Does charity breed weakness?

because taking your "argument" to the extreme, too much harshness can quite simply bring you to extinction if the amount of strain far exceeds the capability of a folk to improve itself
you always need a minimum amount of "material" so to speak to cultivate greatness
what you are arguing is for an ideal upward limit standard of strength which naturally only belongs to an ideal upward limit of man, a rather ideal and futile mental exercise rather than implementable social policy

Yes. When I say that hyper individualism is jewish, I do not mean to imply that the jews practice it themselves. After all, do you really still expect God's Chosen People to abide by the same rules as the Goyim? Heaven forbid!
Individualism in its extreme state is promoted by the jews because it weakens us. The jews know that power comes from organization and collaboration within a tribe. That's how they rule us.

I see no reason to assist people who hate us.

Seriously you guys need to read the Marquis de Sade's Juliette. Forget the pornographic aspect of the book; it's boring and repetitious and mechanical but the philosophical writing in the book is unsurpassed in its brutal gaze upon the human condition.

He dismantles charity and reveals a rotten apple crawling with foul maggots. Charity and it's relative pity are tickets to hell, totally unnatural and counter productive.

The donor is asserting his superiority over the recipient, thus from the start the relationship is irretrievably soured. The relationship can only lead to mutually ugly feelings with the donor ending up regarding the recipient with contempt and the recipient feeling his inferiority and the implicit contempt of the donor must come to resent and hate his erstwhile benefactor with a passion.

We won't even go into the parasitic nature of the relationship and all the ugly vices it gives rise to in the recipient who is totally encouraged to be idle, grovelling and obsequious to avoid the pain of getting off his ass and becoming proactive in his own life.

Then perhaps by slowly lowering this needed minimum of "material" one could breed strength.
Eventually, it would free us from any need for material at all.
That's only if one accepts the notion that we need any minimum at all.

What if as long as we gave people the opportunity to get themselves what they need (for examples jobs) charity would never be needed to give.

If this were to be possible should this not be the aim? Why give what others should fight for?This world is not fair; we do not share the fantasy of communists who think no one should be born with more than others.

Instead of giving them the hand to get them out of a hole, teach them to get themselves out of there.

No. The problem is that true charity has been appropriated by the government. If the people currently on welfare were being directly supported by their productive neighbors several important things would happen. First, the shame of poverty would drive the previously lazy and unmotivated. Second, those men who can offer this support will see very quickly what subhumans do with their gibs and stop paying for endless litters of chimplets. Third, in this model, the government isn't buying a slave class to vote their parasites into office. Fourth, the ones providing direct help get a better understanding of what (((who))) can put an honest hard-working man so far down. Last, those few good people who rely on welfare now get more personalized help, form a tighter community, and have a chance at getting back on their feet rather than limping along.

So no, charity done right doesn't breed weakness.

"Real charity" like the white man practiced for a thousand years would be giving a man a job, even just a temporary one, to provide for himself/family. Up until judaism took over, if you knew a neighbor family needed money for food, you would invite them over for sunday supper, then offer the man work fixing your fences, helping you repair your tractor, gather hay, etc. Even in more urban settings a man would get his neighbor a job at his factory or office. This passing money business and calling it "charity" is purely a jewish scam like anything else that profits without requiring work.

Attached: sugarjew.png (705x846, 105.98K)

ofcourse it does.

You guys keep writing in terms of "jews", "folk", "community",…

I actually meant the act of charity itself. Of course, if it cannot be discussed without above mentioned terms, then so be it. I am siply trying to discuss "the absolute charity". The mere idea of charity.

My definition of charity is giving what the person should fight for, not the opportunity to fight itself (job). To give a man a job is what I proposed as a better alternative to "charity"…

But then again, where does one draw the line between charity and opportunity.

If the man cannot get a job at the office without you, then again he relies on you and not on himself. This could also be seen as breeding weakness for finding the job is also a struggle.

The Victorians had the concept of the Deserving Poor versus the Undeserving Poor, which is basically how welfare systems ought to work in general. The Deserving Poor are those that suffer from misfortune that brings them to poverty yet are otherwise virtuous people, while the Undeserving Poor become poor due to vices, bad decisions, and otherwise being a subhuman subhuman in the original sense of not being capable of maintaining the society they live in rather than being the "wrong" race.

There are two ways to tell the groups apart. The easiest way is to examine what happens if you give them resources. The Deserving Poor will use those resources to lift themselves out of poverty or, at the very least, use it to enable their virtuous contributions to society. We can see the Deserving Poor in the sorts like a farmer whose barn burns down and, upon receiving aid from his neighbors to rebuild it, restarts production on his farm. Or the widow who is raising children receiving enough assistance to allow her to give her children enough to eat and an education so they won't run the massive risk of becoming criminals.

Contrast this against the Undeserving Poor who, upon receiving resources from charity, fritter it away on frivolous luxuries, habits, and vices. The Undeserving Poor got into their situation largely because they misused resources, and giving them any more will be at best wasteful, and at worst destructive. Examples include the panhandlers who use your donations to buy booze and drugs, or the Indians on reservation who wait around for government checks to then waste on casinos and drinking.

As for figuring out who is Deserving or Undeserving before you give them money, it's a matter of examining their virtue. This can be done through examining their reputation, history, and current observation. You can give them a test bit of welfare to see if they respond in a Deserving or Undeserving manner, and upon figuring that out treat them accordingly. It takes human discretion though - no current mechanism of government or law exists that can conduct this process, hence why charity is best done by human-centric organizations.

What do you do with them? In short, you give resources to the Deserving Poor, and withhold them from the Undeserving Poor. That doesn't mean starving out the latter since that often doesn't help - they turn to criminality and other parasitism otherwise - but containing them, their vices, and sequestering it away from the general public. This is attempted today in the form of soup kitchens and homeless shelters, but these only attract and maintain larger homeless populations in most cases and gravely damage nearby communities. The original idea of the asylum, where these kinds of hazardous-yet-not-criminal elements could be sequestered out of society and in a nice place that they could have the chance to heal, is what is called for in borderline cases. Those who are completely subhuman just need to be encouraged to stay in a manageable area, not breed, and run out their lifespan while doing as little damage as possible to society.

Welfare today is badly mismanaged because it neither differentiates properly between people nor approaches the problem in ways that encourage recovery. The former is self-evident from how jobless Shaniqua and her fatherless brood of future criminals are supported at every turn by the state. The latter is more subtle, but an example would be replacing food stamps with preset ration boxes filled with nutritionally-sound but utterly bland food. When I say utterly, I mean hardtack levels of tastelessness. A person could eat it and be healthy, but not happy whatsoever. There would be no trading value in the stuff given how bland it was, and it would quickly cause recipients to seek out things to spice it up and thereby encouraging job searching and other beneficial behaviors. Given how humans used to trade and kill one another for spices in the not too distant past, the motivation is intrinsic and powerful and should be used to leverage the poor to make better decisions.

Attached: 920043dc6c4a4a62d258fa195d1adb64.jpg (538x800, 80K)

Human lives are like dollars; the more there are, the less value each has. We have a surplus of both humans and dollars. That's why we have people coming from all over the planet who will take a shit job paying minimum wage, for a $1 or more less per hour.

I see it like this. If you have the means to help someone in direct need, then you should help. BUT it has to be real help not just tokens to prolong the inevitable. If you don't see your actions having any positive effective on the individual in need, then refuse to prolong suffering.

Giving opportunities is often a great way to deal with many instances, but it is not a panacea for all cases. Take the example of the farmer whose barn burns down. Job-Only Charity would tell him to go work at the local 7-11 until he could afford to build a new barn. While that might be an educational and ennobling experience, it is not economically sound because the farmer's skills are better used in farming, not cashiering. If he was simply given resources from his neighboring community he could be back up and running immediately, doing much more productive work.

Another example is the promising drug addict who, if only he could clean up, would be a productive member of society. The charity of giving him a job wouldn't help him because he'd just buy drugs with it, but the charity of asylum would be a better option potentially since it could have a chance to solve his vice. Likewise asylum is not useful to the farmer because it wouldn't help his particular case.

Giving jobs is, in my opinion, one tool of many in the charity toolbox. It's a great solution for Undeserving Poor and works well for many cases, but other tools are useful for other cases. This is why charity needs to have a very strong human judgement component to it as no law is going to properly deal with all these various cases and personalities.

Attached: 1940s-ww2-vintage-nazi-germany-propaganda-poster-with-all-power-ready-M61GA1.jpg (932x1390, 268.36K)

Nah, without charity/safety net nobody would take risks. The people who believe charity makes people weak are delusional assholes who take for granted the charity they've received.

I appreciate the effort. This does shine some light on the issue of how charity should be approached.

However, I see how I wasn't clear enough on my question. I was talking about the inner struggle of man itself. The "Nietshian" will to power. How conflict builds strength.

I was wondering wether this struggle should be tampered with. Wether we should actually take away this possible growth.

Hard times create hard men, Hard men create good time, Good times weak men, weak men create hard times…
Perhaps this cycle could be stopped by not helping the common man. I know it doesn't really make sense. But every great nation was built on struggle. Collective struggle that is. But collective struggle is translated into indivudual struggle.
By creating good times do we not take this away? Are we not doomed to stumble into weakness and the fall of the great nation. Through perpetual war and crisis people boys seem to become men. The western world no longer has any real struggle. Is this perhaps the real reason leftist ideology is able to prosper. Not because (((they))) are strong, but the west is weak.
Are we allowing them to do this. Instead of blaming them should we have not helped weak men over time and thus preserved strength.
Does giving every man a job breed weakness?
Maybe men should struggle and fight to get jobs.
I know this sounds cruel, but any great nation seems to have fallen due to weak men.

Perhaps the solution to breeding strong men in good times is to give them as much individual struggle as one can.

These are not equal. We build safety with risks. Charity on the other hand can only exist if safety is already established.

The problem isn't charity, but the "sphere of charity", so to speak. Charity should only be given to your tribe (which should be only be ~150 people). Anyone beyond that is a waste.
Why 150? That is the amount of people your brain can fully recognize as "friends". It just so happened to be the population cap for tribes pre-civilization. It may seem like appeal to nature fallacy, and it is. Any redditor that uses that Jewish joke of a fallacy shouldn't be taken seriously at all. Nature made us and governs us; to defy it is paradoxical.

No problem, my answer is part of that topic too. In English we have just the one word, "suffering", to describe a great number of different phenomena. In general these phenomena are unpleasant, but there are different forms of suffering. Some forms are vital to making strong men, and others are merely destructive.

Agony in the original Greek means the sort of pain you endure while in competition. This is the "feel the burn!" kind of suffering that is extremely good for people, and it is that kind of suffering that should always be encouraged.

Torture means a sort of twisting as with many forms of torment humans inflict and are afflicted with. This kind of suffering is often very damaging without much upside to the subject. These forms of suffering often strike down virtuous people and should often not be endured for endurance's sake.

There are others I'm sure, but it is enough to say that there is something about some forms of suffering that are great for people, and other forms that could be done away with for the betterment of the society. The trick is figuring out the difference and enacting it in an age of abundance.

There are situations that humans can create or engage with that encourage beneficial selection for stronger men, but these require biological selection either in failed reproduction or outright death. War generally selects for stronger, more intelligent men over the weaker and dumber in general. Economic downturns weed out financial parasites. Venturing to frontiers selects for the bold and daring and whittles down to only the most capable and hardy. A society that eliminates all forms of risk breeds in time a soft, increasingly subhuman population because the selection is just for those in it, not those who maintain the society. It's a problem with an abundance mentality that forgets how it obtained abundance, and the rise and fall of empires suggests that this cycle is almost inevitable without some forms of societal struggle. The question just is what forms of struggle are useful and what forms are not, and the answer may be dependent on what kinds of societies you want to make.

The freeman model of society, where every person is allowed to succeed and fail as far as he can manage it, only works if failure is allowed and results in selection. Welfare prevents this out of a personal discomfort with others' suffering, and this pathological empathy is at the root of most of the West's problems today.

Attached: 1940-vintage-nazi-propaganda-poster-ww2-abandoned-populations-trust-the-german-soldier-!-german-propaganda-poster-on-walls-of-france-after-nazi-german-occupation-MHC62M.jpg (942x1390, 201.04K)

Your best breed hound breaks its leg. In all objective metrics they outperform. They lead the other dogs and come by injury by misfortune. The 'charity' of providing the opportunity for healing its leg would clearly be justified. The dog could then pass on its blood, which although by no means guaranteed is more likely to lead to more instantiations of higher breeding. Obviously if a dog broke its leg and it just gave up on life, you might think maybe there is a problem with it. But watching it struggle in vain and die would be pointless. In cases where suffering is only limiting, meaningless, and insurmountable it would be completely idiotic to just stand by and watch your fellow fail.

On top of all this it is worth noting that higher man is not an island. They would be interdependent to some extent. The white man's furthest development will not be atomic, but rather be hierarchical and cooperative while still requiring individual strength from its parts.

The -inherit- potential of an individual is realized at times through hardship, but this -inherit- potential is not increased by it. A strong individual full of potential being wasted by pointless suffering while their fellows look on is a failure of the race and/or its society rather than that individual. Such perverse thinking would be heavily selected against in times of hardship, and in fact could only be permitted for any time within the context of a decadent society.

Of course it does. Welfare has a major dysgenic effect, people become less industrious, less ambitious, less self-reliant, their work ethic goes down the drain. Welfare is a disaster.

I can always count on Zig Forums. thanks.
I see now that I simplified "struggle" too much. I never thought about how different crises favour different "strengths" (sometimes parasitical tendencies).
I guess carefully encouraging Agony, while eliminationg torture (in form of charity for instance) would still stimulate breeding strenght.

Public welfare isn't equivalent to private charity though.

We must sell everything that we own and give to the poor

Lets break something down since people are confusing things. Much of the issue stemming from the yids successful campaign to mislabel words and subvert intent.

You confuse economic ability with strength and power of an man. Those are often exclusive of each other. The best and strongest of men are often the most inept and weak economically unless directed into an sufficient path to counteract their own natural inclination and various issues are laid out to his understanding.

Economic ability is directly related to the ability of an individual man to take advantage of an system of gain/loss independent of ones own ability to produce. Production is NOT the foundation of economic success, that is the baseline of an societies ability to simply sustain itself and avail others of its excess. Men whom produce are not generating economic power, but instead generating basic's, and once the basics are sufficient they THEN begin producing trade goods. Trade is the basic exchange of goods and services of direct worth for other items of direct worth, trust in value an faith in the exchange are paramount in direct trade. Economics is an separate item and demand an different outlook on worth since such do not come into play until third parties independent of actual production come into play, these individuals are inherently parasites and produce nothing in and of themselves that is directly measurable. Economics is dependent upon unequal exchange of trade in order to extract value from those whom made or supplied something, in order to provide for others whom did not directly make or supply anything but an vehicle of action.

The natural inclination of strong and powerful men is to become self reliant, their own drive and pride demands they limit their own reliance upon others and maximize their ability to support others. They rarely ask for help, much less handouts, they rarely ever demand detailed directions but instead know they are to do their best to figure things out. Modern U.S. conservatism is an foul perversion of this individual inclination and directly places such things upon an pedestal to the exclusion of all things. There are fundamental issues the tribe must be understanding of in supporting such men to maximize the strength of such men and in turn the strength and stability of the tribe. The tribe relies upon men whom may be more experienced or knowledgeable to be available to the strong men to ensure such men are given an fair and balanced system and not taken advantage of. Two strong men of honest worth can easily trade between each other, often with debts in lieu of direct exchange and understand exactly what is happening. To break such an trade is tantamount to declaring war upon an man.

And healthy system keeps an watchful eye and hard hand upon the heads of those whom dabble in 'economics'. It is often not only allowed, but encouraged to generate some level of economic trade, this allows scales of production and growth not possible when most people are focused on simply supplying the basics. This allows an man to stop farming and instead allow an better or stronger backed man to farm more acres, while he can go and produce leather/shoes/metal or other such things which allows an higher value of trade goods in both quantity and quality. But those men need intermediaries since there are often dozens of different trades involved in doing most non essential good production. Tho intermediaries, the economic class, are the ones whom are the most likely to be able to take undo advantage of others, and also understand exactly what is being done and since inherently their entire 'trade' if itself theft they are an breed that is comfortable lying and taking from others over and above their own service. They can easily gain powers over good men and leverage an vastly out sized influence over others and their lives reserved only for high kings once upon an time. If they are not carefully reigned in, an good strong mans 'hard times' is rarely if ever actually the good mans fault.

The good man is honest, and is by nature giving away more of his own work than he has generated. This is the basic truth upon all functional societies. Economics is the system upon which you take that excess work an man has given away, and leveraging it for other goals outside that mans direct influence.

Attached: 1441936690631.jpg (576x600, 48.55K)

cont.

If you fail to corral economic thieves, you end your culture, society and civilization. This is simply unassailable fact because good men, every time bad things happen outside their control look for ways to 'FIX' the problem, or become embittered to an system they see as dishonest and unfair. If you manage the economic thievery in said class, you can not only make your culture, society and civilization stronger, you can build it far beyond anyones wildest dreams since you can pull strong and valuable men into fields of service that they would never have had opportunity to pursue when limited to only direct trade and production and give great boons to all.

The better an man is, it is simply point of fact the worse man you are in the economic realm and more you are beholden to forces of those whom are not in any way shape or from better or stronger than the good man. Eventually the good man becomes an good warrior looking to destroy those whom are not part of his tribe. For no tribe allows such thievery.

Thus the assumption that men whom fall upon issues are inherently 'inferior' is horribly false and untrue. Our system is utterly entrapped within an system of unbridled focus economics to the exclusion of all else. It is utterly untruthful and unfair. It is utterly predatory and deranged. It is utterly incapable of functioning without the acceptance of 'good' men. If you look around you, Zig Forums is the direct correlation of good men whom have in some way realized the system is taking advantage of them and is actually outright hostile and a threat so such good men. By trading between each other our views and ideas some of our user's have been able to evolve themselves into becoming sufficiently adept at this foolish system to be successful in it. But most are not, nor ever will be, and often what is required to be such demands some level of self debasement which good strong and powerful men are more often than not reluctant to do for anyone.

Be careful what words you say of men user. For strong and powerful men may take offense, and decide to drop any civilized pretense. For why not become an man whom only subsists rather than produce excess? Why not bring about an holocaust for not just jews whom have preyed upon our peoples, but also for those whom enable such mind filth to propagate. It is a discussion for another threat that.

Attached: 1365485819600.jpg (1920x1080, 523.88K)

This is another great point: Man is a social creature, meaning that he interacts in a network and may have influences that cannot be easily comprehended by treating him as merely an individual.

Perfect example of it from fiction is It's A Wonderful Life and how George Bailey's life itself has a massive impact on the entire society's fate. Were he not to exist anymore, the entire city drastically changes. And his assistance to others over his lifetime reciprocates assistance back to him when he is in likewise need. The network itself is way more powerful than any individual node, and helping that network and developing yourself into it even through assisting seemingly weaker nodes allows you to become "blessed" by the emergent qualities of it. This is the construction of social capital which is independent of economic value, and absolutely necessary for the construction of any society.

That's all true, but the trick is helping in the right ways, for the right people, and not helping simply because your overactive empathy makes you personally uncomfortable to be near suffering. To do it wrong means to destroy the society and everyone in it.

Another interesting way to look at positive charity is in the Ben Franklin Effect where someone who has already done you a favor is more likely to do more favors for you in the future. By asking for favors, small instances of charity, you may actually be strengthening social capital so long as you reciprocate somehow. Like all good human inclinations it can be perverted to bad ends, but at its core the idea of charity as giving to others gifts of resources seems intrinsically tied to the construction of society itself.

Attached: wpid-wp-1431282244741.jpeg (400x565, 299.85K)

In part, yes.
Only the strong must be allowed to exist.
All the weak (that includes all inferior/non-white races) must be killed and never supported or helped.
Help only your equals. Your fellow White, non-leftist Men. Never help anyone else. Including women. Subjugate women. Everyone else are our enemies, and must be completely eliminated from our world.
This user said it best

Well said. I think your final point regarding the enablers is a critical point, and relatable to the main thread topic.

Arguably being even peripherally aware of your own dysgenic traits could motivate you to foster tolerance for and propagation of all manner of dysgenics. Your own deficiencies get lost in the crowd (for example: being a jew), and you in turn gain some security from any sympathy you manage to corral (with the help of your increasing number of fellows). This leads to the form of 'charity' as it is often understood today. As user said this is the subverted form of charity, increasingly being demanded rather than begged for by the aberrant mobs that rely upon it.

The type of charity that would enable good men to self-propagate is one that guards against pointless suffering and goes no further. What we have now instead is a "charity" that minimizes suffering to enable pointless existence.

The root has always been the bad brother or the son we refuse to disown out of affection for kin, even if they are rotten and envious and disloyal to blood. This is the moment the social immune system begins to be compromised, typically happening in good times where you can afford to spare the bad apples and suffer few real immediate negative consequence thanks to excess physical and social capital. However, the harm they unleash comes after them and expands exponentially, eventually leveling everything.

Institutionalized, forced charity, yes. On your own free will with conditions, the individual could stop giving at any time depending on their opinion? Probably not.

it just depends, there's tough love and then there's just neglect
tough love can build strength, neglect can remove an otherwise valuable person from the gene pool

I'll say this: it's no surprise to me that the most empathic race on earth is the most powerful

People get screwed over sometimes. Look at how many homeless veterans we have. The system can't work perfectly 100% of the time. For these situations, we need charity.
Of course, charity is often abused. That means it must be balanced. It doesn't mean we shouldn't take part in it.

Attached: 444395842094eaa378dd8b2c65b61a09e9525830a7e7c3c42333b29394d7f44c.jpg (2048x1536, 576.49K)

Should charity be state-enforced though? Others have discussed the difference between stumbling and bumbling, but should charity be reliant on the goodwill of others or their taxes?

Due to the failure of the incompetent state-run Veterans Administration.

Do you even know what you're talking about? The VA is created to embezzle a massive amount of money under false pretexts while expanding the governement-controlled apparatus and dependencies, mostly glorified welfare "work" for your typical government bureaucrat types, who will always be expected to follow government agendas and be dependable voting block sources. A scant amount of the money actually goes to VETERANS.

Not necessarily but yes. In socialist countries, the system breeds low IQ people, generally speaking, and punishes performance. In a capitalist system, everything operates by the rules of Darwinism and those who are capable of gaming the system rise to the top (Jews usually win the most in these systems because they favour psychopaths and sociopaths). Charity has a similar function to socialism and thus it breeds weakness but not absolutely. 'Not absolutely' because you can still have a quality people who are down and out temporarily. The best kind of charity, ultimately, is localised charity where you help the people in your community. In a sane world, we wouldn't help criminals and losers so you wouldn't really have a problem.

I think many of Jesus Christ's statements can be construed that yes, we need to engage in charity. Not just for the poor's benefits but for our own. God Himself was certainly charitable beyond imagination towards us.

The parable of the sheep and goats makes it very clear that Christians are to assist other Christians.

In good doses, no. But then it goes too far, way beyond the homogeneous high true community and then everything just falls apart where charity actively makes your community a worse place than better originally.

This idea ignores the acts of randomness in the universe. Some people could genuinely get dealt a bad hand for the time being. Everyone deserves a chance to improve. Naturally those who refuse to try and make their situation better deserve nothing.

Attached: aecb155cc60c6da8ccf8b5f65e46e2996ad9a806abc5699843de7b3108c5dd52.jpg (552x475, 30.53K)

That's up to each man to decide that for himself, no one can give you the answer to that

Sorry for my bad English in advance but the main difference between welfare and charity is that welfare in socialism is like a law. You are not given welfare because you are a fuck up but because it belongs to you, while some see through this shit and feel embarassed and want to get out of it, many don't. With charity it's different because you have to take it, it's not deserved or belongs to you but it's an actual helping hand.

It's mainly psychological but it matters a lot. Welfare = taken and redistributed by force, giver feels robbed, taker feels normal. Charity = voluntary, giver does a good deed, taker is below, being taken care by someone.

>money from (((BASED RICH MAN WHO TOTALLY DIDNT STEAL))) makes them good!
I usually expect to meet new level of retardation on r/nupol/ but holy shit you're really broke the bottom.

Thet's what they've done in USSR. Are your commeh?

not if there is genuine need for a member of in-group. like if someone's spouse dies, or a house burns down. in this case it is good to give and strengths the bonds of the group.

all forms of non-white outreach need to fucking stop forever though. and parasitism on welfare cannot be allowed. pensions for elders who served during their life honorably should be available.

basically, care for your own, sometimes that means saying no.

Attached: white family bbq.jpeg (1024x788, 443.91K)

(checked)

Charity must be administered locally, as it was in old times. In those days, people knew who the town drunk was, and they knew who was the unfortunate widow or orphan. The modern welfare state makes no distinction and can't because it's too large.

It depends on the form of charity.
I think the most helpful form of charity is to teach skills and give an opportunity to work at even a base level, in a job that provides some degree of dignity. If they're incapable of even this, well then it almost seems cruel to have generation after generation of these people failing. The problem is that in a post-industrial society, this is increasingly difficult to do.
It also begs the question of weather success in this society breeds admirable traits. If the ethics and economics of your society are degenerate you will breed degenerate people and make them successful. Being a financial parasite by skimming off the top, rent-seeking and usury are essentially the most successful strategies you can pursue. Our most successful people are liars, con-artists and grifters. Honest people are ground into the dust.
Hyper-competition eventually becomes self-defeating because there is nobody left to steal from.
The inverse of this is also true, of course.
Finding balance in this is the real key to our ideology. Not falling into the false dichotomy

Kill a kike for a man and he'll be kike free for a day. Teach a man to kill kikes, and he'll be kike-free for a lifetime.

Allow me to clear this up. Charity was never about just 'giving' to raise the inept to a status of the strong. Charity was the last resort, and yes, it does breed weakness when used in the (((Christian))) world-view.

Historically, Charity was a means for White people to help fellow Whites to survive in times of need in order to ensure a healthy breeding population. Charity was ALL about lifting another out of struggle, so that the tribe could live.

In this, a means towards production was maintained, and the goal was not (((charity))) so that the people could remain (((equal))), rather, so that it wouldn't happen again.

"Give a man a fish; you feed him for a day…. TEACH a man to fish, you feed him for life" is a just Mantra. To have a TRUE European spirit means that one must give only to the extent towards which common strength is created.

Attached: 1517514489597.jpg (400x505, 133.45K)

Charity in every single form is inherently degenerate because this helps breeds weakness and preserve them.

This.

It's not only about taking but also about giving.

Draw in your elbows and instead spread your arms and lay them aroung your fellow people.

PEACE &LOVE was invented in 1930s not in the 60s….

you nearly exposed yourself ther JEWHOWA !

Back to your temple….

If charity breed weakness the Chinese must be the strongest race on earth
because they have a man eats man society for centuries.

Evidence indicates the contrary.

Charity is a virtue if you're man enough to give or recieve it.

Medieval chivalry can teach us so much…

forgot pic

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (800x1129, 1.77M)

I've always considered suffering to be struggling without growth, and struggling a working your way out of suffering.
For example, to put yourself through the pain of intense training in order to build your strength is a struggle. Undergoing that same pain of training and exertion only to make yourself weaker is suffering.
Charity when used to turn a suffering man without hope into a man struggling for a better life is the crux of what made western societies strong, because you only need to give a little for the recipient to gain so much more. To give charity to a man who would simply consume it and continue suffering as if he had never received it in the first place would cause the charity itself to suffer. Why help those who don't want help?

Attached: 7af912b8a1217d1884c33a35e80d3fe1a65d70aa1aaf4862febe7c808d0ecd32.png (508x401, 258.72K)

Kill yourself

Yes, when that charity is extended beyond your own kind. Charity was a social bond of whites to help each other survive in the harsh climates that they chose to inhabit. If one member of the group had an accident or unfortunate happenstance impede their ability to provide for themself and their family, then the surrounding community would help them through, knowing that the man had enough pride and sense of duty that he would pay back that debt, either by returning it to the one who helped him, or passing it on to another unfortunate individual in the group. That charity should NEVER extend outside your group. Look at the kikes, the spics, the chinks, the shitskins, and the poo in loos. They seek out businesses run by their own kind, in order to keep the money within their own group, thereby making their group richer and more prosperous, which in turn allows them to help each other out when times are tough, if they so choose. But look at any white run company these days, they are bled dry by being forced to hire outside their race, they are taxed to hell and forced to abide by severely constraining business laws, they aren't able to pass on the wealth to their offspring as it will yet again face taxing, the larger more successful businesses end up belonging to (((share-holders))) rather than being passed on to family members when the owner dies or retires. Do you see ANY shitskin choosing to abide by those rules? This is how they retain wealth. And in this shitty, kike-infested world the only way to thrive is through wealth.

Look at the actual use of donated money that goes to most charities and you'll find that anywhere from 60-90% of it ends up in the administrator's pocket, rather than being used to help the cause you thought you were supporting. Charities are just wealth siphoning kike-tools. As the saying goes let your money do the talking. There's a reason they passed laws about boycotting Israel, because boycotts work. Avoid any brands that contain kike-approval stamps, aka Kosher foods. Buy as much fresh produce and locally grown meats to prevent the kike's from taking a cut of your money. Slowly bleed them dry. Stop donating to faceless, soulless charity organizations. Go out into your own neighborhood and find someone to help, either with your excess money or your extra time. Know exactly who you're helping with your charity work. Fuck the feel-good donation sites that don't even properly outline what actions they take on your behalf to make the world a better place with your money. Stop being swindled.

Attached: 0d1adb002b50196fd8fcd680b1d3ff958fab8c03c6868f1095d4e1bee58c240c.jpg (600x600 2.2 MB, 116.92K)

Christ's Sermon on the Mount is one of the most mischievous documents in history.

Enabling.

What you need to read up on, need to learn about, is enabling.

Enabling is the magic word that will shut down: christcucks, sjws, fucking old people, retarded boomers, and normies.

Enabling. The welfare state enables toxic behaviors that keep people in poverty, charity enables behaviors the keep people impoverished, and government handouts enable toxic behaviors that prevent growth and improvement.

This idea of yours, is not new, it is kinda old, and is why some churches stop doing missionary work in Africa. the concept that our aid is preventing self growth is not new, and with a little work, you can STOP a church from donating outside of the US. It is very possible.

it's actually a good metaphor of what charity should be. Proper charity should always have more value to the person receiving it than the person giving it.
If you have two fish which would feed you for a day and give one to another person who has none, your loss is equivalent to what the beneficiary gained. You eat one fish for one day, as does he. He goes without suffering for a day, only to find himself suffering again the next, while you must go back to fishing because you were charitable. If you give the knowledge of how to fish, you have lost nothing but time (which is less valuable to you than another fish), whereas the recipient has gained a skill that would end his suffering (more valuable than just one fish). Sure he must now struggle with the act of fishing, but at least he won't have to suffer as a helpless hungry man without the means of feeding himself any more.

No, indiscriminate charity does, and subversive charity is even worse.

Any charitable act has a lot of influence over the recipient. Individually, he will naturally realize that the charity will continue if he pleases you. Collectively, as certain kinds of charity become common, society will recognize this and act accordingly. You can use this influence constructively, squander it or use it destructively (which is what jews do).

For example if you're giving unemployment assistance but it comes with the condition of being trained in a useful skill, seeking work and learning work ethic, as judged by some kind of grading system that doesn't rely too much on luck, you will both help a tragically unfortunate person and create a new productive member of society. People interested in seeking this aid will also take the hint that work ethic is valued, so they will prepare themselves to work hard once they qualify.

If you hand it out to everyone just for being poor, the recipient will not feel any particular impulse to fix his shit. Society will see this and understand that being a shiftless poor is okay, and people who would have had work ethic will give up and stop trying. So you are harming society moderately.

If you prioritize single mothers, you are now incentivizing very bad behaviors. Women who get free money for having a bastard kid will connect the dots that more kids = more money and get knocked up again. Society will take this as a signal that single motherhood is desirable and prestigious.

You shouldn't give in such a way that it defeats a genuine challenge. If a guy is trying to run a marathon, you shouldn't drive next to him just as he's on his last bit of resolve and keep offering a lift, for example. But not all challenges in life are necessarily feasible. Sometimes giving a small amount of help can improve matters, by transforming an important challenge from impossible to difficult but possible.

Put a man in front of a wall and he will stand there for ever. Give him a rope and a hook and he might actually climb it. It doesn't take away his strength, but stimulates it. And maybe you actually want him on top of the wall where he can do some good.

Every charitable act should also come with a contract defining how you're planning to become less likely to need charity.