Ordo amoris, as explained by Vance, is a concept that you prioritize the needs of people closest to you (immediate family), then the next closest, etc. Obviously this is common sense and generally describes how reasonable people live their lives, so it is completely wrong for Trump to govern the country in the same way according to libs.
A lot of the discussion has centered around a foreign aid program called PEPFAR (President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) started by Bush in 2003, also referred to as PREP (Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis). Basically the program distributes HIV/AIDS meds to 20M+ people for about $6.5 billion and has been estimated to save 26M lives since its inception. This program is now cut off, probably permanently, since it was administered by USAID and that agency has been deleted by DOGE.
It's a pretty interesting issue, especially regarding Christian ethics, since it's a proxy for the entire African charity movement, but I think the answer is clear.
-
Ordo amoris: we don't adequately take care of the poor and needy in our own country, so we can't justify spending money on other countries.
-
USAID is a supervillainous agency that uses aid to force countries into globohomo and who knows what other purposes. USAID is made to hurt people, not help them. We need to wipe the slate clean.
-
Any soft power we get from PEPFAR seems nonexistent given China's Belt and Road incursion into Africa, among other things.
-
Love in the Bible is a concept that encompasses just leadership as well as kindness and help. This is why the Bible firmly defines "God is love" even though He visited all kinds of disasters on the Israelites and other nations. Allowing the consequences of their wrongdoing to fall on their heads, instead of aiding and abetting it, was an act of love. In the end it was better for them.
Would it be better for Africa to distribute free anti-STD drugs in the long run? The continent's population is skyrocketing at an unbelievable rate thanks to Western intervention, and they still can't take care of themselves. Is it better for Africa to host an exponentially growing population that will be unable to obtain food by themselves, let alone anything more meaningful?
Are Africans advancing when anti-STD drugs insulate them from practices like pouring sand in vaginas before sex and raping virgins to cure AIDS?
- one of the crucial tests of love in the Bible is the Golden Rule: "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." - Matthew 7:12
So if I was African and I had foresight of what was going to happen to Africa when the continent spikes into the multiple billions of people, would I want that to be done to my people? Probably not.
- also, as some people have noted, the previous verses illustrate God's love as such: "Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?" - Matthew 9:12
One might ask, "what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will tell him he already gave the bread to the Africans?"
This actually raises an interesting discussion when you mentioned Africa:
If USAID is shut down (as Elon mentioned after looking into it's funds, it's not an apple with a worm in it was an entire ball of worms), would we see a sharp decline in population growth in places like Africa, India, Middle East etc with America no longer subsidising their food and healthcare?
It's one way to solve the the invasion issue in the west if they no longer have the resources to provide the floods needed to invade..
Honestly, no. You'd probably see improved life outcomes and economic productivity because the economy is no longer being disrupted.
Cancelling Foreign Aid helps those countries more than it hurts them.
Sowells iron law of the train disagrees with you. A countries ability to excel is not based on what incentives it’s given by other countries, but instead by what its country is able to produce from those incentives. When Britain began exporting the rail system most countries hired and kept British engineers and paid Britain for the maintenance and repair of the trains and rails. However some countries, notably Japan, Germany, and the US, learned how to run the trains without British engineers and then improved upon their structure using their own engineers and maintenance.
Africa is so far down the hole that economic philosophy isn't nearly as ironclad because they are skirting the line on survival and basic needs in setting up their economy.
Their economy might fall to complete shit on a global relative scale, but it'll stabilize on things they need to survive and provide. It'll end up a century behind technologically, but that's not our concern if that's what they are capable of maintaining for themselves.
Doubtful, Africa has been propped up by foreign countries for so long the only realistic outcome of all aid leaving is mass death with many pockets of Africa going extinct.
Its been propped up for a fraction of its existence. It was clearly able to live once on its own, even if it was never innovating.
Most of them will probably die, that's because their population was artificially grown beyond what they could manage. That's part of the stabilization process, finding the balance where they can feed and support themselves numerically.
That I can agree with
There's a difference between successful and survivable. Africa has never been successful minus ine or two blips. But they were certainly able to survive and sustain themselves pre western coddling
And if that aid left the population would likely become less than 1/3 of its current state IF it manages to stabilize and isn’t immediately colonized by China. They do not have the money or infrastructure to maintain 1.5 billion people.
Pretty much anything south of the sahara is a retarded shithole. Apparently jungles have low iq people. It only gets slightly better in south africa.. slightly.
Their IQ is low for civilized society, but its not so low that they are physically incapable of caring for themselves on a basic level. Most of that can be run off pure instinct, so they just need to not be so retarded it interferes with those functions which their average 60-70 IQs wouldn't.
Africans are more than capable of living a stable, mudhut level existence if allowed to and thrive decently relative to that technological level. It was our interference that tried to uplift them beyond that, leading to unsustainable population levels and trying to operate things beyond their normal capabilities.
I don't see how that counters my point.
We aren't sending trains or experts when sending foreign aid. We're just sending raw cash, for no significant benefit, and then disrupting the economy by promoting mal-investment among the locals. It was Sowel's classic argument that pointed out that Doctors were choosing to be taxi drivers when foreigners showed up with foreign aid because it paid so much better.
Again, why did it pay so much better? What happened to the money? This is why the train law applies. Those doctors weren’t creating or innovating medicine, they used foreign textbooks with foreign medical gear and foreign medications. Those doctors became taxi drivers because it was more relevant to their actual skill set, which was the ability to speak a foreign language. The fact is the overwhelming majority of the world does not have the intellectual capacity to innovate and compete, many don’t even have the ability to replicate or be self sustaining.
Your assumption is that stopping Foreign Aid is the same as cutting off all contact with Africa. I'm not saying they aren't allowed to buy American books, or pay for British engineers.
No, those doctors became taxi drivers because being a taxi driver gave them an income that was 3 times their yearly wage as a doctor.
Ridiculously wrong. Every population in recorded history has the ability to innovate and be competitive. The question is how productive will one innovation be over another.
That's so ridiculously hyperbolic it can't be taken seriously. Turtles can replicate and be self-sustaining.
You noted that our example African was capable of learning two languages. Yes, by definition, he can feed himself. Jesus.
How are you so blatantly stupid that you got that from what I said. The entire medical system in Africa IS ENTIRELY RELIANT ON FOREIGN INNOVATION AND FOREIGN WORKERS PRODUCTION.
AGAIN, WHY?! Why are they so poor as doctors? Is it because they have absolutely nothing to offer but someone else’s product?
Complete lie, there are numerous societies today that would completely collapse without foreign intervention just as an uncountable amount have collapsed before now.
The majority of Africa would starve and collapse within a decade exactly because they can’t feed themselves or be self sustainable. Animals go extinct without intervention all the time, including multiple species of turtles! Being able to speak a second language is not an indicator of self reliance.
Only at the highest levels. They can compete fine within Africa.
Because the entire country has a low cost of living. Doctors in America benefit from federal intervention to keep wages high.
Only Socialist ones, and that's just because of parasitism. Clear the socialism out and they'll become a different, but functioning, society.
Again, no. Worst case, there would be depopulation in the cities, but it would never likely get to that situation. Farming and fishing exist and have existed in Africa for millennia. More than likely they would just be poorer versions of Nigeria.
That depends on which countries. Foreign aid certainly has the effect of propping up corrupt governments and dictators in third-world countries, and of making their economies dependent on aid rather than self-sufficient, but especially in Africa, cutting off aid does not mean that those countries will become more self sufficient. At least in the short term, it will drive those countries even further into the arms of China, until the Chinese money runs out.
It means that those countries will have the ability to return to self sufficiency by having a better incentive for it, rather than none at all.
Some may appeal to China, but then China is burdened with a fundamentally unproductive colony.
Foreign Aid to a prosperous country is just bribery and market manipulation.
Are you positive? I have no doubt in my mind that most if not all will revert immediately back to a feudal warmongering state as they were before we intervened
Without us artificially propping up a government, the warlord that is supposed to win will win. Survival of the fittest.
I doubt that that is the case: Foreign Aid promotes misery and warmongering corruption.
But even if it reverted to a pre-colonial state; it would reduce human immiseration greatly within Africa. It would probably collapse malaria and AIDS rates in Africa if they returned to tribal life.
More than likely, the countries would have to sort their own shit out rather than being the Financial Sector's slave vassals.
In the long run yes, but in the short run many of them don't have the farm production, infrastructure, or medical resources to support their population. Disease will be rampant. China will maybe pick up some of the slack. I expect the population curve would flatten.
China won't pick up any of it, once the resource dries out in an area the Chinese are gone. It's the fate of any mining town, when it's fresh and working, it's blooming like a flower, when whatever the resource is dries out, it becomes a ghost town.
The Chinese often ship out political prisoners and other criminals to work in these mines in other countries, they live in barracks, aren't allowed to go among civilians etc. I've spoken to a guy who's worked as an engineer in one of these Chinese mines, I won't get into much detail but the stories that he's told me about what they do with their own, I can guarantee you they could not care less about some hungry std infested african, the Chinese are aware that they're 10000s of years behind as humanoids and have no instilled guilt that they owe them something, the perks of not having a certain tribe design your school curriculums.
Wow... ouch.
Seems the africans dont try something like slaughter and rape the chinese there??? Id imagine disgruntled african worker would do something.
Because the Chinese run those minetowns and they're deep in the pockets of any officials, and it's not like the Chinese particularly care about theirs, they just ship new criminals to fill in. They live military style, in barracks, counting every morning and night, and the africans are paid good enough to not think of doing that, better than anything he could ever work.
The population curve is already flattening. Even birth rates in Africa have been falling for decades, it's just not at 2.3 yet.
Most of them actually can support their own populations as they always have. The cities may reduce in size, but the rest of the country is just being Africa. Moreover, they can still trade for food.
It hurts the autocrats. If you spend $200 million on a hospital in Niger in order to get the government of the country to do your bidding, that's $200 million that they can spend on repression instead of social services without creating the popular discontent that normally results from that.
Especially if 199.9 million of that hospital will be immediately embezzled for the purposes of repression, while they ask you for another 400 million in additional foreign aid.
If we send Aid, it should be in the form of AR's and Ammo.
Re-distribute the means of political change.
That doesn't seem to have done much for Syria and Afghanistan, at least to improve the lot of the people living there. Or fake Ukraine.
Syria, Afghanistan, and Ukraine didn't get blanket weapons cache's dropped in every town and village. It was arms funding for a corrupt government, who funded a Ponzi scheme, which funded ShareBlue.
Minor point.
There is no such thing as "soft power". There is either mutually beneficial relationships or there is force.
"soft power" is the term the banksters and usurists use to whitewash their enslavement of others via vampire finance tactics.
Shutting this down benefits everyone globally. In no small way us as well, because we aren't being leeched to pay for these things, but also because promoting faggotry worldwide WILL result in resentment from other cultures.
As far as the aid to Africa goes, it has not been a kindness. Once the flow stops they are going to metaphorically and literally explode. We spent decades giving fish instead of teaching them to fish, and worse still it looks very much like they cannot be taught to fish at all.
The future involves defending the white race from their predations once the reality of it becomes clear to them. They will invade the global north and among other things they will be eating whoever they kill or take captive.
Good luck doing this if the global north is inclined even a little bit to sink boats. Lol
True, and sinking the boats will be the most effective tactic. But then, the future is assured if and only if we can actually collectively admit to ourselves what must be done.
I've been willing to admit it for many years now.
I suspect that for the default-leftists out there, they won't be willing to admit anything until they start missing meals because their entire economy and infrastructure has collapsed.
Send them back. If they keep coming, send them to the bottom of the ocean.
The Canuck MSM and pundit class used to peddle the concept of "soft power" as Canada's foreign affairs prerogative before Trudeau bankrupted the country and sullied the nation's international reputation by merging it with the world's repulsion of his own faggoty affect.
Playing devil's advocate, a better name for it is good reputation. Other people (countries) can fear you, or they can respect you because you have a reputation of treating the world fairly and magnanimously, even those you don't have any particular agreements with yet. If you're wealthy, tactically throwing money around can help with that, but it can also hurt. Obviously throwing money at savages to keep them from eating you is the last gasp of a dying empire.
2003 was over a generation ago. If we've been treating a hard-to-transmit communicable ailment for over 20 years (it's not exactly coughing in the same room as someone 6 hours earlier or something like that, it's blood-to-blood-contact), then both 1) They've had time to make their own treatment programs based on the existing one, and 2) why isn't the situation more or less resolved?
By modern definition, these medicines are vaccines. All these people have been vaccinated by Fauci definition.
Love is best defined as willing the good of the other, and sometimes that includes doing things that are hard shoot term but lead to a better outcome later.
USAID did neither.
America doesn't need to pay for buttsex meds for Africans.
This same is true for any Western 'aid'. You think these politicians distribute money in the name of helping people because they're such fine people? Even the objectively good things that they do, they do for purposes that cannot stand the light of day.
How would you respond to someone saying that China's 'incursions' make it all the more necessary for the US to try to compete with that?
Indeed...............
Our method of competing clearly isn't working. Either we work out another deal or we go home.
Eh, I get it. I actually love humanity more than I used to. I love man for his ability and what he can become. His potential is amazing. A lot of the people I live around are unfortunately people who waste their potential, or don't know how to access it, and wouldn't accept your help if you tried.
I love man for his ability. I kind of hate people for their culture.
Spoken like a true libertardian.
A man lives but one small lifetime. The greatest achievements of mankind are cumulative and communicated across time via culture.
Tell me, what achievements come from societies where pedestry is the norm? What happens to neighborhoods who have 3 generations of welfare recipients that have never been employed in a job? What happens when your culture doesn't object to 1st cousin marriage?
I hate people sometimes because their cultures are shit that are ruining their potential.
Judging people entirely on potential and their living up to it is just reducing humans to numbers and marking their value based on production.
Its literally playing "countries are economic zones and GDP is the only metric of value" with lives.
That's nonsense. You're assuming I'm establishing a quantifiable number-score for their achievement.
I never said that their potential has to be something specific. Humans happen to have metaphysical potential as well. Moral, intellectual, psychological, emotional, romantic, social, etc. potentials.
By defining their potential as a thing they can or cannot reach, you have established a barometer of some kind. Its quantifiable in some way because otherwise they couldn't ruin or fail to meet it.
Its always an argument that if applied non-hypocritically has to always come down to "anyone who doesn't live the exact way I consider best is failing the test." You can start wide and vague with the net all you want, but eventually the marbles will have to fall to that metric.
I don't see how it's failing a test. It's not a pass/fail concept. Hardly anyone will ever reach their full potential. That's how potential works because it is, as you say, measured from a distant reference point. But not getting to there is not a failure. It's not trying, and then intentionally going the opposite direction that is the problem.
Its pass/fail because there must be some point where you can decide between them failing to live up to it or having done good enough. As you admit, no one can reach their full so there must be some line somewhere where you consider it acceptable or not.
Public school tests are usually 1-100 points, which gives a wide range of potential scores, and we've placed that line at somewhere around 60-70 points as the difference between failing and not. For just an example that might be showing my age.
Its the same slope as the eugenics problem. Where vague principles upon what is "best" eventually have to devolve into "blondes only, abort anything else" because you've opened a door to judgements like that.
Well the greeks gave us democra...
actually you may have a point.
Do people still believe in HIV/AIDS? We have access to the data now.