A world government would have a Federal Reserve bank issuing e-dollar loans at zero interest to 1% of the people who could then e-mint 9x more dollars for each e-dollar on deposit. In other words they would have unlimited wealth and concentrate power globally buying up everything for plutocracy. The plutocrats would de facto partner with Chinese Communists and tech surveillance would become ubiquitous. The masses could have mass media entertainment and thought control being programmed culturally. That would be one form of world government.
Other forms would likely be some sort of authoritarian dictatorship. Without nations for firewalls against political monopoly power would concentrate just as wealth concentrates.
Economic populism would be an improvement if it could actually exist. The prospects for that are very poor though since the party exists to serve the plutocracy that owns everything in sight. The problem is the Federal Reserve enabling of free trillions of dollars for the richest. That seems a kind of treason. Quantitative easing was the most recent culprit and the last Bush and Obama administrations let the rich have north of 200 trillion dollars. The number is so large I wonder, since I am not an economist, how it can be right.
The broadcast media is owned by the rich and many analysts and commentators are motivated more by profit for themselves than accurate scholarly work. There was nothing in the constitution in support of the government giving trillions of zero interest loans to the private sector and big business. The marginal reserve of 10% means that every dollar on deposit for a zero interest loan from the Fed allow 9 more dollars to appear out of thin air for loans to others that appear with real dollars repaid. That policy unbalances the political system so much that plutocracy develops and the democracy a sham.
Populism should equate to egalitarianism rather than sycophancy with billionaires’ special interests.
It’s been said that the Second World War was the final battle of the First World War. I tend to agree with the concept. The royals of Europe had a grand conflict that ended without unconditional surrender, Germany had a revolution that got rid of the aristocracy and put Hindenburg in power of the Weimar Republic, and the former royals were very displeased-especially with the Bolsheviks in Russia. Former royals of Germany needed a populist political figure to put them indirectly back into power -and they used Hitler to bring corporatism and themselves toward a new kind of Germany able to fight the reds on the left and the decadent royals and rival free enterprises on the right from other nations.
Hitler was a very unusual fellow with a speaking voice that had a vibration at normal speech levels with characteristics others have when shouting. He was sent by military high command to infiltrate and take over the Germany National Socialist Party which he directly accomplished- he was charismatic, and the rest is history. Crown Prince Ruprecht had a breakthrough on the front reaching in to France (some say as far as far as 200 miles). He was apparently a fairly competent military leader.
If the Wehrmacht hadn’t just run out of bodies to put into the battle Germany might finally have won the war, or nearly so until more U.S. reinforcements arrived. When the armistice occurred many veterans like Hitler felt they were cheated and could have won.
The west should have fought to unconditional surrender instead of armistice in W.W.I., or have not asked for reparations from the Weimar Republic that couldn’t pay very easily, although I am confident they could have over time being industrious people. The foreign debt was a motivator for Hitler to try other kinds of economics that were Keynesian and deficit financed. The way Hitler planned to pay the war debt was likely just with the profit of winning in war with what he must have viewed as having good prospects for victory and profit.
Republicans and Democrats have supported issuing of trillions and trillions of free dollars to the rich and that seems somewhat like treason. Those quantitative easing loans at 0% put electronic deposits in big banks, and with the marginal reserve rate of 10% generally those banks could loan out 9 dollars for each dollar in their account. That means 16 trillion given between 2008–2011 amounted to 134 trillion minus the 16 trillion that needed to be repaid to the Federal Reserve. Nothing was written in the constitution about a role of government to assure that the rich are given 134 trillion now and then and the poor, nothing. Republicans in the Senate are wailing and lamenting that 430 billion for Covid relief stimulus would bankrupt the country or need to be repaid by survivors of the future.
When the Federal Reserve was started the U.S.A. was still on the gold standard. The Federal Reserve was helpful in assuring liquidity and provided some protection for depositors. When the dollar became free floating during the Nixon administration the stage was set for future unscrupulous use of Federal Reserve loans.
President Reagan and Arthur Laffer seemed to understand that the need to run a balanced budget was as important as during former times. Many viewed Reagan stimulus deficit spending as a white-washed Keynesianism and apparently that view was wrong. It was difficult to entirely revise the classical view of economics to the free floating dollar paradigm.
During the 2008–9 financial crisis their was a paradigm shift in Federal Reserve application of creating liquidity such that enabling hundreds of trillions of dollars to appear out of virtually thin air for the rich has become normative- and that policy has hidden deleterious impacts on democracy, for it reinforces the concentration of wealth and economic segregation of citizens from political power. Georgia Republicans and Mitch McConnell need to trick Georgia voters into believe they are not at fault for withholding a $2000 stimulus check in order to keep control of the U.S. Senate in the January 6 special election. Republicans either do not comprehend the vast unearned political transfer of wealth to the rich or simply are sadistic and enjoy victimizing the poor.
Big business and banks should never be regarded as ‘too big to fail’. banking and making loans is fine when the money arises from the private sector and isn’t just the result of a federal prop. It would be far better for democracy in the United States if money from the Federal Reserve that goes to assure liquidity in the private sector primarily emerged from the people of the United States in a broad base such as social security accounts.
The Federal Reserve could make zero interest loans [periodically to all social security accounts and that money could be managed en mass/concatenated and available for loans to the private sector as big banks do presently. The money multiplier of 9 to 1 would go to Americans broadly as citizens rather than to special, globalist interest. If the private sector needs special free money from the public sector it should be the public sector as actual American citizens that profit from the action as well as private sector businesses directly borrowing cash at a reasonable yet low rate of interest.. This would have numerous salutary effects.
For one thing social security would remain solvent. The U.S. Government already borrows from social security and leaves i.o.u.’s. In the future it might be possible when retiree and disabled American accounts are flourishing to forgive federal indebtedness. Loans to the private sector would be more independent from domination by corporate networks controlled by 1% of the people, and special very low loan rates could be given to students and independent small businesses. There is nothin at all remotely American about the Federal Reserve helping the rich to have more free money in a few years than the poor would earn all together in a thousand lifetimes.
Neither party really has much good sense regarding ecological economics either. When the Federal Reserves enables trillions and trillions to be dumped to the present unsustainable economic infrastructure owners that makes changing the political economy improbable. Because the rich own the broadcast media Americans can be conditioned rather easily to accept being ‘managed’ by a plutocracy. I should mention that I personally am not an optimist about meaningful positive economic reform developing.
Heidegger was interested in the phenomenal, root meanings of words. Examining language in such a subjective way might bring some to classify him as an existentialist. In that way of classification it might be said that Plato and realism was in opposition to extremist left nominalism and Heidegger was an innocent bystander. If all language is about language and classification that people make up for pragmatic reasons then it might be fair to say that things-in-themselves differ from words about them.
What can be said about reality in itself- the mass that is the steady state of mass perceptible to humans that completely defines it? Nothing I.m.o. Even structures that are man-made are founded in mass and energy that are described incompletely with word structures. In that circumstance one finds Sartre’s existential parameters congruent with Bishop Berkeley’s Three Dialog s concerning idealism. One cannot really say that the shared energy field that everyone encounters isn’t a complete production of God, or a simulation real for-itself generated by a sentient field.
I was informed recently by a friend who is a professor of the philosophy of economic comedy about developments in the field of the dialectical progression of money to self-awareness through history. Evidently the Reagan administration realized for-itself that with a free-floating dollar the Federal Reserve could simply issue low or no interest loans to big banks and with the federal requirement that banks keep 10% marginal reserves on obligations such as cash deposits, the rich that own the banks could in effect electronically mint 9 times the loans to their friends and compatriot rich people. The custom of enabling the Federal Government to in effect give trillions of free dollars to the rich did not really get started in a large way until the financial crisis of 208-9 wherafter it has issued through the marginal reserve multiplication nine-fold of zero and low interest ‘quantitative easing’ dollars, about 200 trillion dollars. I should ask Dr. Mojoke, my professor friend about it, however I believe the world income annual is about 99 trillion dollars, so 200 trillion over a dozen years is a fair amount of easing.
In the process of unbalancing traditional economic relationships with quantitative easing the federal government accelerated the concentration of wealth since they were not issuing trillions of dollars of free money to the poor and middle class who in any event had now facilities for multiplying zero-interest federal loans nine-fold. A different approach to restoring economic slumps that was fair and balanced with equal measures of free money going to citizens equally was required and that would have overstretched the meager economic intellectual resources of classical economic theorists. It was with that realization by Dr. Mojoke seated in a lotus position under an apple tree had his great insight about not only the invention of new cash multiplying structures in federal social security accounts that would manage and loan money to qualified, stable borrowers with professional class investment fund managers, the doctor also foresaw the rise of Bic-coin as a self-aware monad evolving to realize itself through monetary policy over history.
Dr. Mojoke foresaw that electronic currency trading would evolve to self-aware monad of Bic-coin that would as self-aware units be non-counterfeitable and useful in-themselves as well as in electronic trading. Bic-coin in larger clusters would have an increased capacity for artificial intelligence and intelligent thought. A billion units of Bic-coin thinking together would be very clever and in fact able to optimize structural designs for human biological living such as waterless microwave sewage processing in deserts ( I asked the doctor how he found that example and he informed me that he saw the value of propane or electric powered Incinolet toilets used for off the grid structures). Cluster of Bic-coin would become standard units of exchange able for-themselves to organize assembly of planetary materials for print-on-demand lunar and Martian structures or form transport vehicles able to rise from dust and transport Americans along electronic in-line highway grids made of solar photon absorbing and storing materials with a high albedo.
Mojoke said that he didn’t mind the rich loaning out money they’ve worked for, that it was just the Federal Reserve dumping trillions of interest free electronic cash in quantitative easing that was a fowl kettle of fish. Apparently Mojoke believes that the U.S. Government and Federal Reserve should not serve a tiny minority of the public and render everyone else peons of globallists.
I suggested to Dr. Mojoke that the new Biten administration might invest in the development of Bic-coin and innovate better and more egalitarian methods for stimulating the U.S. economy diverging from the evolving history of offering up free trillions to a global plutocracy wishing they would trickle down to Americans and not just runt the government with so much compiled capital. The doctor said; “That’s a laugher”.
Fried
Chicken, Stimulus Checks and the Marginal Reserve with Quantitative
Easing...
(Quantitative
Easing gave trillions and trillions to the Uber Rich)
It seems that Republicans don’t understand how the political economy has changed since the 2008–9 financial crisis so they have a preponderance of people that still believe in anachronistic ideas concerning money supply and the rich. President Nixon took the U.S.A. off the gold standard and President Reagan first realized the potential of using easy money to promote economic growth without causing inflation- the rich get the easy money and buy everything on the planet with it or hold on to it as leverage over the government.
During
the 2008-2009 financial crises the U.S. Government stepped in to stop
the bleeding on Wall Street. It provided a vast loan package and
continuing support with trillions and trillions of zero and very low
interest loans to wealthy financial institutions. Big banks are free
to issue in electronic loans nine dollars more or less (I am not a
banker-the marginal reserve requisite is 10% perhaps) for every
dollar they have on deposit so those trillions (maybe 16 trillion)
allowed big banks to produce from thin air 90 trillion dollars. The
total amount of free money to plutocrats enabled by the Federal
Reserve could be as much as 200 trillion dollars. Fortunately
Senators like Rand Paul are concerned about the $600 dollar direct
payments going to Americans in the present financial stimulus
observing that ‘money doesn’t grow on trees’ (as if it were the
Tongass National Forest the administration would like to strip log
with clear cuts). Preventing ordinary Americans from getting fewer
than a half of one percent of what goes to the rich from the Federal
Reserve incentives vigilant Republicans; the poor or their proplits
cannot be allowed to increase.
When
money was based on some valuable commodity like gold the value of a
currency was tied to its relative scarcity. If one printed out many
dollars each would become worth less if the quantity of gold remained
the same. When President Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard
the dollar had nothing besides its value to none in particular to
determine its worth. In an age of general relativity that isn’t too
unreasonable; the dollar is a commodity used as a tool for economic
exchanges after all instead of something valuable in itself.
Still,
the idea of giving the super rich trillions of free dollars to keep
their Wall Street index value from crashing below 10,000 is difficult
for many Americans including myself to understand very well. The
treasury prints out paper dollars and the Federal Reserve loans out
electronic dollars. Most financial transactions are done
electronically these days and there actually isn’t too much cash as
a percentage of all of the dollars in circulation. Why doesn’t
inflation occur so dollars buy less when so many are being made to
keep banks and big business afloat and to send $600 direct payments
to Americans that earn fewer than $75,000 annually? Why haven’t
Starbucks coffees reach $100 dollars a cup yet one wonders. The
answer may be that all of the cash that Wall Street got from the
Federal Reserve wasn’t put directly in to circulation. The original
loan amount goes back to the Federal Reserve so the Street had just
the paltry sum of 64 trillion dollars to play with. With that they
could buy up Wall Street- or the one percent could, and the inflation
occurred in the indexed rise of Wall Street shares to the point that
the DOW is now over 30,000.
Just
because the rich are much richer and Wall Street much more costly it
doesn’t mean that Wal-mart needs to charge more for groceries
although they might anyway. There is a difference between real goods,
physical corporations and such capital and dollars. A brick is still
a brick if is priced at $1 or $100 dollars. So long as Wall Street
average share prices rise more or less together there need not be too
much of an effect on the over-all relationships toward production and
corporate welfare. CEOs can still get 5000 times the salary of an
average worker (just guessing).
The
tremendous hyper-inflation of Nazi Germany before the war occurred
not because Hitler had too many Reichmarks printed; it happened
because there wasn’t enough gold to back up the Reichmarks value
proportionately. The dollar though is on an economic relativity
foundation. With so many ought in to the corporatism kickback loop it
is wrong to leave anyone who is poor out of the benefit. A Guaranteed
minimum income and free health care for the poor should be something
Senator Paul should think about the next time a Pat Paulsen imitator
of Darth Vader says to him; “Rand, Rand- I’m your father; money
doesn’t grow on trees.”
In
the free-floating currency of the dollar context money supply may not
be as important as the real material and intellectual properties that
can be counted as capital. Money supply need be adequate to allow the
flow of trade and commerce and tight money could be a problem itself.
It is possible that avarice in the owner class could prompt corporate
to raise retail prices to consumers if consumers have any money to
spend in order to have all of the money they possibly can. Political
economy managers need to be concerned with such matters as well as
for keeping the real capital based on sustainable environmental
parameters.
One
of the problems of civilizations that bring them to fall is the
tendency to develop a particular economic model until it crashes from
over-use. The physical infrastructure of a civilization may grow to
be inappropriate and destroy the human spirit of workers and
designers in addition to building mass species extinction and
environmental collapse. It may be the case that those most invested
in the present economic system would be the last to know and most
resistant to rational realistic transition to a new economic
continuum.
The
2008-9 financial crisis and decade of ensuing issue of free money to
the rich was the wrong way to keep the economy of the U.S.A.
Functioning. It was an opportunity to direct coalitions of the
willing businesses to participate in ecological economic reform and
sustainability. The daft policy of throwing zero interest federal
reserve loans to the rich rendered democracy somewhat defunct and put
plutocratic global corporatism into ascendance. Intelligence was
required in governing and idiot technocrats dumping cash to the rich
was what followed. NPR has often called the Covid 19 pandemic the
'pendemic'. Repression of free speech and democratic free expression
is quite normal during the rise of dictatorships and oligarchy's of
sundry sorts. Some of the broadcast media believe economic exogamy
is the be and end-all for existence; self reliance and independence
however are not necessarily economically endogamous and strong
nationalism can lead in new directions such as ecological economic
reform. Coupled with Darwinist inspired atheism and Nietzchian
philosophic inspiration an existential abandonment of moral norms and
nationalism seems necessary for a brave new world order wherein for
Americans the sole economic survivors are plutocratic supermen. The
hubris and deceit inherent in the view that enables irrationality to
overcome reason and fake populism to alternate with corrupt elites to
manage the 'herd' of citizens ought to give some a realization that
the death of democracy won't end well for ordinary people.
Plutocrats
of the modern era are far more sophisticated and subtle in defeating
in detail democracy, potential rival political economic trends and
independent innovations of individuals. So long as the populace is
stupid, drunk, doped, deceived or misled into unintelligent political
economy there are no political issues to trouble the rising minority
powers of plutocrats.
I wanted to wish readers a Merry Christmas 2020 and a Happy New Year for 2021, though my blog seems to be completely censored for the past few days with zero readers except for a subscriber. The days before I had between 50 and 100 each day.
Since the Obama administration when I criticized N.S.A. surveillance of Americans I lost 90% of the views. Formerly more than a 1000 each day was easy. I haven't got a penny of increase from blogging here the past decade or so when the $67 in the account froze and there it remains in spite of everything I have tried to fix it.
When I dropped the sentence "as if google has never trimmed bloggers" in a post that must have triggered the complete censorship status as present. Well, no problem, then the sound stopped on my Thinkpad so now the sound device manager reads "dummy output" or no device present. So my blogging for the next year will likely be minimal at least for a while with tech issues.
Recently I realized that the most rich were in effect given 64 trillion dollars via quantitative easing. Perhaps corporatism has gone so far as to merge into a kind of imperialism globally with any dissent deleted one way or another. Still, things could be worse, and there is the great hope and faith in the works of the Lord Jesus Christ.
During the
2008-2009 financial crises the U.S. Government stepped in to stop the bleeding
on Wall Street. It provided a vast loan package and continuing support with
trillions and trillions of zero and very low interest loans to wealthy
financial institutions. Big banks are free to issue in electronic loans five
dollars more or less (I am not a banker) for every dollar they have on deposit
so those trillions (maybe 16 trillion) allowedbig banks to produce from thin air 80 trillion dollars. Fortunately Senators
like Rand Paul are concerned about the $600 dollar direct payments going to
Americans in the present financial stimulus observing that ‘money doesn’t grow
on trees’ (as if it were the Tongass National Forest the administration seeking to strip log with clear cuts and a spaghetti plate of roads).
When money
was based on some valuable commodity like gold the value of a currency was tied
to its relative scarcity. If one printed out many dollars each would become
worth less if the quantity of gold remained the same. When President Nixon took
the dollar off the gold standard the dollar had nothing besides its value to
none in particular to determine its worth. In an age of general relativity that
isn’t too unreasonable; the dollar is a commodity used as a tool for economic
exchanges after all instead of something valuable in itself.
Still, the
idea of giving the super rich trillions of free dollars to keep their Wall
Street index value from crashing below 10,000 is difficult for many Americans
including myself to understand very well. The treasury prints out paper dollars
and the Federal Reserve loans out electronic dollars. Most financial
transactions are done electronically these days and there actually isn’t too
much cash as a percentage of all of the dollars in circulation. Why doesn’t
inflation occur so dollars buy less when so many are being made to keep banks
and big business afloat and to send $600 direct payments to Americans that earn
fewer than $75,000 annually? Why haven’t Starbucks coffees reach $100 dollars a
cup yet one wonders. The answer may be that all of the cash that Wall Street
got from the Federal Reserve wasn’t put directly in to circulation. The
original loan amount goes back to the Federal Reserve so the Street had just
the paltry sum of 64 trillion dollars to play with. With that they could buy up
Wall Street- or the one percent could, and the inflation occurred in the
indexed rise of Wall Street shares to the point that the DOW is now over
30,000.
Just because
the rich are much richer and Wall Street much more costly it doesn’t mean that
Wal-mart needs to charge more for groceries although they might anyway. There
is a difference between real goods, physical corporations and such capital and
dollars. A brick is still a brick if is priced at $1 or $100 dollars. So long
as Wall Street average share prices rise more or less together there need not
be too much of an effect on the over-all relationships toward production and
corporate welfare. CEOs can still get 5000 times the salary of an average
worker (just guessing).
I.M.O. a guaranteed minimum income is requisite to assure that no citizen is excluded from substantial economic participation. Business sadists and networks can have hidden semi-overt and covert agendas and policies that render work impossible. With a totalized national economy under the power of network financial elites any citizen can be deleted from real income.
The
tremendous hyper-inflation of Nazi Germany before the war occurred not because
Hitler had too many reichmarks printed; it happened because there wasn’t enough
gold to back up the reichmarks value proportionately. The dollar though is on
an economic relativity foundation. With so many ought in to the corporatism
kickback loop it is wrong to leave anyone who is poor out of the benefit. A
Guaranteed minimum income and free health care for the poor should be something
Senator Paul should think about the next time a Pat Paulsen imitator of Darth
Vader says to him; “Rand, Rand- I’m your father; money doesn’t grow on trees.”
In the
free-floating currency of the dollar context money supply may not be as
important as the real material and intellectual properties that can be counted
as capital. Money supply need be adequate to allow the flow of trade and
commerce and tight money could be a problem itself. It is possible that avarice
in the owner class could prompt corporate to raise retail prices to consumers
if consumers have any money to spend in order to have all of the money they
possibly can. Political economy managers need to be concerned with such matters
as well as for keeping the real capital based on sustainable environmental
parameters.
One of the
problems of civilizations that bring them to fall is the tendency to develop a
particular economic model until it crashes from over-use. The physical
infrastructure of a civilization may grow to be inappropriate and destroy the
human spirit of workers and designers in addition to building mass species
extinction and environmental collapse. It may be the case that those most
invested in the present economic system would be the last to know and most
resistant to rational realistic transition to a new economic continuum.
A government may rightly help citizens in time of emergency- that is good behavior. yet it should be impartial and stay with the principle of equal justice. When the government simply serves the rich that is bad conduct for a democracy. Providing perhaps 130 trillion dollars of free cash to the rich via the 5 to 1 electronic mint root based on quantitative easing deposits was wrong yet should not be held as a reason to further victimize the poor. The revolution of the rich in a decade long financial coup need be corrected somewhat presently.
Maybe one should ask what 'saving the world' means in a given context. If the wicked want to victimize others, and the saved have no interest in victimizing anyone then it is plain that the meek need go to heaven and the wicked someplace else such as eternal hell. The people in hell would victimize each other in hell and may hate those in heaven yearning to victimize them. Further, the 'world' someplace in the Universe far from the exact center may be depleted of life because of mass extinctions and global warming and is empty, while some capitalists in hell want to spend the world ransoming it to get themselves bailed out of hell. Maybe some communists believe saving the world would mean enslaving everyone or like the Khymer Rouge deleting intellectuals. and that it is necessary that everyone must get stoned.
I like Hegel quite a lot. The 'Realms of Absolute Spirit' if I recall correctly is a kind of summary of the 'Phenomenology of Mind'. Some might like the idea of the Spirit coming to evolve itself to realization in history, yet the notion of a two-part dialectical evolution seems rather quaint today with quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. I.M.O. God or Spirit is eternal rather than temporal. He issues the Higgs Field rather than becoming created himself within it.
Wave-particle duality hasn't much to do with Hegel I think. It is possible to regard Spirit as the Author of the Higgs Field of course. GWF Hegel is somewhat removed from that context however. The Higgs Field has two-dimensional energy that can be phenomenally entangled so it appears to slow down to sub-light speed and have mass. One might consider Hegel's paradigm with Plotinus and the Intelligence though (from the Enneads or 54 Tractates) in that neo-Platonist paradigm.
There are many interesting historical researches going on
today in addition to cosmology that provide much
information to consider for Christian philosophers and the thoughtful. I think
it is the case that some established church authorities have sought to freeze
various structures in place because the contemporary dogmatics support the
economic positions of the authorities and that can lead to schisms and reform
such as that Protestants established in the 1500s.
There is repression of Christians in China.It may be possible that Chinese authorities may be concerned with pre-trib eschatology as well as social and economic power. Pre-tribbers believe the world is approaching doom and they will be raptured out of it, while post-tribbers such as myself tend to believe the apocalypse of the New Testament occurred in the first century A.D. culminating in the fall of Jerusalem and the Temple and that this is an era to build up the Kingdom of God.
Secular authorities including communists always want to build up their own power about as far as they can. One need be inventive to liberate oneself and society generally from repressive ruling power when it is not useful for social progress. I believe a Priesthood of Believers reform is necessary to maximize evangelical and ecclesiastical benefit from the New Testament. During the pre-literate, feudal era a more commercial or pro-priestly class of superior Christians was perhaps necessary to let the peasants learn the gospel, yet that is quite ineffective and almost counterproductive today with mass literacy and mass communication. Commercial priests tend to resemble small business guys primarily interested in their own economic situation receiving tithes. I think a Priesthood of Believers church structure were all share small-group liturgical roles would benefit western Christians and be non-threatening to communist authorities too.
Chinese rulers are probably mindful of the Taiping Rebellion led by a Christian who believed he literally was Christ's brother. Ten million were killed in the Taiping Rebellion. Poor theological understanding can lead to conflict. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19977188
I took a philosophy course or two from a fellow who had a degree in anthropology too. His desk for years had a copy of Barret's book 'Irrational Man' on it. There are other contexts for rationality than the standard apparently at least in regard to social structure. If one reads Sartre's Critique of Dialectical Reason' one may discover that it is possible to view social behavior something like ant hive behavior. Then the question arises do the ants think about what they are doing as a species applying mass production where it ought to be limited and selected more carefully, really (e.g. mass species extinction, global warming, mobile wheelchair fossil fuel engine society)? https://www.secondsale.com/i/irrational-man-a-study-in-existential-philosophy/9780385031387?gclid=CjwKCAiArIH_BRB2EiwALfbH1DS3ExaMd9xuyqazDYXhEp3lXZK_VvgXvyn3MEZ_sP0W8ql6jGzEUhoCUKEQAvD_BwE
I have learned more about the history of the first
civilization over time in Summer (southern Mesopotamia). Abraham was from the
city of Ur. Summer was established circa 5400 b.c. so it was an old
civilization by the time he got the call from God to exodus about 2100 b.c.
That was a period when Summer-Akkad was in the final throes of its span and a
good time for Abraham to leave.
Abraham and family journeyed northwest Syria and over to Israel or Canaan. That region was between the two great early
civilization of Mesopotamia and Egypt. Learning that some of the information
Abraham brought to Israel with him from Ur where he probably worked as a scribe
has similar paradigmatic concurrence with ancient Sumerian data such as the
flood during the end of the Wisconsin ice age should not be troubling to
Christians. Instead they should be thankful that Abraham brought the truth with
him.
