. reparations".
Even the control grid of 2021 bears a striking resemblance to the Catholic control system. (It's significant to remember that "catholic" means "global," "universal".) It was the first form of globalism. Back in 1500, your sinfulness was bringing on Armageddon. But it could be held at bay if you gave your money to the church. Today, a very similar global control system is making the claim that your sin is causing global warming. But your selfishness and evil can be offset by paying a global tax to shadowy unaccountable oligarchs who will have access to the slush fund.
Just as the Catholic Church was a death cult, with nuns who refused to breed. We have global waring fanatics who refuse to breed due to the "carbon footprint" babies cause. Watch one "secular nun" here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj2xHsR8p5c
What we're seeing now is a cult . . . but one that acquired institutional power.
And like the Catholic church, this new cult demands that you believe certain things as articles of faith. And if you dare question them, you're a Heretic," a "denialist".
But they're losing, because truth doesn't fear inquiry. It costs a whole lot more to maintain a lie. When you start arresting people for daring to look deeper into historical events . . . when you begin censoring people and criminalizing legal behavior (and de-criminalizing criminal behavior), the people start to lose faith in you.
Eventually, Martin Luther won. And, as a result of this, kingdoms fell . . . to be replaced by republics (which are forms of government that arise when the middle class expands). If history is any judge, we're likely to see a huge collapse, where political paradigms shift and the old post-WWII power structure collapses, to be replaced by something new. Perhaps we'll get our republics back, after Rule-by-Banker comes to an end.
Ah, excellent! Someone who's studied this stuff!
I too study it for a living. I also teach my son political science. This year, we read Plato's "Republic," Aristotle's "Politics," Cicero's "De Republica," "Considerations on Representative Government," by John Stuart Mill, "Leviathan," by Thomas Hobbes. And we just finished John Locke's "Two Treatises on Civil Government".
I can give you the magazine I produce videos for (on news analysis), so you can watch my content, where I discuss these books [among others].
It's great to see someone else who actually cares about these issues and is informed.
Another book I read this year was Jane Mayer's "Dark Money," where she traces Koch Brothers' money and how it shapes the Republican Party. Mayers acts like the Libertarian Kochs are the "opposites" of the Liberals in the Democratic Party. In making this assumption, she errs.
Both Libertarians and Liberals are creations of the Age of Enlightenment, and they're on the same spectrum. Both groups hold "freedom" to be the highest value.
Conservatism, by contrast, does NOT assert that freedom is the highest value. It holds VIRTUE as the highest value. Freedom is still important. According to Immanuel Kant, freedom is a necessary prerequisite for ethical behavior. (See his book "The Metaphysic of Morals" for a more in-depth analysis.) Kant says that ethical behavior is not about robotic behavior and copying others. "There is no imitation in ethics," he writes. One has to FREELY CHOOSE the ethical action for it to be ethical at all.
So, to conservatives, freedom is a means. Virtue is the end.
To Liberals and Libertarians, by contrast, freedom is not the means, but the end.
Hence why so many of them confuse liberty with libertinism.
Which is why I begged pardon to disagree with your formulation that "hedonistic lifestyles of degeneracy" were "conservative".
If you believe that America was founded for crack-smoking, gay pride parades and sodomy, you just may have missed the entire point of America . . . which Thomas Paine envisioned as a "Christian Sparta". [See: "Common Sense".]
As John Adams said, "Our Constitution was written for a religious and moral people, and is wholly unequal to any other."
Our nation was founded by men whose whole aim was virtue. And in fact, in Aristotle's "Politics" he makes this point. He says that different forms of government have different end-goals. The end-goal of an oligarchy, for instance, is the transfer of wealth from the many to the few. The end-goal of a democracy, he adds, is equality. The end-goal of a republic?
Aristotle says: "The end-goal of a republic is the promotion of virtue among the people".
America was founded as a republic. It was NOT founded (nor envisioned) as New Sodom and Gommorah. The founders didn't create it so you'd have "the freedom to do evil shit". Freedom was there for you to choose VIRTUE.
To reiterate, our Constitution was not written with perverts, Satanists and trans activists in mind. It was, to repeat: ". . . written for a religious and moral people, and is wholly unequal to any other."
You're confusing libertarianism [which is sociopathic and endorses no values] and conservatism which DOES promote traditional values.
Libertarians just like money, and are content with Satanism, Sodom and gomorrah, open borders, trans-children, etc. As long as they get tax cuts they're fine outsourcing everything else to the radical left.
Conservative are more like Pat Buchanan, or the Groypers. (Hint: They're not down with the degeneracy.)
Isn't "gay conservative" a contradiction in terms?
They're not actually "conservative". They're just . . . American.
There's a difference.
A conservative is someone conserving traditional values. Homosexuality is not now (nor was it ever) a "traditional value".
I'm not beating up on gays. Just pointing out that they are definitionally not conservative. But neither was Trump. When the neocons bashed him for not "being a true conservative," one astute critics observed, "Trump did something phenomenal. He didn't run as a liberal or conservative. He ran as--an American."
I personally prefer AMERICANS to conservatives.
John F Kennedy was an American. Hell, he was a Democrat, and I'd vote for him. He died, trying to save us.
THAT'S an American.
So I like gay Americans. Gay "conservatives"? That's an oxymoron like saying "Porn star virgins".
The governor understands gun rights, but not PROPERTY rights. Your body is your property. 9/10ths of human rights are based on property rights. If you don't own your own body, you're a slave.
No man, institution or government has a right to medically experiment on you or your children with untested gene therapies. In fact, it's literally illegal, both under US law and international law (see: the Nuremberg Laws).
Does the governor of West Virginia unapologetically and unambiguously assert the right of the people NOT to be subject to medical experimentation?
Does he acknowledge their human rights?
Does he see the role of government as "protecting the rights of the people," as John Locke and Thomas Jefferson said?
(((White))) people?
You sure?
Go get me a list of the surnames.
I concur. I feel bad for rank-and-file Jews, who really AREN'T part of any powerful cabal. As per pattern, a small and powerful subset of them strip-mine a country, traffic children, subvert the economic and judicial system, and then the whole lot of them are expelled. This has happened, what? 109 times?
And it KEEPS happening, because the rank-and-file Jews never rein in the bad actors. Their in-group preference sees them circle the wagons. Like when Ben Shapiro was carrying water for Jeffrey Epstein and trying to convince his audience that he was a lone wolf, to protect Mossad human trafficking operations and blackmail initiatives. Shapiro KNOWS child trafficking is bad. But he'd rather millions of children get abducted than that the Israeli intelligence agency get a black eye.
The ADL, likewise, was founded to rehabilitate the image of a Jewish pedophile who had raped and killed a little Irish girl. He was unambiguously guilty, and convicted by a jury with Jews on it. Nevertheless, this didn't stop the wider Jewish community from circling the wagons to defend him.
I remember my immigrant grandfather expressing disgust at a member of his own Latin American ethnic group committing a crime. He said, "In the old days, our community would have dealt with him in ways that didn't necessitate the police. He would have been beaten to within an inch of his life BY US for making the community look bad."
Most immigrant groups had this mechanism. Neither Jews nor blacks do this. For whatever reason, their in-group preference sees them defend the bad actors.
As a result, when things go sideways, the lot of them get expelled.
And it doesn't help when someone says, "Bt not ALL of them were bad." Because let's face it, the same people making that argument are the same people claiming that ALL whites owe reparations for what 1.4% of white Americans did prior to 1860. The concept of racial "collective punishment" is vehemently advocated by the very group seeking to avoid it when applied to themselves.
To any Jew reading this, I would beg you (in the most strident terms) to start reining in these people yourself. Denounce them. Rebuke them. Shut them down. Do it. Or else WE'LL have to. And I don't think ANYONE wants to see how that ends.
(I make this appeal, having only too sure a sense that my exhortations will fall on deaf ears and we will never awaken from the nightmare-repetition of history.)
Fauci said that 1% of people who have the flu died (usually old and infirm people, as well as people with compromised immune systems from AIDS). Make note of that one percent death rate. Because Covid (between the ages of 1 - 19), the death rate is 0.038%. So, basically, 0%. It remains at these low 0% levels up until the age of 70, where Covid is claimed to kill 0.54%. So according to the CDC, it's HALF as deadly as the normal flu. And even this is misleading, given the fact that 94% of the deaths were from people with co-morbidities, who were ALREADY dying of cancer, Parkinson's, diabetes, etc. They weren't said to be deaths FROM Covid, but deaths WITH Covid.
The media conflated the two.
According to official CDC claims, Covid has a 99.96% survival rate.
But, in reality, it's even bigger than that.
Remove the old people with pre-existing terminal illness (as well as people who died in motor cycle accidents, suicides, and so forth) and about 9,000 people are claimed to have ACTUALLY died of Covid. To put that in context, that's less than the number of people who slipped on soap in their bathrooms last year. It's less than people who died from eating Tide pods. (So as flu's go, Covid is an extremely mild one. Far milder than the average flu's we've been used to.)
By every metric, this has been a "pandemic" created by manipulated statistics.
Like back in 2007, when the New York Times reported on another claimed pandemic that was fake, due to fraudulent PCR testing. See the article "Lessons From A Plague That Wasn't":https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/23/weekinreview/lessons-from-a-plague-that-wasnt.html
So, even if you go by their own mainstream media reporting, they knew as far back as 2007 that PCR tests were a REAL good way to create false positives for a fake pandemic. Basically, a Magic 8-Ball would have a higher accuracy rate than a PCR test. But the public doesn't know this. So they're taken in by the magnetic appeal of Scientism.
You wrote that "the fact that people are dying of just flu should actually tell us how vulnerable and unhealthy we've become as a society". But perhaps it makes the opposite point. Because 99.9% of the populace do NOT die of it. In fact, not even the 94% of 80 year-olds who had comorbidities died of Covid. They died WITH Covid.
Covid didn't kill them. Their cancer did. Their diabetes did. Their Parkinson's did, etc.
No one has died of this flu. And the only people who "suffered" from it had ravaged, non-existent immune systems due to dying of something else.
It's like someone hit with a flamethrower waving his arms frantically and trying to put the flames out, accidentally stubbing his toe as he careened through the streets, and the coroner (standing over the smoldering ashes of the victim) saying he died of the stubbed toe.
There's a similarity between election fraud and transgenderism. Both are inauthentic.
"Biden won because we SAY Biden won" is akin to "The woman in pants is a man if we SAY she's a man".
They think reality can be dictated by fiat . . . as if words are magical incantations. It's Magical Thinking.
Yeah, but Ben's version of "conservative" is usury, pornography and human trafficking.
Remember when he was trying to tell everyone that Jeffrey Epstein worked alone, so that no one looked deeper into the Mossad human trafficking networks? Ben ACTIVELY fought to protect those white slavery corridors.
Sorry, but human trafficking isn't MY idea of "conservatism" . . . though it's clearly a value Ben holds.
Well, Judas at least at one time believed in Jesus. Ben Shapiro never did. He studies the Talmud, which says that Jesus is boiling in a pool of diarrhea in Hell. (Sadly, I'm not making that up. See Gittin 57a of the Talmud.)
Ben is NOT Judas. He's The Pharisees. The people Jesus called "The Children of the Lie". He said to them, "You worship your father, your father, the Devil".
(Modern rabbinical Judaism comes directly from the Pharisee sect. Hint: Jesus, not a big fan.)
Ben is not Judas. He's the money-changers Jesus whipped from the temple.
Being pro-migrant is being suicidal as the pilot of an airplane, and wanting to take all the other passengers out with you as you steer the craft into the side of a mountain.
(The fact that YOU feel suicidal gives you no right to murder everyone else. THIS is why globalists (and their leftist shock troops) are inherently unethical and selfish.)
I just did a video on why The Overton Window keeps moving left, because only conservatives are capitulating . . . not leftists. See here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EImwXQbsP40
It's interesting you say that. If you read "Empires of Trust" by Thomas Madden, he writes about the "Cult of Bacchus," which entered the Roman Republic from Greece. In his descriptions of this despicable cult, they sound remarkably like the Frankists. They believed that the profane was the holy, and that a man's "spirituality" was judged by how many vices he could indulge in. They started raping and killing young men and kids, and blackmailing Roman politicians to quietly take over the system. It became quite a challenge to the Romans, whose senate convened an inquiry and eventually purged these fuckers.
Why the Cult of Bacchus is interesting is that it emerged from the very region of Greece that radical rabbi Shabettai Zevi lived in. If you go to his Wikipedia page, you read that he was a "Romaniote Jew," i.e., a Greek-speaking Jew. His cult emerged from the footprint of the older Cult of Bacchus, with almost the identical set of beliefs.
Anyone under the age of 75, with no co-morbidities, experiences Covid as a mild cold. Young people literally have a 0.0038% death rate from it. So, basically, ZERO percent.
By contrast, the gene therapy they're giving to people is being claimed to have iatrogenic effects. ("Iatrogenic" is the big word for a cure that is worse than the disease.) For instance, triggering autoimmune diseases, Bell's-palsy, death and (now, as we're hearing) generating prions in the brain that culminates in Mad Cow-like symptoms. Brain inflammation that will result in mental retardation in the young and dementia in the old.
Hm. A mild cold or Mad fucking Cow. And you chose Mad Cow. Good luck with that.
Check back with me in 6 to 12 months when this shit kicks in.