Arakawa comments on cucked tithing:
The tithing thing really needs figuring out. A functioning man is a surplus economic producer. That surplus is represented by money. Not everyone can spend that money on family. Not all of the money that people typically spend on family is righteous (in an economically hot region, is it really righteous to hand a 15x yearly income to usurers for the satisfaction living in a McMansion & commuting uphill both ways?). Giving away that money without accomplishing the equivalent of setting it on fire or worse has been made hella difficult. Keeping that money is the subject of strict Gospel admonitions. Whether the camel is a drooling desert-dwelling mammal or a large cable, either way it’s difficult to shove it through that needle.
The rule used to be give to one who asks. The only people you regularly encounter asking for money are tentacular charity orgs and panhandlers. You can do violence unto the self and give to the undeserving and panhandlers, considering that it may be better to give to one who asks and let God judge if they use it imprudently*. Ultimately you cannot tell what will make a difference. But you are not going to give away a tithe that way even if you practice non-judgement even on the most obnoxious cases.
- Historical beggars were not exactly upstanding either. But all this also depends on being in a locality where there aren’t predatory groups who are panhandling to identify a mark for mugging / pickpocketing. Nonjudgment means you have the luxury to waste money; but if the consequence of wasting money is getting mugged, you no longer have that luxury. And there’s a limit to how much you can assume good behaviour from tentacular charity orgs that are often political money laundering or someone’s “eugenics” pet project.
But the person in this world who is your neighbour and truly poor is the guy who is on antidepressants, his existence nominally funded but every aspect of that existence calculated by demonic forces to drive him to despair. You can’t solve his problems by handing over some money.
It’s not as difficult a question as it seems, but you have to strip away a couple of misconceptions.
1. Charity does not mean giving people what they want, it means giving them what they need. What they want will often destroy them (e.g. giving money to an alcoholic).
2. There are things people need other than money which you can give them. In a post-scarcity world, that is more likely to take the form of a firm pimp hand than a loaf of bread, and I say this without a hint of irony.
3. Filling needs requires real empathy for those needs, which means you need an intimate familiarity with an individual’s suffering. Foreign aid is pathological altruism because giving things to people you’ve never even met does more harm than good.
Surplus producers are by nature extraordinary—only about 20% of the population has positive economic value to the people around them. That means they are the natural aristocrats who are responsible for shepherding the sheep around them, who understand little and know less. As Patton pointed out, exceptional people know they’re exceptional and tend to be prima donas who want to be treated like special snowflakes all the time, but there’s a catch to this which I’ll explain in a moment.
Similarly, the working classes crave dignity because that’s exactly what their wage slavery takes away from them.
We do not work this thing for Feisal.
No? For the English, then?
For the Arabs.
The Arabs. The Howitat, Ajili, Rala, Beni
Saha; these I know, I have even heard of
the Harif, but the Arabs! What tribe is
They’re a tribe of slaves; they serve the
Well, they are nothing to me. My tribe is
Who work only for profit.
Who work at Auda’s pleasure.
And Auda’s pleasure is to serve the
Serve. I serve?
It is the servant who takes money.
There’s an implicit deal between master and man. The master takes final authority for all decisions and by extension is accountable for all the final results, no matter the root cause. The man takes orders and is responsible only for what he was told to do, and when his shift is over he cares not a whit whether the bottom line was achieved—it’s the master’s business to turn a profit, arrange for infrastructure maintenance, police the borders, and all the other big picture intangibles.
Thus, there’s a specialization of labor: the rich man thinks, the poor man works. The poor man must be given his dignity as trade for competence, and the rich man must be given prestige as equal trade for his responsibility. However, this arrangement only works if both sides honor the arrangement. The rich man must train the poor man properly or he won’t be competent to receive his dignity, and the poor man must carry out the rich man’s orders even if he disagrees, or the rich man can’t be held to account for the outcomes of his decisions.
A man who craves distinction must distinguish himself through suffering because only people who have suffered know how to be kind to others. This is the true nature of leadership: you must have extraordinary talent, you must nurture your capacity to suffer in general, and you must become familiar with the real problems your people face in their daily lives so you can actually get them solved. That’s how you achieve a greater vision. Because a great vision is, after all, just knowing what you want, wanting it very badly, and not having it.
Therefore charity is a great deal bigger than giving money to poor people, although that’s part of it. Charity means paying into the system as your rank demands: dignity through competence and distinction through hardship. This is the long explanation for why I originally said:
Normally I’d tell you to continue regardless of mere disagreements, because that’s the place of a layperson. However, we cannot ignore that the seminaries have been weaponized against us in the culture war and the would-be shepherds are, in the best case, themselves sheep without shepherds. In the worst case, they are wolves in shepherds’ clothing.