Remember the genocide the Jews committed against the Romans during the Diaspora Revolt.
The historian Lucius Cassius Dio reports:
"Meanwhile the Jews in the region of Cyrene had put a certain Andreas at their head, and were destroying both the Romans and the Greeks. They would eat the flesh of their victims, make belts for themselves of their entrails, anoint themselves with their blood and wear their skins for clothing; many they sawed in two, from the head downwards; others they gave to wild beasts, and still others they forced to fight as gladiators. In all 220,000 persons perished. In Egypt, too, they perpetrated many similar outrages, and in Cyprus, under the leadership of a certain Artemion. There, also, 240,000 perished, and for this reason no Jew may set foot on that island, but even if one of them is driven upon its shores by a storm he is put to death."
In his book "The Jews and Their Lies," Martin Luther explains why Jews are the way they are:
"They hold one principle on which they depend and in which they trust so much. That is, they are born of the highest people on earth, of Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebecca, Jacob, etc. We (Goyim) heathen are not human beings in their sight, but hardly worthy to be regarded as worms. For we are not of that high, noble blood, birth and descent."
Mo Zi (aka Mo Tzu, ala Lao Tzu or Sun Tzu) was a pre-Christian chinaman with quite a revolutionary philosophy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozi
Here’s the wiki overview:
The crazy part? Mo Zi is credited as the founder of the Mo Pai school of Nei Gong (which I’ve posted about a fair bit, mostly over in c/HumanPotential - for anyone interested check the video stickied to the top of that page)
Hard pass
u/redkrab also (responding to both comments here)
can you give me your interpretation of it?
Sure, fair enough, (even potentially well translated) 2000 year old Chinese definitely leaves room for interpretation. I’ll mix its words, (your words), and [my words] to show how I think your issues are already addressed, when these views are properly [imo obviously] understood - i don’t believe these views teach the “suicidal altruism” that some nefarious entities like to portray them as teaching, a delusion which many well-intentioned seekers can easily fall into, given the level of control that these nefarious entities have over the flow of information we [speaking generally] consume
The nearest person is obviously yourself. If one truly loves themselves, that alone addresses a large part of the way the delusion of the melting pot is foisted upon us. The people in the west have been taught to loathe themselves for multiple generations now. [i.e. the endlessly regurgitated narratives of colonialism, slavery, racism, etc]. Like I say, addressing that alone addresses a large portion of the problem
The next nearest to ourselves is our immediate family and kin - obviously, or atleast “naturally”, homogenous with ourselves. When one truly loves their family and kin, again, I see that address another large portion of “the problem”. We know the statistical realities of inter-racial relationships, and we have known for centuries. It takes active effort to try to make us forget. However, free will is the central foundation, and as such, I don’t know if “just make it illegal” is the solution. I lean towards something like, “shut down promotion of it, educate on the realities of it, but don’t attempt to enforce tyranny. As the first paragraph of the wiki i quoted lays out:
Which I think pretty much speaks for itself here, and what im trying to express above
Next we have the wider community, perhaps called “the nation” at one point in time but with centuries of dilution very few “natural” nations (as one here might define), exist anymore. But if one truly loves their people, their “nation”, I believe the rest of the problem is addressed. With this framework in mind, the core of the nation is always building and getting stronger, and the far fringes are where experimentation happens, as has been the case throughout all of human history it seems (aka what appears to be “natural”)
If any of that makes sense, you might find an earlier post of mine interesting, which I believe speaks more to this issue of suicidal empathy and how that differs from The Way (or in the words of the short story, “unreasonable grace”). Though it’s quite long so I’ll just link it instead of trying to fit it in this already becoming unwieldy reply:
https://communities.win/c/ChristianAnarchism/p/1AR0GimkmR/unreasonable-grace-and-the-dilem/c
Edit) un-autocorrected a couple autocorrects
Yeah, I read that, so basically it isn't even internally self-consistent.
Clearly, the people nearby should be befriended first and if there is a conflict the people nearby take priority. There is a hierarchy of who to care about.
So how do you square that with the idea of loving everyone equally? You still slaughter them and despoil their lands but, what, feel bad about it later?
Did you read my response to krab’s similar followup?
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/1ARK0Mea4A/the-jews-committed-genocide-agai/c/4eXtiGi58jQ
very very cool.
i agree in parts. i see that his phylosophy would only work in a homogenous society for starters.
this universal love thing is almost impossible when we have meltings pots instead of natural communities
To believe implies storing what process necessitates...resisting the temptation to hold onto.
Others suggest "history" to tempt ones "belief" to hold onto it.
Taking the credit/creed/belief of others to be a founder contradicts introspection, self-reflection, and authenticity.
True, and wise - to clarify my thoughts, I see Mo Zi and the school(s) he established as exemplars of the innate process(es) available to everyone (or, perhaps just every man, there is logic pointing in both directions). While these processes are available to every-one, rare are the ones who follow the path steadfastly. These are the Christs, the Buddhas, the Immortals (though a more accurate name is perhaps “those who choose the time of their death”), they have been known by as many names as there have been congregations of humans. In fact, a few years ago i came across a new name which I believe finds its source in this vein, a very interesting name indeed, u/free-will-of-choice
Often, and increasingly so as the congregation grows, people come to mistake the teacher for the lesson they came to teach. I think that’s one of the main impediments to our forward momentum vis a vis this subject
Innate implies potential born (nasci) within (in) process, hence inception towards death procession giving potential life to "each" one.
One process for each potential within aka one cause for each effect within aka one action for each reaction within etc.
Others make pluralism available to distract one from singularity, and thereby self discernment aka "introspection, self-reflection, and authenticity".
Logic implies circular thinking aka two sides pointing at each other (conflict of reason). Direction aka directed by action implies linear progression.
Only within linear can circular be shaped...logic tempts one to hold onto the shape.
Here's a modern sleight of hand for it... https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/onedirection/onewayoranotherteenagekicks.html
"One way or another...I'm gonna get you". One way implies the natural way aka one direction (inception towards death) for each one (life) within. The other (circular logic) is where I'm (suggestion) gonna get ya (consent).
Only within singularity can plurality be made available to each separated unit by few suggesting many to join together.
a) What's rarer than being one within all? Simultaneously...what's more common than being one among one another within all?
Self discernment implies rare; common consensus diminishes that rarity.
b) If there's only one path (inception towards death) for each one (life) within, then following it implies what? If others suggest plurality and one follows many different path within the confines of circular logic, then what does that imply?
Following the path like a hamster in a wheel...
Aka wasting potential (life) by taking measurements, while ignoring that only process gives (inception) and takes (death).
Taking implies giving self up...giving implies tempting others to take. The narrow path...letting go of what was given, while resisting the temptation to take.
a) Human aka hue of man implies color aka spectrum of light separating each ray within from one another.
Only within animation (animal) can a hue of man (human) bring differences to each beings sight.
b) Con (together) gregare (to collect)...one can only artificially collect together what nature separates apart.
Procession (inception towards death) grows division of potential (life)...congregation grows indigestion within potential.
Taking implies missing given. Teaching implies responding to given while learning, and vice versa. Lesson/less/loss cannot be taken without giving up growth.
Forward momentum (inception towards death) forwards matter (life)...impediment implies mentally ignoring physical momentum. "Our" implies collective consciousness tempting singular mind to take possession during a given process.
Impeding ones mind doesn't prevent ones body from being moved forwards.
One (perception) of the main (perceivable)...any suggestion is minor to it. Ones consent to any suggestion impedes ones mind with the suggested into becoming one of the minor aka those who under-stand.
Just as you are forced to put your innate wisdom and your wisdom of the innate into words in order to help others grow (which seems a type of cosmic irony innate to physical existence), so too have all the others who have recognized this, just as it will continue to be for those who come to recognize this
The soil from which truth grows is this:
Tao Te Ching verse 42
Tao Te Ching verse 27