As a zoomer I have to admit that there wasn't really a community I left to begin with. My parents were divorced and all my peers went away while the only people remaining in my town were old and never really connected with me, with some exceptions. So I moved in a city because I thought that was just the normal way of living. Now I know that my future family and children need a lot more than I had. P.S. Money was never actually something I thought about, and I was not rich.
Money is used to do evil things. The irony is most people think they are chasing money to do good things, when in fact they are perpetually contributing to the ever-increasing divide between good people. Yet another factor is : the rich couldn’t exist without willing-slaves-to-money, and this is what makes money inherently evil.
I feel compelled to become “rich” so as to provide my children with an environment where they can be surrounded by peers who are intelligent, responsible, disciplined, of a family with two parents, etc..
My dad was a Calvinist Christian economics professor, 100% free market Reagan -type thinking. From that era where Christianity was often bundled with free market and other such things. If he were still alive, I would have loved to show him this video and hear his thoughts. In fact, I would have loved for you two to talk. If I could have shown this to him, he probably would have spent the next few hours explaining to me why he disagreed with you XD
That doesn't make them righteous. They willingly choose to become beggars. 2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
@@paulbunyan6968 I believe he is referring to those making between 100k-500k or so. The tax and debt responsibilities of these individuals, let alone the cost of educating and credentialing their children to attain similar positions, present greater constraints than those upon many medieval serfs. Additionally, the serf probably had a greater skillset to utilize if he had to live as an outlaw in the woods or something, whereas the modern upper-bourgeois is often constrained to their hyper-specialized field. Layered on top of that is the cultural, social, and religious appeasement of the regime so as to not get blacklisted from one's hyper-specialized field...
I think you have more freedom than a serf whose alternative is living as a bandit in the woods. Even someone like an accountant can start his own practice and work for himself. You could subsist without subservience at all, but maybe you would have to make sacrifices, and, unlike the serf whose lot is expected of him, suffer embarrassment from the bought-in high earning wage slave class. The serf even had a far more stringent ideological constraint, the expectation of regular church attendance. But, it so happens that his constraint was to a very good ideology, and ours is to a very degenerate one. The feudal system had its merits but let’s not get carried away romanticizing the past.
@@paulbunyan6968 This is a paraphrased quote from Jacques Ellul. Serf had: Freedom to exit and become a hermit Freedom to control the food Knowledge of how to balance food production Raise a family on the lords land for labor Excess was stored not consumed for more excess, with the free time these people had not producing excess most modern would kill themselves.
I am expecting he means astral projection/lucid dreams as a big part of that. It's clear the Egyptians and many other "mystery schools" learned a lot about them.
By the way, the eye of the needle was a very low gate on one side of the city. Getting a camel through took unloading it, getting it on its knees and half dragging half having it scramble through the tunnel. Re-reading what I just wrote, I think it's interesting that the camel must have all of its goods removed and kneel in order to enter.
Before banking there were possible debt tokens which may have been the earliest thing resembling money- an example that you used in the prehistory video number 4. In addition to gamifying lives there is also an element of distancing oneself from the core transaction- instead of thinking about what we exchange, we think about the proxy which means trying to accumulate more things simply for more exchange. Maybe that is what drove the first farmers into growing more grain than what they needed for self sufficiency.
The 15th century: Fractional reserve banking, double-entry bookkeeping, the Great Bullion Dearth and the printing press. It was decided that it money is created out of numbers and trees then money will grow on trees to the extent desired.
"It's a tool used by humans and it can be used for good or evil ... also true of heroin or nuclear weapons or a piano" - you're right, but the conclusion I draw from this is that things can't be evil. In fact, things can't BE anything at all, because to BE is to "be" more than a thing by definition. Platonism also attests to this. Only souls can be oriented towards the good or not. Picking hairs here; I agree with the gist of all you are saying.
Good to see the taking of many angles on this particular topic! Taking many angles is a precursor to dispassion and disidentification with a topic. I watch Jesse Peterson to advance my perspective on the terms good and evil, which are not objective at all, but rather are over or under reactions particular to my stage of personal development, and ultimately signposts of ignorance, the incompleteness and unconsciousness of thinking on a topic. Judgment of good and evil is the source of all suffering, the apple which damned us is the knowledge of good and evil, which is always a lie. As Jesse says, all thoughts are all lies all the time. Complete disidentification with thoughts is the answer to the suffering, we dont need a healthy nation, we dont need kids, we dont need a car, we dont need money, we dont need a house or a wife, and truthfully we dont even need adequate food or sleep. Another good source I use to learn about this is the Philokalia, I recommend if anything I said sparks some interest.
A few thoughts: -Henry George gives a good theological argument for usury not being evil. God has provided that nature tends to replenish itself and capital. George gives the example of a crop growing through what is ultimately minimal human intervention relative to the complex natural processes that take place. Because of this, a loan is effectively money that could have been planted or in some way subjected to nature's innate tendency to grow and replenish itself, making interest a fair repayment for the creditor declining this natural opportunity. -Money arises from trade via a natural-selection process, so the only alternatives are complete self sufficiency or some form of money. Without any form of trade, there could be no specialization or division of labor. Without this, it is not likely that there would be much of many things held as great goods e.g. philosophy, art, music. There could not even be enough specialization for printing books, which are the most important thing for virtue in the absence of a very well maintained oral tradition or a very substantial increase in human intelligence (the average illiterate is likely not as wise as Socrates). -Money and economic factors are not directly responsible for severely low birth rates. There is plenty of empirical research on this, but I think the most compelling example is to compare the Baby Boom with global East Asian fertility. The issue is clearly cultural, although the influence of global finance on our culture is obviously severe. -The free use of money means that the shape of society is determined by the subjective values of individuals, corresponding to the democratic man. This is down to your interpretive strategy regarding Plato, but I don't think that he has much optimism regarding a man who is truly and not just apparently wise ever coming to any sort of political power. Since the tyrant and philosopher king appear the same to the non-knower, and the tyrant is rabidly desirous of power while the philosopher king has neither regard nor desire for it, it is a practical certainty that any attempt to institute objective values in place of subjective value would result in tyranny, in the Republic worse than democracy, rather than justice and the Good.
Ive wondered if the fact that people make more money in corporate America by constantly moving around and job hopping is a deliberate strategy to promote rootlessness and cosmopolitanism. People used to stay in the same company their entire careers and advance via merit.
Money wouldnt be "evil" if it were a real representation of value, by being associated at a one to one ratio with real things. Since it is not, and has never been this way, it might as well be assumed that money cycles between being representative of real things and then is inevitably abused to become totally disconnected from its relative grounding. The ultimate consequence of this effect is displacement of resources in centralized way and the robbing of the masses without ever putting a hand in their pocket. ie inflation. Real value comes from the work that creation does, trees, crops, animals grown, oil harvested from the ground, water welled or collected, these are the basics of any value but they arent exploitable directly and so evil people design convenience systems which facilitate their aims, and they succeed in the grand scheme. Now they rule. Nature continues to produce regardless of how hard we drop the ball in society
meaningful worldly aspiration or dominion requires worship/invocation of sacrifice and Lucifer. it's why Plato sat in palaces and most "platonists" now, the woods
Very important video. Thank you. I have a fear of becoming wealthy, as I think it might corrupt me. I also fear being spiritually corrupted by a technological utopia ushered by AI for similar reasons.
@@meatofpeach If you will be corrupted in the scenario that you become rich, you're already a bad person in some way, and just lack the necessary power to show it. Which leads to you not even realizing your bad nature as of now.
@@Malachit-dl1qw so you don’t believe in the common saying “power corrupts”? You instead would say “corrupt people reveal their corruption when they gain power”? I don’t think it’s so simple. I think power does corrupt originally non-corrupt people.
Ah, yes, the missing eighth day of creation, in which God created pots of gold coins at the ends of rainbows and created the first asset portfolios for Adam and Eve. Good stuff
The great western schism brought enough instability in the church where the merchant classes of early renaissance Italy began practicing usury despite the church banning it as a sin. From this, banking would expand (like the two-entry bookkeeping system was invented). This would lay the foundation for Mercantilism. It wasn't until the Liberal Revolutions that Capitalism could develop. Mercantilism had a larger bourgeois class than in Feudalism. Even though trade, banking, education, manufacturing, larger-scale construction and architecture would become more prevalent, the old Feudal Institutions would still remain. This would hinder the bourgeois classes. So, the Liberal revolutions took out or further weakened these old feudal institutions (The Church, Royalty/Nobility and Vassals) to be more free in practicing Usury via the larger system without the former middlemen (that being Capitalism, since it's a system not based on Feudal sovereignty, but on the sovereignty of the Individual ownership of Capital and Property, hence the Capital in Capitalism.)
The problem with neo-platonism/Christianity is exactly the premise you put forth in the beginning. If everything leads toward the good, that what even is the point of determining things to be individually good/evil as they all lead toward the good anyway and are part of gods plan.
Because although all souls are eventually saved, any particular soul has the possibility of distancing itself from the Good arbitrarily far, in other words, souls can descend into lower realms within the cycle of reincarnation without limit, so you better start seeking good as soon as possible as the alternative is not fun.
@@readplato You actually have to show the mechanism for why 'eventually' all souls are saved. So far you just claimed you can be distanced from God for infinitely long, and no mechanism for what ends that infinity and leads to you being saved by God. Also, can you clarify why the alternative to being saved by God 'isnt fun'?
@@vaku66 All souls are eventually saved because souls are eternal and the core of souls is the One. So no matter how deep into the abyss you are, the simple fact that you still exist means that you are being held into existence by the sustenance of God, and there is always a sequence of choices available which you lead you to ascend back in the chain of being. The reason why the alternative to being saved by God isn't fun is because only God is fully Good, and any other type of experience is inherently unsatisfactory, as taught by Buddha, Eclesiastes and Schopenhauer. Finally, I would just like to say that my purpose here is not to convince you of the platonist worldview, as its validity is something you have to find out on your own through your own personal experiences and study. Instead, I was just responding to your objection that there was a problem within the platonist framework for those who have already accepted it.
More money in an oligarchic system appears to tend towards less children but this being the case always would be false and we have seen this. In the case of Germany following NS acquisition of power the economy boomed and so did fertility rates that only increased during their reign. In fascist Italy birth rates ceased their continuous fall while wealth increased, although the battle for births was a failure. In Spain up until the end of Francois rule fertility rates remained constant levels until a collapse following its end. The trend here is not that material wealth necessarily makes you worse off, but that it will if handled by the oligarchic man which will seek to maximize the tool rather than use the tool for the sake of proper development. In the other cases the more base inclinations were suppressed and rather then depreciating man the wealth was used to build useful infrastructure and beautiful meeting places such as the Nuremberg realm party grounds. When the people work for the economy, increase in economy means squeezing man for all his economic worth. When the economy works for the people, the economy is squeezed if all its resources that can be used for the collective good.
I think a lot of the reasoning used here could be applied to weapons. Weapons exist to inflict harm on other creatures, so on the surface of it that would make them evil. Money can also be wielded like a more abstract weapon. When we're afraid to speak the truth, because we will lose a source of income, then money is being weaponized against us. So I wonder if you would conclude that weapons, especially the more easily destructive ones like bombs and guns, are evil. If not, why not?
I've trouble believing the platonic definition of matter being "absense of form". Not only because it fails to explain why we percieve a unity to matter much in the same way we see unity in the unity in particular cars partaking in the form of car, but also that if The Good is fundamentally the form of forms then matter is by itself evil, which is the nonsense of Gnosticism. I was under the impression evil is the byproduct of particular goods that preclude one another.
When quote the bible "the meek shall inherit the earth" the original Greek word "πραεῖς" translates better to Humble (as in the prime virtue) than meek. "πραεῖς" often translates to gentle, meek, humble or self restrained. And that particular use of gentle often presented in the sense of have the strength enact your will but to choose not to. For a example a war horse would have to be "πραεῖς" to be a good one, yet you wouldnt call it meek because of the obvious connotations the latter word has compared to the former. Considering the african, the description of "πραεῖς" is not the first thing they evoke... and though they might seem to inherit the earth by the virtue of making more with less, this will all turn on its head as soon as our parasitic economic system crumbles from reaching a turning point where it consumes more than we can produce and we witness the greatest event of mass famine in history, of which they will be at the worst end. If we want to be trully Meek, that is "πραεῖς" we have to, not only like them find ways to make more with less, but also have the power to enact our will while also having the will not to act on it when it interferes with our good, and I believe this includes wealth as its a necessary precursor to be self suficient should you exist, let alone compete, in a society. We have to be both afluent and Humble, both strong and gentle, both burn in desire (to multiply or pursue another ambition) and have the self restraint to not act on it when it doesnt serve the good. You have to be simultaneously materially and spiritually great. We do have more in actuality, we can have yet more potentially, and if we want that most "πραεῖς" human type to represent both those who rule the world and the norm amongst the ruled, its really just a matter of doing more with less.
Wealth can be a good, but only when it is obtained righteously, and poverty can be an evil when it is caused directly by sin. In Africa’s case, they genuinely are poor because their continent has been getting economically and politically ravaged by Europeans and Asians for the last half-Millennium. And much of the First-World’s excess wealth is derived from that constant exploitation. As a direct consequence they receive immigrants from the countries they exploit, as if they were obliged to follow their material resources around the world. And being less burdened spiritually by centuries of exploitation, they have faster paths to reproduction. Moral self justification (often through making “enough money”) is a major deterrent to reproduction for Westerners. Also, not only is it hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, but it was shown that a certain rich man was denied access to the bosom of Abraham across a great gulf between heaven and hell, because Abraham said “Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony.”
I’m confused - why is the dyad necessarily evil? I would say it’s the force which opens the door to evil, but the dyad is the energies of the Gods first and foremost.
I think fiat currency leads to debt slavery because the US government borrows and spends. Our currency and economy will eventually go bankrupt from a default. But if you can't loan money your economy will suffer and people will be poorer. We seem to have so much wealth now people are suffering from lack of virtue. People are fat and lazy they don't pursue any ideals. They play video games and don't go outside. If you want self sufficiency you need a pension. The Roman empire had pensions. Or get a job and save approximately 3-5 million dollars. With 3-5 million you can buy a farm or a business and become self sufficient. But the point is you can't become self sufficient without SOME money. We should make choices so we maximize our financial well being. The parable of the Talents says the highest return investor will be given more money. Please don't waste your future by making poor financial decisions.
Money seems to be inextricably tied to work which, according to Genesis, originates in the fall of mankind as a curse. It makes perfect sense that money, often the end goal of work (in the modern definition its really the only end), would also be inextricably tied to the fall of man. In my opinion neither are worthy of praise or admiration.
Interesting that you let your children play videogames. Not judging, just knowing you from your channel I I assumed you'd be very strict with that sort of thing. Have you put any thought in to whether or not to allow videogames? Interesting thoughts btw, as always.
@@ericorwoll The first comment on this thread. Can you please tell me how you think of yourself in the comments I made? I've come to know people like you, and I do consider people like you satanically racist, but I'm also appreciative of how knowledged you are. Just blind to what you truly are. Either way, the same way you want to be free of me, I want to be free of you and your satanic ways, which you think is other people, but really.....you've just never admitted what you are. Are you saying you don't see the first comment from 2 hours ago?
@@ericorwoll Does it sound reasonable, Eric? How is someone like you- a British Isles, who is only a byproduct of favorable breeding, outside of your own race that is, having had hundreds of years of destruction that you've brought to the rest of us, in ANY way form of shape innocent or have a good stance or have any morals, when you tell white women to breed more so that you can guarantee more years of you white demons imposing yourselves on us--that is again after favorable mixing with a race that's not even yours that is??? How are you innocent, Eric? I sincerely want know your logic.
You're confusing putting money to work (investing) with usury (exorbitant interest on loans). A landlord or investor can ethically make "passive income" without extorting his clients or renters.
@acrxsls1766 If you own something and are not using it for its intended purpose then you should be forced to sell to the highest bidder that doesn't already own that thing. Homes could be 50 0 to 100k if not for the hoarding. Same goes for commercial real estate. If you aren't directly involved with the running of a business then you have no right to a cut. Labor is the only ethical means to income.
@acrxsls1766 Easy way to solve the birthrate collapse, worker shortage, housing crisis, and inflation. Real estate speculors should be forced to sell and actually do something valuable instead of well sitting.
@@acrxsls1766 You put money to work by investing it into a business that you are directly involved in running. That is the only way to ethically put money to work.
Money is simply a means of exchange. We used things like gold and silver since it was easy to use and had some inherent value. There will always be something that people can trade as a medium. So "money" is not something you can really avoid. The only thing is how much importance you put on it. You could have money in a society, but also other systems in place that are more important. Within a warrior society this might be respect and strength, or a priestly society it might be knowledge and authority, etc. Basically systems that don't replace money but go alongside it to accomplish different goals. The only question is if people in charge are good or bad, that's what every society ultimately boils down to.
Money is not evil, men are. Not always, and not only, but among common souls the predisposition to minor evil for quick personal gain is always there, and money facilitates that. It does not however create it. (Weather nuclear weapons are evil even in direct consideration of their primary use is a separate question to set aside, but if one believes that the possibility or promise of nuclear war only has downsides and has done nothing for peace, then one could make the case that nuclear weapons do have some kind of moral content because they're practical use is really only as a weapon of mass destruction - technically you could use a nuclear weapon as an ottoman to put your feet up while you watch tv, but realistically speaking that's not their nature). A problem with your analysis is that money and wealth are not the same thing. Both not literally - the existence of pounds, or dollars, or sovereigns as a technical and metaphysical medium of exchange does not necessitate that anyone has a large portion of them - and figuratively - even if there was no physical or electronic currency left on earth, people would still be able to afford large amounts of resources, both physical or personal, and have the same corruptive and abusive effect that large amounts of money due today. It is true in an Ideal World there would be no money, not because money is evil but because quantification itself, the division of reality into atomized units, is part of the spiritual decline, and in the ideal spiritual World such a thing is unnecessary because everything happens through direct exchange of souls. money is not evil, rather it is a byproduct of the natural evil of alienation from the divine that is the principle attribute of the cosmic cycle of decline and rebirth. In a practical sense one cannot truly assert that money is evil unless they can also describe a functional world, in a real sense, that could exist and operate without money. if not, then they are essentially admitting that someone somewhere must handle money in order for things to function. that is, even if they're going to run off into the mountains and be a monk and never handle coins and beg for everything, they understand implicitly that the entire world cannot operate that way because their food must still come from somewhere, housing, goods, medicine defense and so on, and those complex structures can only be operational for the existence of some kind of monetary exchange. With that implicit understanding, they are essentially forcing that necessary burden on other people, but saying that they themselves are too good for it. that is at best hypocrisy and at most a significant spiritual defect. In reality the only truly worthy man is one who asserts a world system that he himself is capable of and willing to fully participate in, to the degree that he would expect everyone else to participate in it and no less. And I think that even in a spiritual sense the pursuit of wealth, through wise and determined but still honest means, in the sense of the pursuit of vitality, productivity, and abundance is healthy. The pursuit of wealth in terms of dishonest means, or pure avarice - the acquisition of resources to fill a psychological or spiritual void, or to enable degenerate or unsoulful behavior - is of course corrupting. e.g. A man who is a hard worker and who builds an Enterprise that contributes genuine value to the world, and treats all those heat engages with fairly and justly, and also enjoys the pursuit of effectiveness and abundance that brings, and the wealth that enables is still a good man. It is true one could make the case that it is all of those virtuous factors that make him wealthy and not the money itself, and I don't think they're necessarily wrong, but in a practical sense those are not really separable. The spiritual decline of the pure Cosmic potentiality, the decline which is inseparable from life itself, is characterized by the separation of primary unified energy into its multiple forms. Heat, electrical charge, bioelectricity, sexual fluids, nuclear power, the motivational effect of words and inspiration, etc. In this sense money, which in its purest form is a condensation of effort and resources, is just a another instantiation of reified energy. Like all other such forms it's inherent nature is colorless, since energy is really potential, but of course it always has the temptation to be abused, just as people abuse sex, linguistic power, and fossil fuels. And of course as the cosmic cycle progresses and the ages decline the balance shifts away from virtue and towards corruption so everything becomes more and more abused and debased. at the ultimate end all forms of energy are used for the worst possible means, but the energy itself is still without taint.
Okay, usery is bad. So why not to stop wasting money on consumables and save money? No holiday abroad, no restaurants, fast food, gadgets ect. It's not that people are earning low. It's that they consume a lot. Why people borrow money? They should live within their means.
The fact that people have to leave their communities to go get "money" is evil. Bye mom dad brother sister friends, I go get da mony. 🤑
As a zoomer I have to admit that there wasn't really a community I left to begin with. My parents were divorced and all my peers went away while the only people remaining in my town were old and never really connected with me, with some exceptions. So I moved in a city because I thought that was just the normal way of living. Now I know that my future family and children need a lot more than I had.
P.S. Money was never actually something I thought about, and I was not rich.
Iggy azelea is the worst example
I was born and raised in a town in America comprised of half Jewish people. Sorry, if I don’t want to stay here.
When people 'get rich' the biggest relief reported is not having to think about money anymore.. says it all really
6:06 *evil is parasitical
Please let me know once you've read my comment. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
True wealth is having a strong, tight-knit community - the one thing that everyone in the West lacks, regardless of how much money they have.
Money is used to do evil things. The irony is most people think they are chasing money to do good things, when in fact they are perpetually contributing to the ever-increasing divide between good people. Yet another factor is : the rich couldn’t exist without willing-slaves-to-money, and this is what makes money inherently evil.
Complete nonsense.
About the africans, you have to consider their high birth rates and relative stability is because of donations, therefore, it comes from money too.
The cult of money is one of the hardests to become aware of.
Facts. Keep spreading plato and wisdom
Paper Mario and its consequences
I feel compelled to become “rich” so as to provide my children with an environment where they can be surrounded by peers who are intelligent, responsible, disciplined, of a family with two parents, etc..
Well said, my friend.
OK. Start a business and get to work.
Money doesn't necessarily grant you any of those you mention.
@@simonjj7397 go on
i mean it literalay does lmao cmon now@@simonjj7397
My dad was a Calvinist Christian economics professor, 100% free market Reagan -type thinking. From that era where Christianity was often bundled with free market and other such things. If he were still alive, I would have loved to show him this video and hear his thoughts. In fact, I would have loved for you two to talk. If I could have shown this to him, he probably would have spent the next few hours explaining to me why he disagreed with you XD
Your Dad was delusional
It’s interesting that the Buddhist monks are explicitly forbidden to touch money
That doesn't make them righteous. They willingly choose to become beggars.
2 Thessalonians 3:10
For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
Buddhism is a rejection of existence. It's a rejection of God's call
Mao also would not touch money. Dugin writes about this.
Leaving it into the hands of tiny hat people like media = horrific consequences
The love of money is the root of all evil
I believe that a serf working the land under the land owner in the past had more freedom than most people who make 100k+
What an odd thing to say.
I’m somewhat amenable to your position. But what actual evidence do you have
@@paulbunyan6968 I believe he is referring to those making between 100k-500k or so. The tax and debt responsibilities of these individuals, let alone the cost of educating and credentialing their children to attain similar positions, present greater constraints than those upon many medieval serfs. Additionally, the serf probably had a greater skillset to utilize if he had to live as an outlaw in the woods or something, whereas the modern upper-bourgeois is often constrained to their hyper-specialized field. Layered on top of that is the cultural, social, and religious appeasement of the regime so as to not get blacklisted from one's hyper-specialized field...
I think you have more freedom than a serf whose alternative is living as a bandit in the woods. Even someone like an accountant can start his own practice and work for himself. You could subsist without subservience at all, but maybe you would have to make sacrifices, and, unlike the serf whose lot is expected of him, suffer embarrassment from the bought-in high earning wage slave class. The serf even had a far more stringent ideological constraint, the expectation of regular church attendance. But, it so happens that his constraint was to a very good ideology, and ours is to a very degenerate one. The feudal system had its merits but let’s not get carried away romanticizing the past.
@@paulbunyan6968 This is a paraphrased quote from Jacques Ellul.
Serf had:
Freedom to exit and become a hermit
Freedom to control the food
Knowledge of how to balance food production
Raise a family on the lords land for labor
Excess was stored not consumed for more excess, with the free time these people had not producing excess most modern would kill themselves.
Vodka and cigarettes are good
Usery is evil.
That's why Im so kind
This is why I think class / caste is more spiritual than material.
Anyone here feeling like money is a detriment, please reply with contact details. I'll take that pesky problem off your hands.
The note on accountability is particularly true.
A very good stream, I've taken much away from this.
Thanks.
“Coins are only counters; their value is what they represent; and what they represent cannot be withdrawn from circulation” - Schopenhauer
A friend of mine just recommended this video to me. Spot on, my friend.
Blood against gold
In the past you’ve mentioned psychic abilities as a reality. Would it be possible for you to make a video elaborating more on the topic
I hope he will
I am expecting he means astral projection/lucid dreams as a big part of that. It's clear the Egyptians and many other "mystery schools" learned a lot about them.
Lmao.
Money in any form is evil. People that rely on money will remain unascendant.
By the way, the eye of the needle was a very low gate on one side of the city. Getting a camel through took unloading it, getting it on its knees and half dragging half having it scramble through the tunnel.
Re-reading what I just wrote, I think it's interesting that the camel must have all of its goods removed and kneel in order to enter.
I'd love to know your thoughts on Buddhism.
Before banking there were possible debt tokens which may have been the earliest thing resembling money- an example that you used in the prehistory video number 4. In addition to gamifying lives there is also an element of distancing oneself from the core transaction- instead of thinking about what we exchange, we think about the proxy which means trying to accumulate more things simply for more exchange. Maybe that is what drove the first farmers into growing more grain than what they needed for self sufficiency.
Such a great inside brother Aarvoll!
I was thinking the other day... When did money become so acutely important in our lives?
Do you have any good book recommendations for beginning to learn about theoretical mathematics
Tis the necessity for money that is evil.
LOVE of money is evil not money itself
The 15th century: Fractional reserve banking, double-entry bookkeeping, the Great Bullion Dearth and the printing press. It was decided that it money is created out of numbers and trees then money will grow on trees to the extent desired.
"It's a tool used by humans and it can be used for good or evil ... also true of heroin or nuclear weapons or a piano" - you're right, but the conclusion I draw from this is that things can't be evil. In fact, things can't BE anything at all, because to BE is to "be" more than a thing by definition. Platonism also attests to this. Only souls can be oriented towards the good or not. Picking hairs here; I agree with the gist of all you are saying.
Good to see the taking of many angles on this particular topic! Taking many angles is a precursor to dispassion and disidentification with a topic. I watch Jesse Peterson to advance my perspective on the terms good and evil, which are not objective at all, but rather are over or under reactions particular to my stage of personal development, and ultimately signposts of ignorance, the incompleteness and unconsciousness of thinking on a topic. Judgment of good and evil is the source of all suffering, the apple which damned us is the knowledge of good and evil, which is always a lie. As Jesse says, all thoughts are all lies all the time. Complete disidentification with thoughts is the answer to the suffering, we dont need a healthy nation, we dont need kids, we dont need a car, we dont need money, we dont need a house or a wife, and truthfully we dont even need adequate food or sleep. Another good source I use to learn about this is the Philokalia, I recommend if anything I said sparks some interest.
Advocating for servedom as a legitimite path is at the same time the most and the least radical (historically) thing one can say.
not to mention the spread of problematic information and technology the traveling man brings that basically upends all traditional ways of living
Right is Might
A few thoughts:
-Henry George gives a good theological argument for usury not being evil. God has provided that nature tends to replenish itself and capital. George gives the example of a crop growing through what is ultimately minimal human intervention relative to the complex natural processes that take place. Because of this, a loan is effectively money that could have been planted or in some way subjected to nature's innate tendency to grow and replenish itself, making interest a fair repayment for the creditor declining this natural opportunity.
-Money arises from trade via a natural-selection process, so the only alternatives are complete self sufficiency or some form of money. Without any form of trade, there could be no specialization or division of labor. Without this, it is not likely that there would be much of many things held as great goods e.g. philosophy, art, music. There could not even be enough specialization for printing books, which are the most important thing for virtue in the absence of a very well maintained oral tradition or a very substantial increase in human intelligence (the average illiterate is likely not as wise as Socrates).
-Money and economic factors are not directly responsible for severely low birth rates. There is plenty of empirical research on this, but I think the most compelling example is to compare the Baby Boom with global East Asian fertility. The issue is clearly cultural, although the influence of global finance on our culture is obviously severe.
-The free use of money means that the shape of society is determined by the subjective values of individuals, corresponding to the democratic man. This is down to your interpretive strategy regarding Plato, but I don't think that he has much optimism regarding a man who is truly and not just apparently wise ever coming to any sort of political power. Since the tyrant and philosopher king appear the same to the non-knower, and the tyrant is rabidly desirous of power while the philosopher king has neither regard nor desire for it, it is a practical certainty that any attempt to institute objective values in place of subjective value would result in tyranny, in the Republic worse than democracy, rather than justice and the Good.
*soviet anthem plays
Ive wondered if the fact that people make more money in corporate America by constantly moving around and job hopping is a deliberate strategy to promote rootlessness and cosmopolitanism. People used to stay in the same company their entire careers and advance via merit.
Money wouldnt be "evil" if it were a real representation of value, by being associated at a one to one ratio with real things. Since it is not, and has never been this way, it might as well be assumed that money cycles between being representative of real things and then is inevitably abused to become totally disconnected from its relative grounding. The ultimate consequence of this effect is displacement of resources in centralized way and the robbing of the masses without ever putting a hand in their pocket. ie inflation. Real value comes from the work that creation does, trees, crops, animals grown, oil harvested from the ground, water welled or collected, these are the basics of any value but they arent exploitable directly and so evil people design convenience systems which facilitate their aims, and they succeed in the grand scheme. Now they rule. Nature continues to produce regardless of how hard we drop the ball in society
meaningful worldly aspiration or dominion requires worship/invocation of sacrifice and Lucifer. it's why Plato sat in palaces and most "platonists" now, the woods
if you can't enjoy things & they possess you then I guess it's bad. if you can enjoy heroin without evils then it's good.
Money fixed the majority of my problems lol the fact I have options is everything to me and gives me a piece of mind
All things are good to God.
In principle or also in practice? Can it be said that Gods good is our good?
Very important video. Thank you. I have a fear of becoming wealthy, as I think it might corrupt me. I also fear being spiritually corrupted by a technological utopia ushered by AI for similar reasons.
If wealth has the ability to corrupt you, then there's already something wrong with you.
@@meatofpeach If you will be corrupted in the scenario that you become rich, you're already a bad person in some way, and just lack the necessary power to show it. Which leads to you not even realizing your bad nature as of now.
@@Malachit-dl1qw so you don’t believe in the common saying “power corrupts”? You instead would say “corrupt people reveal their corruption when they gain power”? I don’t think it’s so simple. I think power does corrupt originally non-corrupt people.
Man meant it for evil, God meant it for Good.
Ah, yes, the missing eighth day of creation, in which God created pots of gold coins at the ends of rainbows and created the first asset portfolios for Adam and Eve. Good stuff
Is God A Capitalist?
The great western schism brought enough instability in the church where the merchant classes of early renaissance Italy began practicing usury despite the church banning it as a sin. From this, banking would expand (like the two-entry bookkeeping system was invented). This would lay the foundation for Mercantilism. It wasn't until the Liberal Revolutions that Capitalism could develop. Mercantilism had a larger bourgeois class than in Feudalism. Even though trade, banking, education, manufacturing, larger-scale construction and architecture would become more prevalent, the old Feudal Institutions would still remain. This would hinder the bourgeois classes. So, the Liberal revolutions took out or further weakened these old feudal institutions (The Church, Royalty/Nobility and Vassals) to be more free in practicing Usury via the larger system without the former middlemen (that being Capitalism, since it's a system not based on Feudal sovereignty, but on the sovereignty of the Individual ownership of Capital and Property, hence the Capital in Capitalism.)
The problem with neo-platonism/Christianity is exactly the premise you put forth in the beginning. If everything leads toward the good, that what even is the point of determining things to be individually good/evil as they all lead toward the good anyway and are part of gods plan.
Because although all souls are eventually saved, any particular soul has the possibility of distancing itself from the Good arbitrarily far, in other words, souls can descend into lower realms within the cycle of reincarnation without limit, so you better start seeking good as soon as possible as the alternative is not fun.
@@readplato You actually have to show the mechanism for why 'eventually' all souls are saved. So far you just claimed you can be distanced from God for infinitely long, and no mechanism for what ends that infinity and leads to you being saved by God. Also, can you clarify why the alternative to being saved by God 'isnt fun'?
@@vaku66 All souls are eventually saved because souls are eternal and the core of souls is the One. So no matter how deep into the abyss you are, the simple fact that you still exist means that you are being held into existence by the sustenance of God, and there is always a sequence of choices available which you lead you to ascend back in the chain of being.
The reason why the alternative to being saved by God isn't fun is because only God is fully Good, and any other type of experience is inherently unsatisfactory, as taught by Buddha, Eclesiastes and Schopenhauer.
Finally, I would just like to say that my purpose here is not to convince you of the platonist worldview, as its validity is something you have to find out on your own through your own personal experiences and study. Instead, I was just responding to your objection that there was a problem within the platonist framework for those who have already accepted it.
More money in an oligarchic system appears to tend towards less children but this being the case always would be false and we have seen this. In the case of Germany following NS acquisition of power the economy boomed and so did fertility rates that only increased during their reign. In fascist Italy birth rates ceased their continuous fall while wealth increased, although the battle for births was a failure. In Spain up until the end of Francois rule fertility rates remained constant levels until a collapse following its end.
The trend here is not that material wealth necessarily makes you worse off, but that it will if handled by the oligarchic man which will seek to maximize the tool rather than use the tool for the sake of proper development. In the other cases the more base inclinations were suppressed and rather then depreciating man the wealth was used to build useful infrastructure and beautiful meeting places such as the Nuremberg realm party grounds. When the people work for the economy, increase in economy means squeezing man for all his economic worth. When the economy works for the people, the economy is squeezed if all its resources that can be used for the collective good.
Yes, this is what I was trying to get at at 14:57 with the "nominal" v "real" wealth of nations.
@@ericorwoll Nearly all of my comments are being removed. Is there a way I can message you?
@@teetea8698 My contact info is public in the "about" section of my page
What we live in is the Ancient Phoenician system. Highly recommend book author Dylan Saccoccio.
Not Phoenician....
@@blue18404 It originates further back but good luck proving it.
I think a lot of the reasoning used here could be applied to weapons. Weapons exist to inflict harm on other creatures, so on the surface of it that would make them evil. Money can also be wielded like a more abstract weapon. When we're afraid to speak the truth, because we will lose a source of income, then money is being weaponized against us.
So I wonder if you would conclude that weapons, especially the more easily destructive ones like bombs and guns, are evil. If not, why not?
This is a great video. Thank you. How many kids do you have?
Two boys, two girls.
@@ericorwoll beautiful. God bless you.
I've trouble believing the platonic definition of matter being "absense of form".
Not only because it fails to explain why we percieve a unity to matter much in the same way we see unity in the unity in particular cars partaking in the form of car, but also that if The Good is fundamentally the form of forms then matter is by itself evil, which is the nonsense of Gnosticism. I was under the impression evil is the byproduct of particular goods that preclude one another.
When quote the bible "the meek shall inherit the earth" the original Greek word "πραεῖς" translates better to Humble (as in the prime virtue) than meek.
"πραεῖς" often translates to gentle, meek, humble or self restrained. And that particular use of gentle often presented in the sense of have the strength enact your will but to choose not to. For a example a war horse would have to be "πραεῖς" to be a good one, yet you wouldnt call it meek because of the obvious connotations the latter word has compared to the former.
Considering the african, the description of "πραεῖς" is not the first thing they evoke... and though they might seem to inherit the earth by the virtue of making more with less, this will all turn on its head as soon as our parasitic economic system crumbles from reaching a turning point where it consumes more than we can produce and we witness the greatest event of mass famine in history, of which they will be at the worst end.
If we want to be trully Meek, that is "πραεῖς" we have to, not only like them find ways to make more with less, but also have the power to enact our will while also having the will not to act on it when it interferes with our good, and I believe this includes wealth as its a necessary precursor to be self suficient should you exist, let alone compete, in a society. We have to be both afluent and Humble, both strong and gentle, both burn in desire (to multiply or pursue another ambition) and have the self restraint to not act on it when it doesnt serve the good. You have to be simultaneously materially and spiritually great.
We do have more in actuality, we can have yet more potentially, and if we want that most "πραεῖς" human type to represent both those who rule the world and the norm amongst the ruled, its really just a matter of doing more with less.
Wealth can be a good, but only when it is obtained righteously, and poverty can be an evil when it is caused directly by sin.
In Africa’s case, they genuinely are poor because their continent has been getting economically and politically ravaged by Europeans and Asians for the last half-Millennium.
And much of the First-World’s excess wealth is derived from that constant exploitation. As a direct consequence they receive immigrants from the countries they exploit, as if they were obliged to follow their material resources around the world. And being less burdened spiritually by centuries of exploitation, they have faster paths to reproduction. Moral self justification (often through making “enough money”) is a major deterrent to reproduction for Westerners.
Also, not only is it hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, but it was shown that a certain rich man was denied access to the bosom of Abraham across a great gulf between heaven and hell, because Abraham said “Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony.”
I’m confused - why is the dyad necessarily evil? I would say it’s the force which opens the door to evil, but the dyad is the energies of the Gods first and foremost.
What do you think of Nietzsche?
No money necessary J Maynard Keynes British Economist said needed in England and USA it capitalism system Appreciate your work.
I think fiat currency leads to debt slavery because the US government borrows and spends. Our currency and economy will eventually go bankrupt from a default. But if you can't loan money your economy will suffer and people will be poorer. We seem to have so much wealth now people are suffering from lack of virtue. People are fat and lazy they don't pursue any ideals. They play video games and don't go outside. If you want self sufficiency you need a pension. The Roman empire had pensions. Or get a job and save approximately 3-5 million dollars. With 3-5 million you can buy a farm or a business and become self sufficient. But the point is you can't become self sufficient without SOME money. We should make choices so we maximize our financial well being. The parable of the Talents says the highest return investor will be given more money. Please don't waste your future by making poor financial decisions.
We all have an obligation to understand finances… financial literacy is more important than anything taught in schools today
Money seems to be inextricably tied to work which, according to Genesis, originates in the fall of mankind as a curse. It makes perfect sense that money, often the end goal of work (in the modern definition its really the only end), would also be inextricably tied to the fall of man. In my opinion neither are worthy of praise or admiration.
Albrecht Du Heit
I paused the video mid sentence and you look like Marshall Applewhite in the blurry still. Not bad.
Interesting that you let your children play videogames. Not judging, just knowing you from your channel I I assumed you'd be very strict with that sort of thing.
Have you put any thought in to whether or not to allow videogames?
Interesting thoughts btw, as always.
I think video games can be educational. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like they stimulate development when used moderately.
@@ericorwoll Please let me know once you've read my comment. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
What comment?
@@ericorwoll The first comment on this thread. Can you please tell me how you think of yourself in the comments I made? I've come to know people like you, and I do consider people like you satanically racist, but I'm also appreciative of how knowledged you are. Just blind to what you truly are. Either way, the same way you want to be free of me, I want to be free of you and your satanic ways, which you think is other people, but really.....you've just never admitted what you are. Are you saying you don't see the first comment from 2 hours ago?
@@ericorwoll Does it sound reasonable, Eric? How is someone like you- a British Isles, who is only a byproduct of favorable breeding, outside of your own race that is, having had hundreds of years of destruction that you've brought to the rest of us, in ANY way form of shape innocent or have a good stance or have any morals, when you tell white women to breed more so that you can guarantee more years of you white demons imposing yourselves on us--that is again after favorable mixing with a race that's not even yours that is??? How are you innocent, Eric? I sincerely want know your logic.
The control or misuse/ abuse of the money system is evil.
Money is just a way to "store work".
Making money through your labor and spending it on things you need is not evil. Indirectly making money with money or property is evil.
You're confusing putting money to work (investing) with usury (exorbitant interest on loans). A landlord or investor can ethically make "passive income" without extorting his clients or renters.
@acrxsls1766 If you own something and are not using it for its intended purpose then you should be forced to sell to the highest bidder that doesn't already own that thing. Homes could be 50
0 to 100k if not for the hoarding. Same goes for commercial real estate. If you aren't directly involved with the running of a business then you have no right to a cut. Labor is the only ethical means to income.
@acrxsls1766 Easy way to solve the birthrate collapse, worker shortage, housing crisis, and inflation. Real estate speculors should be forced to sell and actually do something valuable instead of well sitting.
@@acrxsls1766 You put money to work by investing it into a business that you are directly involved in running. That is the only way to ethically put money to work.
@@moshow93I think the state should take real-estate not being used by the owner and give it to migrant families that came to work!
Money is simply a means of exchange. We used things like gold and silver since it was easy to use and had some inherent value. There will always be something that people can trade as a medium. So "money" is not something you can really avoid. The only thing is how much importance you put on it. You could have money in a society, but also other systems in place that are more important. Within a warrior society this might be respect and strength, or a priestly society it might be knowledge and authority, etc. Basically systems that don't replace money but go alongside it to accomplish different goals. The only question is if people in charge are good or bad, that's what every society ultimately boils down to.
Only if it’s FIAT currency. 💵
Wrongs were done under gold systems as well.
Money is not evil, men are. Not always, and not only, but among common souls the predisposition to minor evil for quick personal gain is always there, and money facilitates that. It does not however create it. (Weather nuclear weapons are evil even in direct consideration of their primary use is a separate question to set aside, but if one believes that the possibility or promise of nuclear war only has downsides and has done nothing for peace, then one could make the case that nuclear weapons do have some kind of moral content because they're practical use is really only as a weapon of mass destruction - technically you could use a nuclear weapon as an ottoman to put your feet up while you watch tv, but realistically speaking that's not their nature).
A problem with your analysis is that money and wealth are not the same thing. Both not literally - the existence of pounds, or dollars, or sovereigns as a technical and metaphysical medium of exchange does not necessitate that anyone has a large portion of them - and figuratively - even if there was no physical or electronic currency left on earth, people would still be able to afford large amounts of resources, both physical or personal, and have the same corruptive and abusive effect that large amounts of money due today.
It is true in an Ideal World there would be no money, not because money is evil but because quantification itself, the division of reality into atomized units, is part of the spiritual decline, and in the ideal spiritual World such a thing is unnecessary because everything happens through direct exchange of souls. money is not evil, rather it is a byproduct of the natural evil of alienation from the divine that is the principle attribute of the cosmic cycle of decline and rebirth.
In a practical sense one cannot truly assert that money is evil unless they can also describe a functional world, in a real sense, that could exist and operate without money. if not, then they are essentially admitting that someone somewhere must handle money in order for things to function. that is, even if they're going to run off into the mountains and be a monk and never handle coins and beg for everything, they understand implicitly that the entire world cannot operate that way because their food must still come from somewhere, housing, goods, medicine defense and so on, and those complex structures can only be operational for the existence of some kind of monetary exchange. With that implicit understanding, they are essentially forcing that necessary burden on other people, but saying that they themselves are too good for it. that is at best hypocrisy and at most a significant spiritual defect.
In reality the only truly worthy man is one who asserts a world system that he himself is capable of and willing to fully participate in, to the degree that he would expect everyone else to participate in it and no less.
And I think that even in a spiritual sense the pursuit of wealth, through wise and determined but still honest means, in the sense of the pursuit of vitality, productivity, and abundance is healthy. The pursuit of wealth in terms of dishonest means, or pure avarice - the acquisition of resources to fill a psychological or spiritual void, or to enable degenerate or unsoulful behavior - is of course corrupting.
e.g. A man who is a hard worker and who builds an Enterprise that contributes genuine value to the world, and treats all those heat engages with fairly and justly, and also enjoys the pursuit of effectiveness and abundance that brings, and the wealth that enables is still a good man. It is true one could make the case that it is all of those virtuous factors that make him wealthy and not the money itself, and I don't think they're necessarily wrong, but in a practical sense those are not really separable.
The spiritual decline of the pure Cosmic potentiality, the decline which is inseparable from life itself, is characterized by the separation of primary unified energy into its multiple forms. Heat, electrical charge, bioelectricity, sexual fluids, nuclear power, the motivational effect of words and inspiration, etc. In this sense money, which in its purest form is a condensation of effort and resources, is just a another instantiation of reified energy. Like all other such forms it's inherent nature is colorless, since energy is really potential, but of course it always has the temptation to be abused, just as people abuse sex, linguistic power, and fossil fuels.
And of course as the cosmic cycle progresses and the ages decline the balance shifts away from virtue and towards corruption so everything becomes more and more abused and debased. at the ultimate end all forms of energy are used for the worst possible means, but the energy itself is still without taint.
Labor plantation casino
Okay, usery is bad. So why not to stop wasting money on consumables and save money? No holiday abroad, no restaurants, fast food, gadgets ect. It's not that people are earning low. It's that they consume a lot.
Why people borrow money? They should live within their means.
Money isn't evil, but the *LOVE* of money is evil.
Money is the only thing that gives me happiness anymore. I love looking at my portfolio.
You are directly responsible for death and suffering and are a major conduit for evil if you make passive income.
@@moshow93passive income is the best income. You have to do the least to get it! How can you not love that??
@@moshow93, Good Girl! 👌
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
If ugliness is evil, are all ugly people evil? 😨
They'd be evil insofar as they are ugly, but they could have redeeming features.
Ugliness is evil. People aren't. Ugly people aren't evil; People's ugly is.
A natural privation of good isnt evil imo
@@ericorwollYes, ugliness is evil. Look at all the fat and out of shape people. They are wicked and stupid