Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Chimerica

The world wide financial collapse that was caused by cheap, government backed credit being given to irresponsible spenders, is being fought with the hair of the dog: cheap, even free, government backed credit. And now Hillary is out trying to find foreign credit for the new government debt that will stack up to unbelievable levels. Will the Chinese continue to emulate the US Government, and provide cheap credit to the irresponsible US government spendthrifts?

The entanglement between the failed US government cheap money and the Chinese willingness to support it has produced the huge economic entity that Harvard’s Niall Ferguson calls Chimerica, an economic chimera between the two world powers.

Ferguson claims that the situation will worsen to the point of governmental collapses, civil wars, and that “blood will be shed”.
“There will be blood, in the sense that a crisis of this magnitude is bound to increase political as well as economic [conflict]. It is bound to destabilize some countries. It will cause civil wars to break out, that have been dormant. It will topple governments that were moderate and bring in governments that are extreme. These things are pretty predictable. The question is whether the general destabilization, the return of, if you like, political risk, ultimately leads to something really big in the realm of geopolitics."
The international unrest has already begun, as the EU starts to destabilize and eastern Europeans demonstrate in the streets. But Ferguson also thinks that a world war is unlikely because the USA is already the dominant military power in the world.

Here in the USA the Obama Socialist Steamroller is in full steam. The redistribution of wealth to the weaklinks in society is causing massive anger amongst the 92% of the population which has been, and still is, financially responsible. All of which is mostly ignored by the Obamedia who keep their cameras focused on the daily dread-conferences produced at the Obama teleprompter by the One.

With half of the US population now without voice in the governing of their country, having been disenfranchised by the “vote for a black” campaign, Obama has seized the power of Gerrymander – the national census – in order to guarantee that Democrat districting is dominant for at least another decade. This major internal coup went unnoticed in the national Obamedia along with most of his executive orders, court challenges and so forth.

The similarities of our situation to 1930s Germany is uncanny and chilling. The difference is that Obama wants to win the world government through economic stress, not military. The terror is spread by Obama himself, and his goons are financial goons with their hands in our pockets. A crisis is always the best time to take over a country; it is even better if you can draw one out and work it to your ends.

So spending will be shut down for some time to come; China will in essence own the USA through the unconscionable debt load on taxpayers; socialization will start to look good to the newly impoverished American citizens; and in many places, blood will run.

And with Clinton de-emphasizing human rights in China in favor of more cheap loans, there is little reason to think that human rights will have a priority at home in the USA, when push comes to shove. For the Left, human rights means the right to do things their way: Positive Rights. These include the right to gain possession of other people's wealth and goods, but not the right of free speech for Limbaugh or guns for citizens, or even representation in governmental affairs. If there is any question left as to the relativist totalitarian nature of Obama and his friends, what could that question possibly be?

16 comments:

D. A. N. said...

Stan,

Man with my Dad's name: I am just getting here, so forgive me for not knowing, can I ask if you are a Christian then?

If not, you said you abandoned Atheism, but what do you consider yourself now? What are things that make up your worldview?

Thanks,
Dan

Anonymous said...

Stan ... just found your site ... great stuff ... impressive!

Stan said...

Dan,
My position on worldviews in general is that the unexamined worldview is toxic, no matter what that worldview contains.

Without examination, a worldview becomes an independent dogma, thought to be a "truth", without even comprehending what truth is, where it derives its authority, and the difference between actual truth and empirical data.

So my thrust here is to provide insight into the rational process, its necessity and its fundamentals; then to insist that argumentation and positions be based on that, alone.

An unexamined worldview should be destroyed. A new worldview that is built on rationality will be constantly monitored for fallacy and dogma.

What does a resulting worldview contain? Because the search for validity is both individual and metaphysical, there will be some natural variability in the individually derived conclusions.

As for my worldview, I believe that the rational process will reveal that metaphysical existence cannot be ruled out by empiricism;

that the existence of a non-material realm is adequately demonstrated by the existence of the First Principles of rational thought, which overarch physical existence and exist outside the physical domain.

that dualism cannot be ruled out by empiricism;

that a first cause for the Big Bang cannot be ruled out by empiricism;

that a correlatable cause for the rational construction of the universe cannot be ruled out by empiricism;

that the co-existence of other dimensions (as per string theory) cannot be ruled out by empiricism;

that evolution is inferential only, is not and will not be empirical, is not necessary or useful to the practice of biology, and as an overarching theory-story is inconsequential - therefore it is a philosophy and is useful only to Philosophical Materialists.

Beyond that, I choose not to reveal a personal religious bias, because I think that all persons should investigate and develop those paths and connections on their own... using their innate faculties of logic, and subsequent training in syllogistic, rational thought to carefully examine all religions for coherence, continuity, and truth content.

If a religion is true, it should speak to a rational truth seeker, without force or prejudice. My experience is that most religions do not satisfy this criterion. One caveat, it is important to separate a theological possibility from all ecclesiasticism; dogma is not "truth", it is dangerous when not received via rational filtering. However, it is not true that false dogma disproves a theological possibility; it merely disproves a human interpretation.

This is more than I intended to write, and I know that your question is unanswered. I hope it explains why it remains unanswered.

Stan said...

Anonymous,
Thanks!

Stan

D. A. N. said...

Stan,

Beyond that, I choose not to reveal a personal religious bias, because I think that all persons should investigate and develop those paths and connections on their own... using their innate faculties of logic, and subsequent training in syllogistic, rational thought to carefully examine all religions for coherence, continuity, and truth content.

I think that clears things up completely.

...and I know that your question is unanswered. I hope it explains why it remains unanswered.

I am sorry but I disagree completely. My question asking if you were a Christian was completely answered perfectly. You have in a sense said you do not follow the Bible and Christianity.

If you were indeed a Christian you would first proclaim so and also you would seek to save the lost by preaching in season and out of season as the Bible instructs us to. (2 Timothy 4:2)

So thanks, I appreciate you being so revealing. Truth is a refreshing term indeed as I am also a truth seeker in any field of study that I am involved in, even getting to know someone such as yourself.

Are you familiar with Dr. Bahnsen? His discussion about worldviews may be interesting to you.

I wouldn't start there though if you haven't heard of him, I would begin with a fantastic debate that he was involved in with Dr. Stein.

Please enjoy the debate first and then the further discussion about worldviews with Dr. Bahnsen. I am confident that your scholar will thoroughly enjoy them both. Please let me know what you think of them, it would be worth your time and thoughts.

Take care,
Dan

Stan said...

For some reason I am unable to download the videos to which you refer. My telephone lines are not generally conducive to videos, a necessary byproduct of country living and refusing satellite technology costs.

Your conclusions about my religious commitment are inferred and should no more be taken for truth than the inferences used by evolutionary theorists.

And I think that your reference to 2 Timothy 4:2 is an incorrect inference also: 2 Timothy is a letter from Paul to Timothy, who the aged Paul seemingly wished to make his replacement. It is not a commandment to the entire world. The New Covenant does not increase the number of commandments. To contend or imply such is, in my opinion, an act of dogmatic ecclesiastism, the very type of thing that turns people away. This language might ring harshly to you, but that is my take.

D. A. N. said...

Stan,

I perfectly understand your bias for the country living. I may be joining soon. Up in the mountains in Trinidad, Co I was quite content with mountain living but my desires forced me to chop down some pines for that Satellite Internet. :)

I will not point you to any videos in the future albeit my blog is loaded with them.

I was able to find the mp3 which is probably friendlier to your situation. If you right mouse click on the mp3 link I believe you can download it to your hard drive.

At the very least, in that link, there is the transcript for the debate in a PDF format for your perusal. Would be worth the read.

Your conclusions about my religious commitment are inferred and should no more be taken for truth

I was hoping in being wrong but only your fruit would be able to correct that.

2 Timothy is a letter from Paul to Timothy, who the aged Paul seemingly wished to make his replacement. It is not a commandment to the entire world. The New Covenant does not increase the number of commandments.

Very interesting hermeneutics you have. Then what do I do with 2 Timothy 3 talking about the last days and specifically with 2 Timothy 3:16? Are we not to use God's Word at all or has all the work that should be done, I believe that we are called to do, complete? No ministries are needed?

To contend or imply such is, in my opinion, an act of dogmatic ecclesiastism, the very type of thing that turns people away.

I sure hope you are not under the assumption that I can take the chosen away from God or that I have the power to change the hearts of the unsaved/saved. No one has the ability to change hearts, only God, as it explicitly says in His Word.

Let me know what you think of that great debate.

D. A. N. said...

One more verse to get around Matthew 28:18-20

The Great Commission is inherently a command to ALL disciples.

Matthew 28:20, makes it clear that the “you” who are being addressed are not just the eleven disciples, but rather this promise extends to all of Christ’s followers throughout time. IMHO that is.

Stan said...

Apparently you think I am not doing my part? My experience as a long time Atheist is that anyone coming at me with a hammer resembling the bible would not be welcome in my space or in my mind. To Atheists the bible is false; using it to convince is not just not fruitful, it is most difinitely subject to ridicule. I'm sure you witness this on your website.

Atheists believe that they are using logic and that they are rationally analyzing life's problems. I found that not to be the case, and I also found that to be the weak chink in the armor: logic is not on the side of the Atheist. This is the hammer that I find speaks to Atheists who actually are open to truth and are honest enough to evaluate empiricism as it really is. Their worldview underpinnings are challenged by a realistic view of empirical capabilities, taken from first principles which they do not deny. Well, Nietzsche did, but few others do.

But almost no Atheist is convinced by biblical passages, which are considered completely phony and without merit at this point in Atheist development. I know this because I was there, my friends were there, and it took rational development to turn that corner into an humble, honest search for intellectual validity. It's hard work. It's wearing. It's worth it. It's the only leverage that I know that works.

D. A. N. said...

You are right and spot on about many Atheists, Stan.

That is why I am exploring presuppositional apologetics.

Please, please with sugar on top listen to that link (MP3) that I provided. I have a feeling you will enjoy that Dr. Greg Bahnsen versus Dr. Gordon Stein debate a great deal.

Proof of God without one Bible verse. You could always go to my friend Sye's website called

proofthatgodexists.org

Stan said...

I have visited proofthatgodexists.org. It is a novel presentation of an argument that veteran Atheists will find unconvincing, I'm afraid. However, searchers with a mind open to both sides just might. I hope that it does induce humble, introspective searches for truth that result in finding it.

Veteran Atheists want and demand empirical proof. PZ Meyers recently wrote that he would need for the God of the bible to actually go ahead and destroy a city right in front of him; then he could analyze the debris to see if God exists.

In fact, any material evidence for God, such as blatant miracles, would always be interpreted as mere physical manifestions, yet to be defined by science.

The logical inversions of Materialism and Atheism are not easily dealt with by appeals to standard logic. They are defense mechanisms, emotionally based and protected. Loss of Atheism is traumatic to a person who loses elitism, autonomy, and a variable ethic.

The rationalization that is in place in Atheist logic inversion is there for a reason: to protect the Atheist from any need for God. It is an agenda, it is emotional with rational pretenses; it doesn't respond to standard logic.

My approach is also to appeal to logic, but its focus is to try to blast away the illogic that Atheists use to protect themselves from truth. I do this because I know full well that is the only thing that could ever have reached me during my Atheist days (decades). Appeals to the bible or to sin or to salvation had no meaning to me nor do they to materialists.

I will try to listen to the debate tomorrow, but I warn you that my position on debates is that it is a waste of precious time; the liklihood of scoring any converts to either side is nil, either from the audience or from the debators.

D. A. N. said...

Stan,

Veteran Atheists want and demand empirical proof.

My questions always will be what would it actually take to change an Atheists presuppositions. If they are indeed "veterans" the only thing that will change them is God. Certainly not man's intellect.

In fact, any material evidence for God, such as blatant miracles, would always be interpreted as mere physical manifestions, yet to be defined by science.

Science is an attempt to understand the natural world in a natural way. Science then in that sense is restricted to natural explanations for natural phenomena. If a natural explanation is inadequate then science stops. Also, science is not for miracles by definition alone.

You sound like a very smart man that grasps the Atheists mindset quite well. Your rational about debates and such are quite grounded. I must ask though if not Atheism, which you attempt to debunk, then what? Do you leave them out there floating or do you indeed point them to God, or God forbid, any god?

I am very interested in Atheism since I grew up in an Atheists home and my entire family, with the exception of myself, are Atheists. I have a vested interest in keeping people out of Hellfire. I applaud you work/efforts and will continue to be intrigued. Thanks for your pursuits.

Blessings.

Stan said...

I find that it is not true that intellect will not change a person. I am an example.

The intellect is a tool for rationality that must be engaged in order to discern truth from fallacy. In dogmatic religions such as Atheism, the intellect is defeated (disengaged) by emotional rationlization and other fallacies. A truly operational intellect will find the actual truth. But this takes the humility to examine one's precepts with total brutal intellectual honesty, and eschewing all emotional drives toward a predisposed answer.

It is clear to me that initiating a truly honest, humble, search for truth is one of the beginnings of stepping out of relativist Atheism. This is the narrow niche that I inhabit, and I rigorously remain within that niche. This is because I know that expanding beyond will turn certain hardened cases of unexamined Atheism (such as myself) away. It is the first step of the search that I seek to assist. There are plenty of others to take up the slack for interested, open, humble searchers.

Even more than that is the notion that no human can save another human; the Atheist must seek for himself. This notion is also the basis for the rational search outside the material realm: each search into that realm is personal, introspected, non-sensory, and non-empirical. So that's the narrow focus that I try to convey.

Beginning Atheists have not yet hardened into the rigid doctrine of Philosphical Materialism; those are the ones that are still open to honest inquiry. Inveterate Atheists are belligerant, and argumentative from slippery, relativist ethics that change without notice. I do not argue with them. I point out logical errors, though.

As I said, my focus is narrow on purpose. I attempt to fill a niche not adequately addressed by others (imo).

Stan said...

Dan,
If we are to continue this conversation, it should be in emails. I don't publish my email address, after being cyber-stalked.

Is there a way that we can connect?

Stan

Stan said...

Dan,
I just realized that there is a very simple way to establish email contact.

One of us can set up our blog Comments to "Moderated"; the other can leave an email address. The recipient can note the address, then delete the comment without publishing it.

This could be almost transparent if we choose a time to make such a transaction.

What do you think?

D. A. N. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.