Religious Zealots and the Sting of Tithing
I don't particularly like religious zealots. Not because they proselytize or shun unbelievers—that's just a quirk of belonging to a religion, not the essence of religion itself. No, I dislike religion itself. And why? Because it's irresponsible pleasure. They cry out for the Kingdom of God, beg the Lord for help in tough times, yet expect aid from society. If I had my way, I'd deny them every welfare program and social support as that very society. But do that, and they'd call it persecution of the faithful—exile from society. Every misfortune that befalls them is Satan's work or the Lord's trial; every benefit is the Lord's gracious gift. To me, they're the real trial from the Lord, the plague on civilized society. Above all, their very existence shatters my crucial consistency.
Take double taxation, for instance—I despise it. Inheritance tax, capital gains tax, VAT, liquor tax, fuel tax: I see all double taxation as a national mental illness. The more you drink, the thirstier you get; the more you eat, the hungrier you become—it's like eating your own hand. Even Korea's current fuel tax, I'd scrap it the moment we achieve oil self-sufficiency. "Half-hearted wealth redistribution doesn't cut it; in a Korea where wealth distribution is tuned to individual ability, clumsy national schemes like currency reform only breed uncertainty." Economies are uncertain by nature, so the state must strive to mitigate that uncertainty. And religion? It meddles right there. Tithing and zakat are prime examples.
Tithing drains human surplus wealth—our savings. Sure, it's "just 10%," but most people's accumulation barely exceeds that 10%. Deplete savings, and humans starve. They make irrational choices. Uncertainty piles up. It's never just 10%. Hike tariffs by 10%, and blood flows; slapping 10% on pure income is insane. Simplify it by gender: men save about 20% of lifetime earnings just for being men—ecologically accruing surplus value to pour into wives, kids, parents, until death. Tithing slices off half that 20%. Get it now? In extremes, tithing halves a man's ecological value. It demands you stash surplus not in personal vaults but God's coffers, always pushing charity donations. Not inherently evil. In medieval lands where one person's savings meant another's starvation, their redistribution was vital. You'd have to drill scriptures into anyone hoarding to survive alone—"You a Jew or what?"
But this isn't medieval anymore. And the world isn't just men. Women have emerged as economic actors. Don't expect much surplus from women's accumulation, honestly. The reports piling up on my desk prove it—who am I fooling? I couldn't fool myself. Yet these zealots skim 10% even from women who can't save. Deficit, squandering, shortages—the state fills the gaps. Again: tithing isn't 10% of net profit; it's 10% of gross revenue. "Not even revenue, really." It's 10% of everything incoming. Earn 10 million won? They take 1 million. Borrow 100 million? 10 million. Inherit 1 billion? 100 million. Deposit in the Lord's vault, they say. They're no state, but they act like it—seeing themselves as equals. Ecologically overlapping habitats. No wonder I can't stand them.
"But that doesn't mean I should deny their existence." The state does exactly the same. VAT at 10-20%? Nothing new. States tax arbitrarily, exploiting people. They seize what's "needed." So as the deepest root of that state, I can't hate them for it and cast them out—that'd be self-defeating. The state and I exploit and control comrades out of necessity, and always will. They just don't realize it. Probably won't until I'm dead.
I slowly opened the door to the waiting room. Versailles. This was where those plotting to exploit and control the world gathered.
Clemenceau, France's wartime premier, didn't find Korea's Supreme Leader particularly amusing. But now, he felt bewilderment beyond displeasure or amusement.
"I align with Britain. For me, securing the end of the Eastern Front from Germany is enough."
Germany demanding nothing? Unthinkable for France. The problem: with Korea pulling back, even more absurd demands followed.
"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland demands the complete neutrality and independence of the Low Countries, and hereby warns Germany in advance that any attack on such a neutral state is unjust."
That wasn't simple. If Germany compensated Belgium—the Low Countries—France, negotiating alongside a pre-paid Belgium, would lose leverage. The claimant pays first, right? Germany would naturally settle with Belgium upfront, feigning regret for invading a neutral. Britain was splitting Belgium and France. But you couldn't fault it outright—Belgium would prefer early payout. So France targeted Korea—or tried to. If Korea hadn't vanished from its seat.
"On Romania, we've expressed deep regret, secured reparations, and obtained a pledge not to attack neutrals."
"…"
Why are you answering, Britain? Pure nonsense, of course. Clemenceau angrily demanded Korea's Supreme Leader be summoned back.
"Apologies, my stomach acted up—I had to step out. Anything else? I've stated my position fully."
"The Soviet issue."
"Soviet? Shouldn't that go to Soviet authorities?"
"They said to talk to you."
"True, I've received some mandate."
This bastard?
"But my mandate covers only the Eastern Front armistice. The rest, discuss with Soviet authorities."
Isn't that obvious? Negotiate with Soviets via Soviets. My mandate was truly just the Eastern Front.
"Then reparations with Soviets too?"
"No, that's within my mandate."
"…"
"What now?"
"Frankly, Soviets want no more war before reparations. Demanding them risks Germany turning belligerent—worse for Soviets, and Korea."
"Then?"
"Korea and Soviets demand no reparations from Germany. If Korea insists, perhaps Polish independence."
"Britain agrees—Poland must remain Polish territory."
"But excessive independence demands could provoke Germany; Korea could yield. Not sure about Britain's view."
No reparations, anyway. Korea's territory unscathed allowed it. Soviets... incomprehensible nation. France's problem: themselves.
"Regrettable, but we must receive them. Will Korea bolster our homeland then?"
"Possible. At a reasonable level, yes. What level do you envision?"
"We can specify."
Keynes, from Britain's delegation, spoke.
"We estimate 2 billion dollars as what Germany can currently pay us."
"…?"
France's debts to America and Britain alone: 64-74 billion dollars equivalent. Germany's 2 billion? Laughable. France deemed 300-400 billion fair—for Britain, France, Belgium. France's national losses demanded it; 150 billion minimum to claim recovery.
2 billion? Clemenceau couldn't grasp Britain's delegation. They too needed massive German payouts—Britain's losses severe, scales tipping to America. Yet 2 billion? When 300-400 was the floor!
France glanced; moneyed America interjected.
"Too small, no?"
Yes! Exactly!
Keynes replied: "But money doesn't appear from nowhere. Demand what's feasible."
"Understood."
What? Why so calm? France knew: Britain owed America massively. America essentially asking Britain to forgo German cash and cover it themselves? Seriously? Yet Britain's calm?
France recalled Britain's Labour PM vowing tough reparations. What was happening?
Of course. France was clueless; Britain had already secured loans from America for its debts. That smirking foe held the truth—ugly, pedestrian. Germany just waited, lips sealed, for the talks.