Heidelberger runs to safety

[Editor’s Note: I received this comment from Cory Heidelberger regarding this post:

Worldviews aside, I'm a little confused with the rhetoric about retreating to the safety of the MSM. Everything I post on KELO goes on the Madville Times home site first. I just like sending you some extra traffic from KELO. ;-)

I thank Cory for sending the comment and for saying his posting on Keloland is of goodwill to myself. I apologize to Cory if the tenor of this post gives a wrong impression of his true intent. I do believe it is the Keloand corporation who is missing the boat by not allowing all of the top South Dakota bloggers a place in their world. But is is their property, and they can doe what they want.

I also want to thank Cory for being more than just another partisan political hack. He is willing to have a constructive debate on the worldview basis that affect our public policy positions. I believe he really cares about what is right for us all. It is because of that that I hold a great deal of respect for Cory, and I am looking forward to the day that we meet in person. And I mean that most sincerely.]

Cory Heidelberger runs to the safety of the Drive-by Media Keloland blog section to repeat an argument I destroyed over the weekend. Before I get back into that, I would like to first address Heidelberger’s Keloland refuge.

If you take a look at the latest Blognetnews South Dakota blog ratings, 3 of Keloland’s 9 blogs (two of which are conservative) are not even in the top 20. The other 6 are liberal, including Pat Powers. So why are the top conservative blogs not at Keloland’s political blog section:

Dakota Voice: Number 2 overall

Sibby Online: Number 4 overall

Voices Carry: Number 6 overall

Answer: Keloland brought their blatant liberal bias to the Internet.

And it was on that Drive-by Media liberal refuge where Cory Heidelberger repeated this assertion:

Don't be fooled: those CEOs defending free trade with China aren't motivated by principle; they're motivated by the very selfish, materialist desire to keep their access to a market of 1.3 billion well-controlled Chinese workers and consumers. Corporations profit from totalitarianism. That's not secular humanism. That's exactly what I called it yesterday: amoral materialism.

First off, free-markets would allow consumers to go to competitors and not be affected by a totalitarian-minded corporation. It is when the government enters into partnerships (remember the plutocracy of public/private partnerships?) with the private sector the monopolistic nature begins to take shape.

And again, here is my response to the "amoral materialism":

What Cory doesn’t understand is that "amoral materialism" is the psychological basis to the religion of secular humanism. Here is the proof:

Secular Humanism: monistic self-actualization:

This psychology requires belief in man’s inherent goodness, and predicts that every individual can achieve mental health through the fulfillment of physical or material needs (self-actualization).

It is not free-market capitalism that caused the problem of "amoral materialism" that Cory points to, but rather those business leaders who adhere to the secular humanist worldview, perhaps unknowingly. That’s what causing the "amoral materialism".

That worldview is what dominates secular America, including non-Christian corporations. It dominates the corporations in Hollywood whose entertainment promotes humanism, including the one that created Star Trek. Isn’t Planned Parenthood a corporation? Planned Parenthood is a non-profit corporation that profits from killing babies as it uses taxpayers’ funding to promote secular humanism. And the biased pro-humanist Keloland corporation is where Cory took refuge from the truth.

And now I will go into the truth that the liberal media corporations such as Keloland don’t want us to know. Here is a global warming column I found at the Council of Secular Humanism web site. Here is the bio of its authors:

Stephen Paley is a physicist, and George K. Oister, who died while this article was being prepared, was an electronics engineer. They spent most of their professional careers in research, development, and technical management for multinational corporations, defense contractors, and small high-tech companies, at which they contributed to the development of several important new technologies. Richard Hull, trained as a philosopher, has participated in the development of some technologies with Paley and Oister, chiefly as an investor.

That should have shot Heidelberger’s thought down that there are no secular humanists in multinational corporations. These corporate secular humanists are very far-left environmental extremist as they promote the same anti-capitalist agenda that is being spewed by Barack Obama:

Four significant and interconnected physical problems are likely to reach critical stages over the next two decades. They are:

• Global warming and environmental degradation
• Depletion of key resources including oil, gas and potable water
• Pollution caused by use of fossil fuels with current technologies
• A world population that has grown beyond Earth’s carrying capacity (which exacerbates the first three problems)

Keeping these problems within tolerable limits will require defining the actions that must be taken and the sequence in which they must be taken, followed by rapid deployment of the largest set of integrated, knowledge-based changes the world has ever seen. Included in these changes is the deployment of certain "survival" technologies. Much of this article will discuss fundamental impediments to their creation, adoption, and deployment.

The compartmentalization of knowledge, along with various cultural, economic, and business realities, has created a severely limited understanding of the changes necessary for our survival, and has also delayed implementation of those changes. These realities are:

• Economic self-interest
• Profit motive as the sole determinant of action
• Lack of appropriate institutions to promote and manage the required changes
• Limitations on the range of practical solutions that experts can create, often imposed by their own specializations
• Limitations associated with (nonexpert) decision makers who formulate decisions that require expert knowledge

We suggest that an institution be created and designed to orchestrate solutions to the first three of the four problems above. The institution’s role regarding the fourth, overpopulation, would be to promote understanding of the need for population reduction as necessary for human survival and to help create improved birth-control technology that might make that possible.

Note the reference to "profit motive as the sole determinant of action ". (As I pointed out earlier, Planned Parenthood is technically a non-profit, but promotes amoral humanism.) Here is where these far-left extremists get their anti-capitalist mantra:

Companies in areas requiring survival technologies can earn a profit without their products conforming to the many requirements of a survival technology—a major reason for our current environmental crisis. Profit motive alone does not guarantee that fundamental technologies in the field of energy will be survival technologies, and the companies that develop them often do not have the knowledge, internal mandate, or organizational structure to develop them as such.

Tey can't handle the idea of freedom that is present in a free-market environment. It is when liberal ideology enters that we begin going down the road of totalitarianism. (Such as Corporate media giants like Keloland not allowing posts such as this to counter the liberal agenda they espouse.) These secular humanists have infiltrated corporate America and believe that they are the gods who control the fate of humankind (elitism), not the God from the Bible. They want us to use less efficient means of energy because of their adoption of the belief that nature is above man, instead of God giving man dominion over nature as is explained in Genesis. Those who follow a true Biblical Christian worldview have a profit motive, but it is in submission to God’s Laws, specifically the Golden Rule and also the Biblical Christian principle of being good stewards of God’s creation. The Founding Fathers understood this and also that it meant that self-government and freedom could only survive if the culture’s dominant worldview was Biblical Christianity, versus one that is amoral.

The worldview of secular humanism reject’s God, and thereby is amoral and also promotes materialism as a means of reaching self-actualization. That is "amoral materialism". That may not be what some or most secular humanists followers want, but there are always unintended consequences.

It is time for another Great Awakening so that we can restore Truth and freedom in America.

Comments

[Todd Epp]

Steve:

What's your view of the corporations that created both versions of "Battle Star Galactica"?

Todd Epp
SD Watch http://www.southdakotawatch.net

[Sibby's respnse: I haven't researched it. Can you give us yours?]

[caheidelberger]

Worldviews aside, I'm a little confused with the rhetoric about retreating to the safety of the MSM. Everything I post on KELO goes on the Madville Times home site first. I just like sending you some extra traffic from KELO. ;-)

[Sibby's response: Cory, thenks for your comment. Your point is important enough that I will put it at the top of this post.]

[Bob Ellis]

Dead on, my friend.

Capitalism can be used for good or bad, depending on the inclination of the user. I don't know if I'd call it a "Christian" economic system, but it is compatible with a Christian worldview.

Marxism and all its variations, however, are pretty much the opposite of the Christian worldview.

Marxism assumes that humans are basically good and will do good unless corrupted by want, need, etc. The Christian worldview recognizes humans are born sinful and, unless regenerated by the "new birth" will remain mostly powerless over than inborn nature. The Christian worldview recognizes there needs to be a system of incentives for reward and punishment in an economic system to help keep it as clean as possible in a fallen world.

That system of carrots and sticks includes: prosperity for diligence, good behavior and hard work; poverty for carelessness, irresponsibility and a bad work ethic. It also provides an incentive for the business: success if you provide a good product or service, or your customers go elsewhere if you provide shoddy goods or lousy service.

In a Marxist-based system, both the worker and the business are much more insulated against the negative consequences of bad behavior. In fact, since the "business" is usually state-run or is at least in an incestuous relationship with government, government provides additional insulation from consequences and even accountability. In a free market system, you can appeal to the justice system of a government for redress of grievances; what higher level can you appeal to if government is responsible for the problem?