Golden Rule Rant

we need to be talking about morality

In this video, I talk about why the Golden Rule is not only ridiculous but intentionally obfuscating, written to confuse and paralyze our innate understanding of right and wrong. Its exact opposite, which I’m calling the Rule of Reciprocity, was the basis of moral codes around the world for millennia. I give two examples and show how the Rule of Reciprocity cuts to the crux.

---

imperial religions

First, the Golden Rule as credited to Jesus in Mathew 7:14: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This is proactive and potentially infinite, like ‘Love your neighbor like yourself.’ It sounds nice but is it practical? I’d like other people to give me all their money but will I do that for them? Jesus said, “Give away all your possessions and follow me.” Is that what it takes to be a moral person? Not only is it an impossible standard but it makes you dependent on others, and shirks responsibility for those entrusted to your care.

As readers know, I suspect the version we have of Christianity, which I call Jesusism, is an imperial psyop to disempower the colonies. It replaced true Judeo-Christianity, under which they had successfully rebelled against Roman rule. Instead of everyone being Christ, only one person was. He was perfect, they were sinful. He suffered and died so they might be forgiven. That heaped on a whole new load of guilt.

To put the sayings of Jesus in context, picture them as orders by Israeli jailers to Palestinian prisoners: “If I tell you to haul a 60 lb bag for a mile, you answer, ‘Yes, sir, I’ll carry it two!’” “When I slap you, you’ll say ‘thank you’ and turn the other cheek.” And when I rape your wife, your child, you put up and shut up. Whatever we say goes, and you are never to retaliate. This version of Christianity is an empire’s wet dream.

---

rule of reciprocity

The inverse of the Golden Rule is not ‘an eye for an eye,’ which might be called the Rule of Retaliation. The unambiguous, clear cut basis of moral codes was:

It is wrong to do to others what would be wrong for them to do to you.

Let’s look at two examples. I’ll start with the most horrific, which readers may already know. At this time the Israeli Knesset is arguing over whether it’s permissible to anally rape Palestinian prisoners with blunt objects like a broomstick. This isn’t hypothetical, in a recent incident the prisoner is unable to walk, nor is that an isolated case.

There are riots within Israel by Israelis who finally think this is going too far—but were fine with everything else. But the head of the IDF is yelling at the Knesset that everything is permitted. The apologist for the US President, I forget the official title for that role, was asked by a reporter if this was a war crime, to which he answered that Israel was looking into it. The reporter repeated, “But if it’s true, is it a war crime?” and there was no clear answer.

If the question was, “Would it be wrong for someone to rape you with a broomstick?” the answer would be clear.

Morality is about violence, not sex, drugs or rock and roll.

This interview of Vanessa Beeley includes the clip of the Knesset and her report on the assassination of the Hamas leader who was negotiating a ceasefire and hostage exchange with Israel. He was assassinated on an official visit to Tehran. Three of his sons and their children had already been killed by Israel. Would it be wrong to kill Netanyahu’s sons and their children? It’s either all permissible or both wrong.

Escalation as the Middle East heads for war and Zionist military rape of Palestinian prisoners

---

the non-flip side

The other example is my recent post on Sasha Latypova and the reluctance of some to critique those deemed to be ‘on our side.’ My readers reacted strongly to Sasha’s hostility, name-calling, ridicule, and attacks, that included telling a father he had caused his son to commit suicide. To me, she said I was 'lucky' she was only ‘verbally skewering me’ and not killing me, which she felt would be ‘honorable’.

From a woman who poses with assault rifles, this is not an idle threat. And this doesn’t include the views expressed on her daughter’s 1M subscriber YouTube channel as a minor, of which Sasha has said she’s proud, including the encouragement of violence against Muslims and a detailed death threat to YT’s CEO and her children.

I've been dismayed that those associated with Sasha are unwilling to question her moral framework. Some, who I consider friends, haven’t responded to my emails or comments. Others, with whom I’ve had friendly exchanges, have deleted my comment suggesting they check out the post.

On the left, the terms racism, sexism, homophobia and hate speech have been weaponized, made so broad that it censors any discussion of ideas. But on the right, these have been turned into wokespeak, so there are no words left to describe the ridicule and attack of people, including the endorsement of violence. To Sasha, when I critique her ideas, I’m seen as attacking her, even when the ideas I’m critiquing are her attacks on others.

---

the double-edged word

This is what I've been thinking: morality supersedes religion. Morality supersedes politics, nationality, race, 'sides', family and friendships. The basis of my morality is equality. The basis of immorality, to me, is superiority, which reaches its logical extremes in enslavement, colonization, and the right to kill or torture others.

If we want to get out of this conundrum, we need the Rule of Reciprocity. It is a double-edged sword, which means you can’t wield it against someone else without being subject to it yourself. And that is the best protection we could have.

---

I analyze Yuval Noah Harari's "This is a War on the Mind & Soul" and compare two older Jordan Peterson interviews of Benjamin Netanyahu in "Whose Land is It Anyway?" and Maajid Narwaz's response to it. I also list over a dozen recent articles that counter the recent propaganda.

Is Kennedy making himself unelectable and ineffectual? I look at his stances that he is not an anti-vaxxer and is Israel's greatest supporter; that it takes courage to be Robert Malone. But Malone may have thrown him under the ethnically targeted virus bus, and then pivoted to Trump.

I start by explaining proper nouns as the difference between issues and ethics. I look at the history of the Kennedys and Zionism, from Joseph to Bobby Sr. to Bobby Jr. I examine RFK's flip flop on Roger Waters, the Malone v. Breggin lawsuit, and Bitcoin.