Message from @Broo TulsiGang 2024 🇬🇧 🇺🇸
Discord ID: 542702464705626123
lol they wish
they're straight up nigger
They also seriously believe the khazar theory
oh? what's that
Some bullshit anti Zionist propaganda the “Palestinians” made up to deny Ashkenazi Jewish connection to Israel
Thinking that ashkenazi jews are originated from the khazars
Which is completely false and have been proven wrong.
Liechenstein Chad
I thought hoteps were blacks who rejected identity politics?
those arent bad tbh
Independant/self sefficient AND servent to community seems a bit conflicting.
Not dependent but dependable
^
You should be SO self sufficient, that you're over efficient, and transfer that extra back to the community
yup
But if everyone is effecient then the communisty shouldnt need anything by that logic.
But not everyone's efficient, thus the need for community charity
too bad most people aren’t naturally charitable or generous
@MountainMan If that were true then civilization would have never existed
?
The welfare state supplants the naturally emergent phenomenon of charity that communities develop on their own
most of civilization has been run because of capitalism and work
not because people give stuff away for free
Mmk, then I guess charity didn't exist prior to the 1960s then
only time everyone gives to the community is if they need to
lol
If I had more time right now I'd rake your ass over the coals
just @ me later and educate me then
@Fitzydog oi raking people over the coals violates the NAP
Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do
Even if it violates NAP
Damn
cool
@MountainMan So yeah, I'm just confused where you got the idea that community welfare and charity somehow had to be compulsory.
This is so far removed from the truth, it hurts lol
Up until mid part of the 20th century, charity was completely voluntary, and it actually operated *better* than it did before welfare. (At least, in Anglo nations, where we don't leave old people outside to die...)
Within communities, altruism among an in-group is a part of human nature, as long as the emergent phenomenon is not interfered with, which is what happened with the introduction of welfare.
Prior to welfare, you saw very little in the way of individual homelessness and starvation, as long as there was a community to facilitate the assistance.
This also meant that recurrence was less of an issue, because it was assumed you would pay back the assistance in some way, else face ostracization. The use of charity truly was a 'net' in the sense that you did not stay in that position, and those providing it wanted you to be off of it as soon as possible.
The most common welfare nets of the day were those of your local church, and being a participating member insured that in the event you fell on hard times, you would not be in fear of being left out in the cold. Service guaranteed safety, in a sense.
As to the modern phenomenon of people not giving to charity, I would argue that its a byproduct of compulsory welfare taxation, which simultaneously eliminated the need to belong to a church for social safety, and created a monopoly on charitable resources by making people think they no longer had to donate to charity, because it had already been done via taxation.
Also, bonus statistic: In the US, Republicans donate to charity more than Democrats by an overwhelming margin, even though we have welfare programs.
Also, 91% of people who identify as religious are likely to donate to charity.
Noted and written down. Thanks for the thorough answer.
👌