4 ms·

In charitable work, we often say that you either give your time or your money. The younger tend to give their time; the older tend to give their money. Similar

In charitable work, we often say that you either give your time or your money. The younger tend to give their time; the older tend to give their money. Similarly, people have visions for how the world should be. The young and of-less-means tend to give their time, engaging in grassroots efforts or marches. The old and rich tend to give their money. Both use their resources to shape the world towards what they believe in. Whether one believes this is morally right is one thing (whether the rich should have a louder voice though their resources), but I do think the intent of the rich is less sinister than we often frame it.

reckoner2 10y ago
In addition to this, there really is an almost fetish-like following behind the ideas that the Rockefeller's in particular secretly 'rule' or 'ruin' the world. John D. Rockefeller Sr. stated many times that he believed that it was God's plan for him to: (paraphrasing) 1) Acquire as mush wealth as he could through business. 2) Donate this money to help humanity in the best ways possible. And he did exactly that. And he did better than anyone else ever has. He didn't do much else. The Rockefeller's are fascinating people, but I think most of us would be surprised as to how little of the 'world-dominating' stuff is true. It's been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but "Titan: The Life Of John D. Rockefeller" goes into incredible detail on the family. You may not leave with a nice picture of the family, but definitely a different one than some of the comments in this thread. A lot of the private journals and business documents have actually been released to the public and it makes for a fascinating read.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
kingmanaz 10y ago
>Whether one believes this is morally right is one thing (whether the rich should have a louder voice though their resources), but I do think the intent of the rich is less sinister than we often frame it. People by default seem to put their faith in a works-based salvation, and this may explain why so many religions also tend in that direction (Judaism, Catholicism, many-Protestant bodies, ad infinitum). The end-product of this mindset, especially in cases of magnificently wealthy benefactors or societies, is more often than not a meddling--and ultimately misanthropic--Pharisaism tending toward vainglory. Lurking somewhere behind the Puritans' stocks and gallows, the Jacobin Club's guillotines, and the Abolitionists' fiery marches-to-the-sea was a prospering, yet militant, charity directed anywhere but inward. Likewise, the works-based religion of today's Soroses, Rothschilds, and Rockefellers, while on the surface resembling the myopically raceless utopia of Star Trek, will likely violently unravel as has most movements led by uncritical men convinced of their own ability to earn salvation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide

reckoner2 10y ago

In addition to this, there really is an almost fetish-like following behind the ideas that the Rockefeller's in particular secretly 'rule' or 'ruin' the world. John D. Rockefeller Sr. stated many times that he believed that it was God's plan for him to: (paraphrasing) 1) Acquire as mush wealth as he could through business. 2) Donate this money to help humanity in the best ways possible. And he did exactly that. And he did better than anyone else ever has. He didn't do much else. The Rockefeller's are fascinating people, but I think most of us would be surprised as to how little of the 'world-dominating' stuff is true. It's been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but "Titan: The Life Of John D. Rockefeller" goes into incredible detail on the family. You may not leave with a nice picture of the family, but definitely a different one than some of the comments in this thread. A lot of the private journals and business documents have actually been released to the public and it makes for a fascinating read.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

kingmanaz 10y ago

>Whether one believes this is morally right is one thing (whether the rich should have a louder voice though their resources), but I do think the intent of the rich is less sinister than we often frame it. People by default seem to put their faith in a works-based salvation, and this may explain why so many religions also tend in that direction (Judaism, Catholicism, many-Protestant bodies, ad infinitum). The end-product of this mindset, especially in cases of magnificently wealthy benefactors or societies, is more often than not a meddling--and ultimately misanthropic--Pharisaism tending toward vainglory. Lurking somewhere behind the Puritans' stocks and gallows, the Jacobin Club's guillotines, and the Abolitionists' fiery marches-to-the-sea was a prospering, yet militant, charity directed anywhere but inward. Likewise, the works-based religion of today's Soroses, Rothschilds, and Rockefellers, while on the surface resembling the myopically raceless utopia of Star Trek, will likely violently unravel as has most movements led by uncritical men convinced of their own ability to earn salvation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide