Tag: Unz Review

Golden Rule. Platinum Rule. Ho-hum!

Roger Mitchell1 Comment

Recently, I was involved in a “debate” on the Unz Review concerning the Golden Rule and its (supposedly better, certainly more modern) re-interpretation, the Platinum Rule. This was sparked by a comment I made at an article by one, Caitlin Johnstone, a popular blogger, who is not afraid to blast what she sees as unjust, immoral, and wrong. I salute her for the well-meaning intent, but take issue with some of her stances. Our philosophical differences have no bearing on the current subject. If you read this article and scroll down through the links, you will find my initial comment as #5, from which you can read replies by other commenters and my own replies to them.

https://www.unz.com/cjohnstone/im-not-political-just-means-i-support-the-status-quo

During the course of this “conversation”, someone brought up the idea that the Platinum Rule was superior to the Golden Rule with respect to the relationship between people. I had to admit that I had never heard of the Platinum Rule before and, more than likely, you may not have either. There is an enormous amount of information on the Internet about it. Just type the key words, platinum rule, into your browser. However, for those who can’t be bothered, the tension between the Golden Rule and the Platinum Rule reads like this:

  • Golden Rule: “Treat others as you want them to treat you.”
  • Platinum Rule: “Treat others as they want to be treated.”

Apparently, the main sticking point in the Golden Rule for some people is that they read it as selfish and self-centered. It is a manipulative system in which you give others what you desire for yourself and you expect to receive it as compensation for your “giving”. Honestly speaking, this is no different than the attitude and belief that many Christians have when they drop cash in the “offering” plate at their weekly gathering on Sunday morning. I don’t see it that way and I am quite certain that Jesus didn’t mean it as such. See more on that below.

On the other hand, treating others as they want to be treated can lead to disaster. Ask yourself, how would someone like Benjamin Netanyahu want to be treated, and the problem becomes immediately clear. How does Donald Trump want to be treated? How does an abusive, philandering husband or a perpetually victimized wife want to be treated? Giving someone everything that they wish for is a recipe for disaster and must be avoided religiously, at all costs, because there are times when people like that need a good, swift kick in the ass and a reprimand, which is most definitely NOT what they want.

The main problem I find with the Platinum Rule is that it is nothing more than a cleaned up, sanitized, and more professional version of the Golden Rule. The Platinum Rule appeals to “educated” people–psychologists, group leaders, human resource administrators, politicians, etc., and others who specialize in molding and directing people into their own mode of thinking. In reality, it is a clinical take on what Jesus taught 2000 years ago, but is no different in essence, as long as it is not self-seeking.

Eventually, after some give and take in the discussion, I posted this response which has not been answered nor challenged. In fact, there is no good rebuttal to the main thrust of my argument. Sometimes, silence speaks louder than words.

“After some reading on this subject, I have decided that there really is no substantial difference between the Golden Rule and the Platinum Rule. They are flip sides of the same coin. The wording is different but the principle behind them is the same. The whole argument is one of semantics and arguing over which one is better only muddies the water.”

“Whether one treats others from the perspective of the Golden Rule or approaches from the Platinum Rule, the core issue remains and can be phrased by this question. At the most basic level, what is the one desire which everyone has? Answer: to be loved. Ultimately, we are all crying out for the same thing, that someone love us for who we are in spite of our very obvious failings. This need is the same in Donald Trump as it is in the lowest homeless beggar in the worst slum of the largest city on Earth and everyone manifests that need in different ways, even though they are asking for the same thing–“Love me.” It is our responsibility to find a way to do just that for others while also understanding that we are looking for the same thing within ourselves. It is the practice of loving others that teaches us our own need and we satisfy our need, paradoxically, by self-sacrificial giving so that the need in others is also satisfied.”

“Incidentally, just because someone wants something does not mean that we are obligated to give it to them. Fulfilling their wants may not be beneficial to them, but may very well increase their demands. “Give me more!” Sometimes, the best thing we could do for others like this is to give them a good, swift kick in the pants and the directive to grow up.”

“This is not a matter of bowling balls and cheeseburgers. In fact, the entire concept transcends the physical world (which is nothing more than a collection of “things”). It rises above the emotional state which reflects the broken aspects of ourselves. It IS a matter of spirit, the spirit of love, and when that is correct and proper, all other parts of our psyche and makeup are healed.”

“How do I want to be treated? With love. How do you want to be treated? With love. How should we treat others and how should they treat us? With love. Both the Golden Rule and the Platinum Rule are methods of teaching that principle to people who learn by doing, making mistakes along the way, but correcting them when they are recognized.”

“God is love. We are created in the image of God. We are also human, therefore flawed and imperfect, yet we can become like God, through the deliberate and conscious choice to surrender the desires we selfishly hold in the interests of showing love to others, so that they too can become like God.”

“This is as simple an explanation as I can make and, while I fall short at times, the end goal of perfection, perfect love, is always within my sight.”

If I truly love someone, I will do what is best for them regardless what it costs me, regardless of what I might gain from them, regardless of what they want me to do for them.

Resumption of War: Damn the Torpedoes, Full Speed Ahead

Roger Mitchell1 Comment

There was, supposedly, a two-week ceasefire in the war between Iran and the US/Israel tag team for the purpose of “negotiating” an end to the shooting. I say supposedly because the shooting never really stopped completely, but was only diminished to a fairly low degree. The negotiations (if you can call them that) occurred between the US and Iran because Israel refused point-blank to participate and, if an actual ceasefire had been adopted, probably would have refused to cooperate.

Nevertheless, the US team (led by vice-president J. D. Vance and his “minders”, Witkoff and Kushner) apparently could only stick it out for less than 24 hours before they determined that the talks were fruitless and walked out. This tells me that they came into the arena with a pre-determined set of demands (as did the Iranians) which they were unwilling to alter for any reason (as were the Iranians). However, since US/Israel were the aggressors in this conflict and had unilaterally attacked Iran, without warning, it seems logical and fair that they should have been the ones to soften their stance first. Since this didn’t happen, the only way to look at the situation is that the ceasefire was implemented, not out of a sincere desire to arrive at a resolution, but for strategic purposes, that is, to allow time for a breather and an opportunity to re-arm in preparation for Round #3.

The war will resume and continue until one side or the other has had enough and calls it quits:

  • Israel will not do this, continuing to the very end, fighting with everything it has, up to and including the use of nuclear weapons if it is deemed necessary, which will probably be its death knell. No matter, suicide is better than being beaten to death.
  • Iran is in an existential position. Defeat for it means submission to and subjection under the heel of the US hegemon, the destruction of its society, and the loss of control over its resources, similar to other countries within living memory: Iraq, Libya, Serbia, Syria, Somalia, etc. It is not likely that Iran will capitulate and surrender, until or unless surrender becomes preferable to death. In this, Iran is more reasonable than Israel.
  • This leaves the US as the only possible dropout, with serious international repercussions and harm to its unipolar status and empire, not to mention personal humiliation to the pride of Donald Trump who cannot admit wrong in anything. However, American wars since Korea have not produced anything approximating a clear and sustainable victory, virtually guaranteeing that this one will be no different and the longer it drags on, the more resistance it will generate at home, perhaps even culminating in a vigorous anti-war movement a la the Vietnam era.

As I said, the war will resume and continue, probably escalate into a region-wide conflict far beyond the current locations, and may very well result in the large powers (US, Russia, China, EU) flinging nuclear tipped missiles at each other, threatening not only each other but the entire planet.

Why do we have wars? Why can human beings not live without trying to kill each other? Why does destruction of “others” hold so much fascination for us? What would it take for this tendency to be eliminated from our pattern of living? Why are we not willing to attain that?

This morning, I replied to a comment on the Unz Review in which the commenter took exception to the conclusion of the article which sought to explore the reasons for war, basically arriving at the conclusion that money (profit, interest, financial gain) was behind all wars. The commenter in question disagreed with that, stating that most wars, the large majority, were due to differences in tribal identity, ethnic interests, and religious viewpoints. While I cannot argue that these contribute to the hostility between people, they are, in my opinion, symptoms of the disease and not the cause of it. I concluded my comment with this thought.

“The winner takes it all. Gain (call it profit) is all that counts. In animals, this is instinctual and they can do nothing about it. In humans, it is a spiritual matter (call it greed, covetousness, selfishness, hatred, etc.), springing from the depths of the personal soul and it can be countered, overcome, and changed for the better of everyone. It must be conquered if we are to survive.”

https://www.unz.com/article/all-wars-are-bankers-wars-iran-and-the-bankers-endgame/#comment-7579938

There is only one solution to war. It has nothing to do with money, power, the “greater good”, better and more destructive armaments, political savvy and machinations. Instead, it begins within the individual human soul, the admission that the hatred, anger, selfishness, greed, covetousness, and desire to see others harmed, is not beneficial to oneself and is to be repented of. The absence of war might be achieved by states, powers, and societies temporarily, but the absence of war is not equivalent to the “peace which passes all understanding” and which can only be gained by the admission of sin in one’s soul, the humbling of personal pride, the earnest request for help, and the alteration of the way a person thinks about his relationship to God, to himself, and to those around him. Without this spiritual level paradigm shift, there simply is no peace and, as a consequence, wars arise, not because one person can create wars, but due to the fact that societies and cultures are built by the agglomeration of individuals, many of whom have not made that shift and who seek power for its own sake, using all the techniques known to sinful man in the process.

If you would change the world, change yourself.

Eugenics, Elitism, and the Law

Roger Mitchell2 Comments

“The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him.” — Proverbs 18: 17

“From there He arose and went to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And he entered a house and wanted no one to know it, but He could not be hidden. For a woman whose young daughter had an unclean spirit heard about Him, and she came and fell at His feet. The woman was a Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by birth, and she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. But Jesus said to her, “Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” And she answered and said to Him, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs under the table eat from the children’s crumbs.” Then He said to her, “For this saying go your way; the demon has gone out of your daughter.” And when she had come to her house, she found the demon gone out, and her daughter lying on the bed.” — Mark 7: 24-30, NKJV

At first glance, these two pieces of scripture seem to have nothing in common, but I have found a connection. Oddly enough, it comes from two separate articles on The Unz Review, the first making a case for the practice of eugenics and the second ripping his argument into shreds. Reading through the first article (7600 words, half-marathon, but I finished), one might be tempted to think that there is a sound argument for the practice, but reading through the second (27, 800 words, I skipped a lot and didn’t get through to the end before I quit), it is quite apparent that there are a lot of flaws in the first, all of which need to be resolved and the Commenters Which Follow happily did (and still are doing) their part to achieve that.

There are a lot of things which play into this debate and discussion, but ultimately the lesson learned is that eugenicists favor some method of “selection” to cull those they disapprove of. The reason for the disapproval nor the method employed are not critical to the debate, all that matters is that there are “elites” who decide and “sub-standards” who bear the judgment of the decision. This attitude brings to mind the saying that “The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must.”

Throughout human history, the world has experienced this tension repeatedly. This is not something new. Everywhere, in all times, some class of people has been termed “deficient” and “not quite human”, and due to that designation, suitable for “subjugation and/or removal”. Consider the history of the United States alone:

  1. Native Americans
  2. Black slaves
  3. Irish and Italian immigrants
  4. Chinese
  5. White trash
  6. Mentally incompetent
  7. Physically flawed
  8. And many more.

Applying this topic to the second scripture quoted, it is evident that the mindset was prevalent and accepted during the time of Jesus. The Jews knew that they were “superior” over all others and the others who lived under their dominance knew it as well. How else can you explain these words? “…it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” The Gentiles were treated like dogs, little dogs, fit only to be cursed and kicked out of the way, unless, of course, they could be used to fill the coffers and wallets of the self-recognized “upper” class, which included not only the highest echelons of Jewish society, but also the lowest of the low. Remember Peter and the vision he had in which God told him not to call anything “unclean” which God had cleansed? Yes, even poverty-stricken, ignorant fishermen were prone to look down their snobbish noses at anyone they deemed “inferior” and draw in the hems of their robes to avoid touching them.

Thank God that after twenty centuries, we’re beyond that. Except that we’re not. The issue still swirls and the temptation still exists to consider a specific class as better than all others and it is nearly certain that the “favored ones” are represented by those who do the defining. Curiously enough, the definition always matches the person and personality of the definer, but then again, it really isn’t so curious. After all, we do have tendencies to inflate and lift ourselves above the status of others around us, don’t we?

Or am I the only one who has ever done that?

Where Do the Children Play?

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

The following is a response I made to a comment (#152) by one, Mulga Mumblebrain, (imagine the inner workings of someone who produced that moniker), who wrote this in response to an earlier comment of my own. See here for the full article at the Unz Review.

“Capitalism is actually a form of cancer, one currently in the end-stage of its neoplastic growth as all the life-supporting biospheres on the planets collapse. The big capitalists, the prime metastases of the disease process, plainly plan to resolve the situation with chemotherapy, ie bio-warfare, to remove all the little metastases and opportunistic infections aka the ‘useless eaters’.”

Where do the children play, indeed?

In order to make sure that I understood capitalism correctly, I typed the search term “capitalism definition” into my Brave browser. The first paragraph is reproduced here.

“Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. This system is based on the idea that individuals and businesses make decisions about what to produce, how to produce it, and for whom to produce it, driven by the pursuit of profit.”

1. ALL (with the stress on all) capital goods are owned either privately (one individual, meaning exclusive) or corporately (more than one individual, meaning shared).

2 ALL (ditto) decisions made about production are made by either one single individual acting alone or are made in conjunction, association, and cooperation with other individuals.

What this means is that every single bit of production is made by individuals acting either alone or corporately. The base unit of capitalism (and every other means of production) is the individual. There are no corporations nor businesses which do not derive from the actions of individuals. There are no economic systems, governments, charities, non-profits, etc. which are NOT made up of individuals working together.

That being said, if the above definition is true, then it is certain that every single individual on this planet is a capitalist in some form or another. No one ever produces anything without the hope of gaining something from it. Even the naysayers and disbelievers profit in some fashion by the work they do in the expectation that they will benefit from it. Therefore, and I repeat my assertion from Comment #20 above,

“Capitalism, by itself, is not to blame. Just as with money, it is the abuse of capitalism which produces bad results. Notice that money itself is not “a root of all evil”, but rather the love of money which is condemned. Unfortunately, people look at the disastrous consequences of bad policy which is perpetrated under supposedly “capitalistic societies” and conclude that it is the capitalistic tendency which is at fault, causing them to embrace a differing viewpoint and structure–Marxism, for instance, or any other envy-driven philosophy and protocol.”

By itself, working to produce profit and gain from one’s actions is not to blame. Since everyone, without exception, participates in this production, then the fault has to lie elsewhere. The problem stems from the age-old desire to profit at the expense of others who are seen as nothing more than an opportunity to be taken advantage of. Force (often violent) and fraud are brought into play with the result that the most-powerful rise to the top of the heap, instituting rules which everyone else must submit to, so that the rule-makers can profit–again at the expense of others.

Every economic system the world has ever produced suffers from this affliction. Force and fraud are used to take from those less fortunate in order to produce gain for the better-connected and favored class. Every system has those who run things with the understanding that they, personally and individually, will profit from their input. Every system has those, bottom to top, who try to take advantage of the system so that they can benefit. Every single one.

“There are none righteous, no, not one.” –Romans 3:10

In its purest form (individual effort to gain from one’s work), capitalism is a healthy and vibrant means of “producing the goods” which people want. It is only when something is introduced and imposed on it from the outside (force, fraud, etc.) that it becomes a cancer, as you say. So long as people are left alone to live their own lives freely, they will produce, not only for themselves but also for others. This is the essence of Adam Smith’s argument and it has been wildly successful.

Unfortunately, capitalism (like everything else associated with humanity) is “infected” with the “cancerous” thought that taking (stealing) from others is acceptable and can produce widespread social benefits. “Thou shalt not steal!” (a personal admonition) has been perverted to read, “Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.” Or perhaps, because someone has more than you do. Or perhaps, because you have the power to make it stick. Or perhaps, because you are a “bleeding heart” who sees injustice and seeks to force correction on it. Or perhaps, …, ad infinitum.

The problem, then, is a spiritual matter, not an economic one. The problem, then, is the fact that people are, at heart, thieves who will use anything (force, fraud, etc.) to get what they want and, if successful, their gain ALWAYS comes from someone else becoming the victim and paying the price. Advocating for a different economic system does not change this. It only changes the method by which individual people are used, abused, and taken advantage of by other individual people.

You may have diagnosed the disease correctly (cancer), but have misdiagnosed the cause of it. Corrupted human nature, not capitalism, is the reason why we are in the mess we are and that corruption cannot be changed by fiat, law, or government edicts and programs. It can only be changed at the individual level, within the confines of one’s own heart.

I fully expect, Mr. Mumblebrain, that you will shoot the messenger because you do not like the message. That seems to be your nature. So be it.