Right-wing provocateur Charlie Kirk shot

[Syne]

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/wBc9XkuOqnU

[Syne]

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/nkTK-JZUbaw

[Magical Realist]

No, as noted earlier, it just means that wealth, itself, is not sinful.

No..it just means more Christians center their lives around money and having things than they do living in service to God. It's one of the pernicious outcomes of living in a capitalistic and consumerist society.

Hebrews 13:5
Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”

1 Timothy 6:10
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.

Ecclesiastes 5:10
He who loves money will not be satisfied with money, nor he who loves wealth with his income; this also is vanity.

Luke 12:15
And he said to them, “Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.”

Sure, because we see Christians driving Lamborghinis all the time. 9_9
Many wealthy people, in general, are creating jobs or products that aid others. Many wealthy people don't do it for the money. They do it because they've found their calling, like Elon Musk, founders of charities, employers, etc.. Some callings take a lot of money.
Abraham, Job, and King David were all wealthy, and all were considered blessed by God and serving his plan.

You're conflating "love of money," selfishness, idolatry, etc. with simply having wealthy. They are not the same.

Nobody gets wealthy by accident. It takes a lot of commitment and work to build up wealth and property and possessions. Donating some of it to charities or to fund special projects and philanthropy is certainly a good thing. But as Jesus said you are prioritizing money over God. As he said: "Ye are in the world, but not of the world." Even the early Christians knew possessions was a bad thing. They pooled their things together in a communal living situation, where everything was shared with others (an early example of the Communist principle of collective ownership and the redistribution of wealth).

Acts 2

44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need.

46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Acts 4

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any [of them] that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

35 And laid [them] down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, [and] of the country of Cyprus,

37 Having land, sold [it], and brought the money, and laid [it] at the apostles' feet."

[Syne]

No, as noted earlier, it just means that wealth, itself, is not sinful.

No..it just means more Christians center their lives around money and having things than they do living in service to God. It's one of the pernicious outcomes of living in a capitalistic and consumerist society.

...

You don't need to be jealous of others. You just need to remember that, when the time comes, even a second of repentance will grant you access to heaven. I hope you see that second coming and have the opportunity.

[Syne]

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/C5IF0BJ7N0U

[C C]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5IF0BJ7N0U

VIDEO EXCERPT: Because I hadn't actually watched any of his debates. I was basing literally every single thing I believe about a human being with thousands of hours worth of publicly available recordings minutes, of himself openly expressing his opinions on a small handful of out of context clips that had been curated for me by algorithms and media organizations being funded by the political opposition.

I was living in a world that wasn't the reality. I painted a caricature of the people who disagreed with me, of these just like awful oppressive Nazi white men. And it wasn't until I stepped out of that, started talking to people who disagreed with me, started actually listening to them in the full context of what they were saying that I realized, I was definitely wrong about that. I was definitely wrong about that. And that doesn't mean your ideology has to flip on its head and suddenly you're a right-winger or anything like that.

It just means that you placed an unnecessary amount of judgment on a group of people when you should have just waited and heard them out. and maybe you still disagree with their perspective. That's neither here nor there. It's just to say your moral superiority right now is shielding you from just listening. And sometimes you are going to find that the people who disagree with you are in fact correct.

And what a powerful thing to be able to admit that you were actually manipulated by the things that you saw online because so many people are every single day. I foamed at the mouth, right along with the rest of those rabid and bloodthirsty dogs. Gleefully mocking those who had been saddened by his death and downplaying the atrocity of it all by suggesting that political violence is just an unfortunate yet necessary step toward our coveted socialist revolution.

If it weren't for the pervasive gun phobia that crusaders bizarrely developed in this century, their exalted state of moral superiority would take them right back to New Left days of anti-fascist violence. As it is, that handicap forces them to have to rely on turning psychologically unstable independents and hormone-addled kids of conservatives. Which merely produces occasional wannabe assassins rather than the heavily armed organizations of old.

The Baader-Meinhoff Group enjoyed the advantage of having an Iron Curtain neighbor right next door to receive aid from, which North American counterparts didn't have...

Red Army Faction - the most brutal & violent terror group in Europe ... https://youtu.be/_k73S7jrAxE

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/_k73S7jrAxE

[confused2]

It's possible that capitalism is the least bad solution for humanity .. we're predators and capitalism at least keeps it out in the open. Gods are invented and religions perverted in an attempt to hide the fact that capitalism is at best the least bad solution. We haven't found the Holy Grail .. we've found McDonalds. To make the pill seem more palatable we have a weird parody of a religion and when that fails .. vallium .. and when that fails .. prison.

[Syne]

Capitalism is the only system that relies on mutual consent. Every alternative relies on some degree of slavery, where you do not own the products of your own labor and are thus forced to work for the benefit of others... literal slavery.

[Yazata]

Capitalism is the only system that relies on mutual consent. Every alternative relies on some degree of slavery, where you do not own the products of your own labor and are thus forced to work for the benefit of others... literal slavery.

I agree 100%.

Google Gemini reports that 'capitalism' has the following characteristics, which I have no argument with:

Private Property: Individuals and businesses have the legal right to own capital, land, and the goods they produce.

Profit Motive: The fundamental driver of economic activity is the desire to generate financial gain and accumulate capital.

Competitive Markets: Businesses compete with one another to offer the best goods and services at competitive prices to attract consumers.

Wage Labor: Workers are typically employed by business owners and paid an agreed-upon wage in exchange for their labor.

The way I see it is like this:

1. We all have needs and desires.

2. We are unable to achieve many of those needs and desires entirely by ourselves.

3. So we need the assistance of others to meet many of them.

4. So why should other people aid us in achieving our needs and desires, when they have unmet needs and desires of their own?

5. So reciprocity and mutual aid arise, and fairness becomes a virtue. (These might have appeared so early in human history that it's innate today in evolutionary psychology terms, the foundation of what humans take to be ethics. We might even have inherited it from our prehuman ancestors, who probably lived in social groups too. We see similar behavior in many animals.)

6. In the small family/clan tribal groups of paleolithic hunter-gatherers linked by blood this works, but it became problematic when large villages and cities appeared and people were confronted by strangers whenever they left their homes. Why should complete strangers help you when they need help themselves? Barter economies appear.

7. Specialization appears with craftsmen being particularly good at doing particular things. And money appears, an abstract medium of exchange that allows the specialized craftsman to barter with people who don't actually need the products of his craft.

8. A shoemaker needs assistants to increase his business. So he hires people who might not need shoes themselves and pays them instead with this newfangled money stuff. That allows the assistants to buy whatever they need down at the market stalls. The whole economy becomes far more flexible, fluid and able to expand larger and larger. We are in the early historic age of Egypt and Mesopotamia. (And China and India.)

The bottom line is that far from being the root of all evil, money is the glue that holds large scale social life together, the reason why strangers work together in concert to meet each other's needs and desires. Because it's in their interest to do so. Individuals get the ability to benefit from the labor of others by in turn being of benefit to others. The age old principle of Reciprocity once again.

Socialism contradicts this basic human principle by imagining that people have a claim on the products of the labor of others simply by existing. So people who are of no benefit to others (drug addicts, illegal migrants or whatever) supposedly have a claim on the labor of others (deserve to receive money) simply because of their perceived suffering, without offering anything of value in exchange. Perhaps Gad Saad is right in calling it "Suicidal Empathy". Too much of it might bring about the end of civilization.

[Syne]

Anti-capitalists usually resort to claiming monopolies, crony-capitalism, etc. are inherent in capitalism itself, instead of what they really are... exploitation that occurs no matter which economic system is used.