Now They Attack Charity

 

Reporter Kari Read wrote an article on May 27, 2023 for the Star Tribune, and she writes of detractors here attacking traditional charitable activities conducted by American citizens, about the most generous givers in the world.

 

The Left is ingenious in one respect: they always find something new to tear down and shred regarding American culture. And there is not much left that they have not put down. According to them, nothing is decent or sufficient here: we are a selfish racist, oppressive people, and nothing we have done is good enough. These deconstructionists are filled with hate and hostility—the public should give them to bum’s rush to the door and right now.

 

I refer to two mottos owned by Dennis Prager to help craft a response to these mean-spirited gaslighters:

First, the Left destroys everything it touches, and now they are undermining as innocent and noble American behavior as good works and charity.

Second, the problems of the world are made possible, in a large part, because people live in accordance to bad values.

 

If the poor, here or around the world, possessed a tireless ethic of hard work, self-discipline, endless perseverance and working to increase the material comfort for their family, then poverty anywhere would disappear, and the need for charity, public or privately donated, would largely dry up, as the need for charity dries up.

 

I have written elsewhere that the poor are poor and criminal due to their living by bad values, and their suffering and plight is largely their fault; they are not victimized by others, by are self-victimizing. They need to man up and get their acts together.

 

Read writes about something called Effective Altruism. She writes: “BLENDING LOGIC AN D CHARITY—Is the concept of Effective Altruism positively efficient or ruthless?”

 

My response: The need for charity, in most cases, should be rare and temporary—though there are exceptions and some need society to provide for them all their live.

 

We want people to work and maveize, and make it on their own as capitalists and wealth-producers and wealth-acquirers without crippling dependency on government largesse.

 

Read: “Imagine walking past a pond and seeing a small child struggling in the water, calling for help. Do you go in and saver her? Of course! But wait—if you wade in, you’ll ruin your expensive new shoes. Do you save the child anyway? Of course! A child’s life is worth more than a pair of shoes.

Oh yeah? Well, then, why did you buy fancy shoes in the first place, instead of contributing the money to help save lives of children in other parts of the world?”

 

This whole scenario is fraught with bad assumptions and arrogant intrusion into the kind rescuers personal life and personal affairs. That someone would jump in without thought of the consequences to rescue a small child is a hero and a saint, no qualification is welcome ore necessary.

 

The rescuer is a sovereign individual and works hard for her money. If she likes nice clothes and expensive shoes, that is her property, her business, and her private life. If she enjoys luxuries and living—well. That is great because enjoying affluence and comfort increase a person’s self-esteem, and people that feel good about themselves—in a healthy way--are kinder to themselves and to others, and this good for all. If she is a consumer spending money on herself, she grows the economy and indirectly creates jobs and wealth for thousands of others. As capitalist wealth grow for all and all families, per capita increased prosperity makes charity, local or international, much less required, so she should wear her nice shoes.

 

No pious, grim, crepe-hanging, people-hating, carping intellectual hypocrite has a right or duty to invade her privacy, question her character, choice, and behavior, snidely seeking to undercut how heroic she acted.  Leftists soul-rape citizens all the time by intruding in their personal lives, telling them how to live think and act and what they should be doing with their property.

 

Each sovereign individual’s life, liberty, property, happiness, and freedom of speech are what jealous global elitists seek tirelessly to deprive them of and this Effective Altruism reeks of that cabal. We need millions and millions of anarchist-individuator spuercitizens that backhand any elitist power-grabber out to order the mases how to live and give. They need to be put down and backed off immediately, forcing them out of what is none of their damned business.

 

Read continues: “This jarring thought experiment, courtesy of Princeton psychologist Peter Singer, illustrates the steely logic of Effective Altruism.

 

Effective Altruism, or EA, is a philosophical concept and global philanthropic movement that aims to maximize the impact of donations. It encourages a modest lifestyle and considers children in distant part of the planet just as worthy of helping as kids in your community, and more cost-effective.”

 

My response: Leftists are angry, bitter, vengeful, jealous, unhappy haters addicted to amassing power over others and depriving them of their liberty, property, and privacy to run their lives without governmental interference. Leftist always seek public control of others by passing laws and turning bureaucrats and experts loose on society to rule every nook and canny of each citizens private life. This deprivation of personal freedom and privacy is brought about in the name of social justice and benevolence, but the real and sole aim is elites seeking to enslave and reestablish feudal control over the common people. When and if the haters succeeded, then poverty, racism, classism and sexism will increase ten-fold.

 

Read continues: “’Given that you want to do good, doesn’t it make sense to try to do the most good possible with your current time and money?” said Russel Rogers of Maplewood, summarizing EA’s philosophy.

 

EA calls for disregarding most familiar charities in favor of data-driven giving guided by research organizations like GiveWell. One common recommendation is to help purchase inexpensive mosquito bed nets to prevent the spread of malaria, one of the major and most preventable causes—along with birth complications and trauma, hunger, pneumonia and diarrhea—for about 5 million deaths a year.”

 

My response: if people choose to give to charities here or abroad freely and voluntarily or how much they give that is a personal choice and I have no problem with it. The best way to help children here or everywhere is is to give each child the chance to grow up in a nuclear family with a mom and dad with the right set of values to make money and build family wealth, and that is the only real solution to ending world poverty in the long run. EA is so much trendy, slick window-dressing. The EA advocates are for saving 5 million children abroad every year, but millions of abortions committed here every year are just fine with them.

 

The article concludes with people giving all their wealth to foreign charities so that their white kids will not get an inheritance.

 

Whites are the new bogeyman for the racist Left, so why should white kids here inherit wealth?

 

I think the bulk of parent’s wealth should go to their children after death, and if we transfer the values of free enterprise and personal hustle around the world to all world families, they will put into practice their capitalist values. With this right set of values, they can amass wealth and leave an inheritance for their kids too. EA advocates are too slick and virtue-signaling for my taste. They seem  disingenuous and self-righteous.