PDA

View Full Version : Rejecting the USA


Keystone
03-03-2007, 01:52 AM
It's not that hard, really.

Something that began as a Euro landgrab, mixed with fundamentalist Prot whackos, Catholic avarice, chattel slavery.

A tax protest between the rich disguised as a Revolution, a Republic invented by the haves, to control the have-nots.

"Civil War" to keep the Union together, violating the very rules the haves put down at the beginning.

After that, it's a free-for-all for the haves, chipping away at the have-nots through taxation, conscription, wars and general skull-duggery.

The bastards should all be out on their collective asses, leaving folks to fend for themselves. It's come down to this.

Mike
03-03-2007, 06:14 AM
The USA is simply Europe planted on new territory. Its core is English Prot. The importation of Black slaves was a colossal blunder, but other than that, the USA was basically on a good road. It had many good things going for it internally (rule of law, enterprise), especially compared to the colonies of non-English nations. It did not really start going astray until WW1. A lot of that has to do with the Jews and the sudden, unexpected rise of modern psychological science combined with the development of mass broadcast media, and not anything inherently flawed in America.

At any rate, what good will it do us to "reject" the USA? The USA is our country. In due time we must reform the USA. Sound impossible? Well there are still tens of millions of White Americans in existence, and given the right circumstances who knows what is possible in the coming decades.

It's not that hard, really.

Something that began as a Euro landgrab, mixed with fundamentalist Prot whackos, Catholic avarice, chattel slavery.

A tax protest between the rich disguised as a Revolution, a Republic invented by the haves, to control the have-nots.

"Civil War" to keep the Union together, violating the very rules the haves put down at the beginning.

After that, it's a free-for-all for the haves, chipping away at the have-nots through taxation, conscription, wars and general skull-duggery.

The bastards should all be out on their collective asses, leaving folks to fend for themselves. It's come down to this.

Dr. Gutberlet
03-03-2007, 06:49 AM
The best thing to happen to the usa is when it balkanizes into an aztlan nation(southwest), a black nation(south and east), a white nation(midwest and pac northwest), and a mixed jew-run nation(east coast).

omni
03-03-2007, 02:25 PM
The best thing to happen to the usa is when it balkanizes into an aztlan nation(southwest), a black nation(south and east), a white nation(midwest and pac northwest), and a mixed jew-run nation(east coast).

It's probably just going to turn into an outright 3rd world shithole in the more densely populated areas, while the more desolate areas will also change in some other way (I'm not sure how yet)...

It did not really start going astray until WW1. A lot of that has to do with the Jews and the sudden, unexpected rise of modern psychological science combined with the development of mass broadcast media, and not anything inherently flawed in America.


Don't forget how big consumerism and all other forms of escapism got after WW2. Also liberalism has basically allowed everyone to live like a parasite for the foreseeable future.

Don Quixote
03-03-2007, 02:32 PM
The USA is simply Europe planted on new territory.Its not Europe, at all. It was founded in rejection of Europe.

ogenoct
03-03-2007, 02:42 PM
The best thing to happen to the usa is when it balkanizes into an aztlan nation(southwest), a black nation(south and east), a white nation(midwest and pac northwest), and a mixed jew-run nation(east coast).


This would be against the Faustian spirit of the White man. The White man is imperialist by nature, ever striving higher, ever trying to gain more ground where he can stand on and conduct his experiments of domination over nature and himself. The partition of AmeriKa is not an option. The White man must keep and maintain what he created.

Constantin

Burrhus
03-03-2007, 05:40 PM
Its not Europe, at all. It was founded in rejection of Europe.

In the early 1600s America was a THEM not an IT. There were separate colonies founded for different reasons by disparate groups. Even the puritans of Massachusetts and its New England off-shoots were not rejecting Europe but rather the incomplete protestant reformation of Henry and Elizabeth and the ascension to the throne of the catholic Stuarts.

The southern and mid-Atlantic colonies were royal colonies established for purposes of trade and resource acquisition. They were far from a rejection of Europe. They were an English European implantation in the Western Hemishere.

America did not become an IT until after the First War of Southern Secession. An investigation of pre-war literature finds the phrase "the United States of America ARE" to be more common than "the USofA IS".

American rejection of Europe did not begin till the arrival of the massive jewish immigration of the late 19th century followed by the establishment of the Federal Reserve System, Wilsonianism and culminating in Roosevelt's con-job on Churchill during WWII. Even then the relation is better seen as America subsuming Europe in an American hegemony rather than as outright rejection.

I am decended from German, Irish and Greek immigrants. My children are half Flemish and my grandchildren have acquired Polish ancestry (and added German) from my son-in-law. I can assure you that we consider ourselves to be European Americans and do not reject Europe or our heritage.

Historical development may drive America and Europe farther apart but that is not inevitable and would be unfortunate in my opinion. After all, what separates us but a very big lake?

As to the specific topic of this thread: Rejecting the USA, I would ask one question...

Then what?

Dr. Gutberlet
03-03-2007, 08:41 PM
This would be against the Faustian spirit of the White man. The White man is imperialist by nature, ever striving higher, ever trying to gain more ground where he can stand on and conduct his experiments of domination over nature and himself. The partition of AmeriKa is not an option. The White man must keep and maintain what he created.

Constantin

What sane white person is going to take credit for the usa of 2007?!

Don Quixote
03-03-2007, 09:01 PM
In the early 1600s America was a THEM not an IT. There were separate colonies founded for different reasons by disparate groups. Even the puritans of Massachusetts and its New England off-shoots were not rejecting Europe but rather the incomplete protestant reformation of Henry and Elizabeth and the ascension to the throne of the catholic Stuarts.Not quite. Elizabeth was determined that there would be "no preaching " as she called it. This meant she was opposed to the reformation as such. She was an adovacte of what was essentially essentially Catholicism without the Pope. Instead the monarch is the head of the church.
She was deeply hostile to Calvinism and other preacherly movements. James I was also very hostle despite coming from a Calvinist background. The puritans who went to the colonies were largely religious dissidents of a subversive nature. James was delighted to see the back of them and the colonies were a good dumping ground for such politically dangerous elements.
The southern and mid-Atlantic colonies were royal colonies established for purposes of trade and resource acquisition. They were far from a rejection of Europe. They were an English European implantation in the Western Hemishere.The colonists, though, were rejectors of Europe. This all culminated in 1776 when the colonists threw off their colonial staus and established an Enlightenment Lockean Liberal Republic.
American rejection of Europe did not begin till the arrival of the massive jewish immigration of the late 19th century followed by the establishment of the Federal Reserve System, Wilsonianism and culminating in Roosevelt's con-job on Churchill during WWII. Even then the relation is better seen as America subsuming Europe in an American hegemony rather than as outright rejection. My reading of de Toqueville tells a very different story.
I am decended from German, Irish and Greek immigrants. My children are half Flemish and my grandchildren have acquired Polish ancestry (and added German) from my son-in-law. I can assure you that we consider ourselves to be European Americans and do not reject Europe or our heritage. Perhaps not, but we tend to regard you as being very different from us. I regard everything distinctively American as very alien to what I understand as European civilisation. The only connection I see is though Amsterdam and Calvinism in general. Amsterdam was in many ways the hothouse of much that is distinctly American.
Historical development may drive America and Europe farther apart but that is not inevitable and would be unfortunate in my opinion. After all, what separates us but a very big lake? What separates us is something much more than a sea. Rootedness, tradition, blood and earth, strong and distinct ethnic identities, communitarianism, Catholicism is the majority religion and culture of Europe (the reverse of the US), and so on.
As to the specific topic of this thread: Rejecting the USA, I would ask one question...

Then what?That's a real difficulty. I took this to mean rejecting what is distinctly the US - the things that were mentioned in the first post.

I know Americans who have a European sensibility just as I know Europeans who have an American sensibility. Perhaps we should institute an exchange programme?

Cyprian
03-04-2007, 03:03 AM
Its not Europe, at all. It was founded in rejection of Europe.That's simplistic. It was founded in rejection of the old Europe, and quite in accordance with the British and continental reformers. The affinities between the American and French Revolutions are much more than skin-deep. Similarly, the American Revolution was fed on the ideas of John Locke, and was supported by British Liberal-Conservatives like Edmund Burke (whether Burke's support of the American Revolution combined with his opposition to the French was consistent is another question; I tend to think so, but not without tension)

Keystone
03-04-2007, 04:13 AM
As to the specific topic of this thread: Rejecting the USA, I would ask one question...

Then what?
I have no idea. I won't pretend to know. All I do know is that it's broken beyond repair, and it's been a lie from Day One.

Kodos
03-04-2007, 09:24 AM
I have no idea. I won't pretend to know. All I do know is that it's broken beyond repair, and it's been a lie from Day One.

Don't hate the country because you hate the guvmint.

Keystone
03-04-2007, 09:32 AM
Don't hate the country because you hate the guvmint.
I don't hate the people, it's the federal government that's been a lie. All the way through.
The people of the several states are mostly the salt of the earth.

Jake Featherston
03-04-2007, 09:54 AM
The colonists, though, were rejectors of Europe. This all culminated in 1776 when the colonists threw off their colonial staus and established an Enlightenment Lockean Liberal Republic.

Is not John Locke a European? Are not the Enlightenment, liberalism, and republicanism European ideas?

Don Quixote
03-04-2007, 10:04 AM
Is not John Locke a European?No,he was an Englishman. They are committed anti-Europeans
Are not the Enlightenment, liberalism, and republicanism European ideas?To an extent, but they were always conterblanaced in Europe by other forces, in America they had a free hand to develop unchecked.

Richard Parker
03-04-2007, 10:33 AM
Keystone has been pushed over the edge by the diversity having turned his once-quiet neighborhood into a shooting gallery.

I like Keystone and don't blame him. The situation is sad.

Galdr
03-05-2007, 04:25 AM
I am a United States hater I won't lie.

The United States was a great country in the past but it isn't anymore.

Draco
03-05-2007, 09:09 PM
I don't hate the U.S., but I genuinely don't care about it either. It's performed one too many crimes to have a moral justification to exist, and at present is a judeo-capitalist kleptocracy devoid of any meaningful purpose.

The plan for the last few years has been to just ride the tiger and wait it out, and that plan hasn't changed.

Let it collapse and hopefully not take any of my people with it.

Kodos
03-05-2007, 09:14 PM
I am a United States hater I won't lie.

The United States was a great country in the past but it isn't anymore.

We have fallen less then Western Europe has.

Keystone
03-05-2007, 09:37 PM
I don't hate the U.S., but I genuinely don't care about it either. It's performed one too many crimes to have a moral justification to exist, and at present is a judeo-capitalist kleptocracy devoid of any meaningful purpose.
Bingo.

There is no purpose for it. Money-grubbing, maybe. Accepting diversity. Spreadin' freedom.

No. No purpose.
Let it collapse and hopefully not take any of my people with it.
Hi ho, here we go.

Sulla the Dictator
03-05-2007, 10:19 PM
Keystone has been pushed over the edge by the diversity having turned his once-quiet neighborhood into a shooting gallery.

I like Keystone and don't blame him. The situation is sad.

The situation is virtually non-existant.

We're a big country though. We can live with Keystone's disapproval.

Jake Featherston
03-05-2007, 10:25 PM
The situation is virtually non-existant.

Yeah, I guess Newark, Jersey City, Detroit, Brooklyn, The Bronx, Gary, south Chicago, east St. Louis, east Kansas City, Oakland, Compton, East Palo Alto, much of Spokane, Boston's "combat zone," just about anywhere in Florida or Louisiana, Houston (due in so small part to New Orleans refugees), etc., etc., et-fucking-cetera, are just swell places where hardly anyone lives anyway.

Keystone
03-05-2007, 10:27 PM
The situation is virtually non-existant.

http://writingcompany.blogs.com/this_isnt_writing_its_typ/images/baghdad_bob_1.jpg



Sulla, you are a funny guy.

omni
03-05-2007, 10:29 PM
Newark, Jersey City, etc., etc., et-fucking-cetera, are just swell places where hardly anyone lives anyway.

Camden is much worse than either of those cities. I had to work in Camden one day and I wasn't even armed with a box-cutter. Fortunately, I escaped with my wallet and all of my limbs... if I was wearing expensive sneakers and name-brand clothing I probably wouldn't be typing this right now.

Don Quixote
03-05-2007, 10:31 PM
Yeah, I guess Newark, Jersey City, Detroit, Brooklyn, The Bronx, Gary, south Chicago, east St. Louis, east Kansas City, Oakland, Compton, East Palo Alto, much of Spokane, Boston's "combat zone," just about anywhere in Florida or Louisiana, Houston (due in so small part to New Orleans refugees), etc., etc., et-fucking-cetera, are just swell places where hardly anyone lives anyway.As long as the world of the Golden Nugget and gated communities are fine everyone else can get stuffed - that's what sefish individualism is all about, after all.

Sulla the Dictator
03-06-2007, 12:02 AM
Sulla, you are a funny guy.

The only time I can remember a police car in my neighborhood was when a guy threw this chick's stuff out of the house and changed the locks, and she called the cops on him because the house was in her name.

But we're going to focus on what YOUR neighborhood is like, because that allows you to snigger the word 'nigger' with your pal Jake Featherston, a guy who calls Jews to scream his support for lunatics who shoot Jewish kids.

Keystone
03-06-2007, 12:16 AM
The only time I can remember a police car in my neighborhood was when a guy threw this chick's stuff out of the house and changed the locks, and she called the cops on him because the house was in her name.

But we're going to focus on what YOUR neighborhood is like, because that allows you to snigger the word 'nigger' with your pal Jake Featherston, a guy who calls Jews to scream his support for lunatics who shoot Jewish kids.
Why do you constantly do that, Sulla? Like an 8 year old pointing a finger at Joey pissing behind the sofa while an adult is trying to correct them.

The truth is, American black culture is a mess, not only in Pittsburgh, but in hundreds of cities. They have embraced a victim attitude that excuses criminal behavior. It's painfully obvious to those who live amongst them in all their urban glory.

You can't actually believe what you type. I think you get some sort of thrill being contrary.

Sulla the Dictator
03-06-2007, 12:36 AM
Why do you constantly do that, Sulla? Like an 8 year old pointing a finger at Joey pissing behind the sofa while an adult is trying to correct them.

Was that some sort of secret?


The truth is, American black culture is a mess, not only in Pittsburgh, but in hundreds of cities. They have embraced a victim attitude that excuses criminal behavior. It's painfully obvious to those who live amongst them in all their urban glory.


The problems for the black community have to do with complex sociological factors, not race.

Thomas777
03-06-2007, 12:43 AM
The problems for the black community have to do with complex sociological factors, not race.

You're wearing your bleeding-heart liberal hat tonight, eh? It fits you well. Then again, NeoConservatism is nothing but Liberal humanism augmented with sociopathic fetishism for military force.

Keystone
03-06-2007, 12:44 AM
The problems for the black community have to do with complex sociological factors, not race.
I suppose you are stupid, or a long-standing troll.

Tata.

Thomas777
03-06-2007, 12:50 AM
I suppose you are stupid, or a long-standing troll.

Tata.

As an aside, Keystone (or more properly, back to the point of the thread) it disturbs me when I hear you guys trash the USA. I have contempt for the Federal Government, and I resent the hedonism and apathy of a lot of my countrymen, but I'm not going to sit here and pontificate about how awful this country is. By and large, I have a lot of affection and concern for my fellow brethren and this is the only country that I have...I'm not the descendant of Johnny-come-lately immigrants.

One of the reasons why the current regime pains me so much is because I AM patriotic.

I'm not optimistic about the future of the (former) USA, but I think that cooler heads will prevail in certain reigons...and some sembelance of Federalism will be restored. If that in fact occurs, America won't return to the halcyonic days of 1965, but genuine Americans will enjoy pockets of autonomy and prosperity.

Don't let anger and frustration cloud your reasoning.

Keystone
03-06-2007, 01:02 AM
I'm not optimistic about the future of the (former) USA, but I think that cooler heads will prevail in certain reigons...and some sembelance of Federalism will be restored. If that in fact occurs, America won't return to the halcyonic days of 1965, but genuine Americans will enjoy pockets of autonomy and prosperity.

Don't let anger and frustration cloud your reasoning.
The jig's up, Thomas.

The people who thought like 1965 and their descendents are dwindling. We are going bye-bye in 40 years, tops.

Toast.

Kodos
03-06-2007, 01:04 AM
The jig's up, Thomas.

The people who thought like 1965 and their descendents are dwindling. We are going bye-bye in 40 years, tops.

Toast.

Support me for Caesar Keystein.

Hermetic
03-06-2007, 01:08 AM
I like original ideal of what America was to be by men like Bacon, a new Atlantis the founders had that planned, a Nation founded by Free Masons for the rebuilding of the fallen Temple of Humanity into a Golden Age civilization. Where White Men could pursue the Mysteries without a burning at the stake and where a Man could move to any postion based on personal merit. Sadly the Masons who where the descendants of the Noble Templar's where hijacked by jews and went from being a Luciferian Order to a puppet for plutocrats and jewish globalism.

The only American wars I would have fought in would have been the revolution of 1776 and the Indian wars. Prehaps the Civil war, I might have fought for the North because Lincon wanted to ship the blacks home where the South wanted to import more and keep them around. The klan number one was a Masonic organization even the Klan robes are Tradition wizard grab with the Templar insigns. I laugh when I see jebus freaks in a klan robe.

Sulla the Dictator
03-06-2007, 01:09 AM
I suppose you are stupid, or a long-standing troll.


That was a little too complicated for you?

Keystone
03-06-2007, 01:09 AM
Support me for Caesar Keystein.
Only if it's like Deadwood.

Keystone
03-06-2007, 01:25 AM
I like original ideal of what America was to be by men like Bacon, a new Atlantis the founders had that planned, a Nation founded by Free Masons for the rebuilding of the fallen Temple of Humanity into a Golden Age civilization. Where White Men could pursue the Mysteries without a burning at the stake and where a Man could move to any postion based on personal merit. Sadly the Masons who where the descendants of the Noble Templar's where hijacked by jews and went from being a Luciferian Order to a puppet for plutocrats and jewish globalism.

The only American wars I would have fought in would have been the revolution of 1776 and the Indian wars. Prehaps the Civil war, I might have fought for the North because Lincon wanted to ship the blacks home where the South wanted to import more and keep them around. The klan number one was a Masonic organization even the Klan robes are Tradition wizard grab with the Templar insigns. I laugh when I see jebus freaks in a klan robe.
You live in a fantasy world.

Thomas777
03-06-2007, 01:27 AM
You live in a fantasy world.

The question is, which is more fantastical? Vindex's ariosophical musings or Sulla's assertion that Black people do not actually exist? I haven't yet decided...

Keystone
03-06-2007, 01:33 AM
The question is, which is more fantastical? Vindex's ariosophical musings or Sulla's assertion that Black people do not actually exist? I haven't yet decided...
Sulla's would be the most easily dispelled. Dr A's takes a few doobies to argue with. I gave that up a long time ago.

WAM
03-06-2007, 02:28 AM
Sulla's would be the most easily dispelled. Dr A's takes a few doobies to argue with. I gave that up a long time ago.

The Sullas of the world are the same soulless, Yuppie-vapid, selfish, materialistic, sociopathic, power-worshipping peons and parrots and mindless consumers of dreck they've always been.

Anyone insipid enough to actually like Las Vegas is more humanoid than human. The mass of Sullas will spend the rest of their days discussing ballgames and whatever inane tv show is hot at the moment. There's no THERE there with these people. The lights are on but nobody's home.

These people are dead and don't even know it.

Richard Parker
03-06-2007, 02:33 AM
The Sullas of the world are the same soulless, Yuppie-vapid, selfish, materialistic, sociopathic, power-worshipping peons and parrots and mindless consumers of dreck they've always been.

Anyone insipid enough to actually like Las Vegas is more humanoid than human. The mass of Sullas will spend the rest of their days discussing ballgames and whatever inane tv show is hot at the moment. There's no THERE there with these people. The lights are on but nobody's home.

These people are dead and don't even know it.
Sulla has very much of an inner life. He is very well-read in history and other fields.

Jake Featherston
03-06-2007, 08:04 PM
You're wearing your bleeding-heart liberal hat tonight, eh? It fits you well. Then again, NeoConservatism is nothing but Liberal humanism augmented with sociopathic fetishism for military force.

Exactly. Its a merger of the worst, most repugnant aspects of the Democratic Party and the worst, most repugnant aspects of the Republican Party. Its everything wrong with American politics, distilled into one greasy elixir.

Sulla the Dictator
03-06-2007, 08:29 PM
You're wearing your bleeding-heart liberal hat tonight, eh? It fits you well. Then again, NeoConservatism is nothing but Liberal humanism augmented with sociopathic fetishism for military force.

LOL So as a lawyer, you don't believe in sociological causes of crime, eh? Thats interesting.

Recently there was a case where two black toddlers were being given pot by their idiot 17 year old uncle. I suppose that you conclude those toddlers were BIOLOGICALLY drawn to the drug, rather than emulating a familial male role model.

The Phora is the only place where the terms are devised as such. I mean, this is the only place in human history where Conservatism has been so laughably defined as meaning purely "despising black people".

Its always been a bit bigger than that.

Draco
03-06-2007, 09:37 PM
Yeah, I guess Newark, Jersey City, Detroit, Brooklyn, The Bronx, Gary, south Chicago, east St. Louis, east Kansas City, Oakland, Compton, East Palo Alto, much of Spokane, Boston's "combat zone," just about anywhere in Florida or Louisiana, Houston (due in so small part to New Orleans refugees), etc., etc., et-fucking-cetera, are just swell places where hardly anyone lives anyway.

Not to mention actual non-whites may be physically present, which an egalitarian could never tolerate outside of the odd house nigger they "feel safe" around. :)

And isn't Sulla some hokey real estate agent or something? I would assume any area with a median home value of less than 400k would keep him away like Freaknik would.

Galdr
03-07-2007, 03:14 AM
We have fallen less then Western Europe has.

Debateable.

Sulla the Dictator
03-07-2007, 03:49 AM
Not to mention actual non-whites may be physically present, which an egalitarian could never tolerate outside of the odd house nigger they "feel safe" around. :)

And isn't Sulla some hokey real estate agent or something? I would assume any area with a median home value of less than 400k would keep him away like Freaknik would.

You aren't very bright. That has to be a handicap on a medium like this, no?

Kodos
03-07-2007, 03:53 AM
LOL So as a lawyer, you don't believe in sociological causes of crime, eh? Thats interesting.

Recently there was a case where two black toddlers were being given pot by their idiot 17 year old uncle. I suppose that you conclude those toddlers were BIOLOGICALLY drawn to the drug, rather than emulating a familial male role model.

The Phora is the only place where the terms are devised as such. I mean, this is the only place in human history where Conservatism has been so laughably defined as meaning purely "despising black people".

Its always been a bit bigger than that.

I don't define it that way.

Im a reactionary on practically everything.

Thomas777
03-07-2007, 03:57 AM
LOL So as a lawyer, you don't believe in sociological causes of crime, eh? Thats interesting.


Well, as Richard Dawkins and Edward O. Wilson have been pointing out for the past 30 years, 'sociology' has been rendered obsolete by advances in genetic science, and attendant understanding of the human genome.

If you believe in 'sociology', you might as well also believe in ghosts, tarot cards, alchemy, and fortune telling.

Boleslaw
03-07-2007, 11:24 PM
Some here may remember the days when I was into America-bashing. Although I still despise American decadence, I dont consider myself anti-American in toto.

In fact Ive taken numerous America-bashers head on in various discussions, especially those from Europe. Not that Im anti-Europe, far from it, but I do find it ironic for Europeans to whine about American pop culture when European pop culture is just as degenerate(if not more). In other words they're hypocrites.

Overall I find Europe vs. America piss contests pointless. I have as little patience for American Euro-bashers as well.

Sulla the Dictator
03-07-2007, 11:25 PM
Well, as Richard Dawkins and Edward O. Wilson have been pointing out for the past 30 years, 'sociology' has been rendered obsolete by advances in genetic science, and attendant understanding of the human genome.

If you believe in 'sociology', you might as well also believe in ghosts, tarot cards, alchemy, and fortune telling.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Yeah, same thing.

Boleslaw
03-07-2007, 11:26 PM
Well, as Richard Dawkins and Edward O. Wilson have been pointing out for the past 30 years, 'sociology' has been rendered obsolete by advances in genetic science, and attendant understanding of the human genome.

As usual, they're full of shit. Sociology, or anyother social science for that matter, has not been rendered obsolete; except in the minds of Genetic determinists.

Thomas777
03-07-2007, 11:29 PM
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Yeah, same thing.

'Sociology' is a Neo-Lysenkoist academic discipline that asserts claims that are not substantiated by evidence. This anti-methodology is not any different than that employed by people who claim that supernatural phenomena is at work in the world. Both proponents assert claims without proffering any substantiating evidence.

Boleslaw
03-07-2007, 11:29 PM
To an extent, but they were always conterblanaced in Europe by other forces, in America they had a free hand to develop unchecked.

What about the Southern Tradition? Even many European intellectuals, like Spengler as one example, held it in high regard. The notion that America lacks a true Traditionalist heritage is BS.

Thomas777
03-07-2007, 11:31 PM
As usual, they're full of shit. Sociology, or anyother social science for that matter, has not been rendered obsolete; except in the minds of Genetic determinists.

Was Noam Chomsky 'full of shit' when he proferred evidence of universal grammar to refute Foucalt's claim that all social behavior is learned?

Sulla the Dictator
03-07-2007, 11:32 PM
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Yeah, same thing.

BTW, please quote Richard Dawkins on that.

Sulla the Dictator
03-07-2007, 11:33 PM
'Sociology' is a Neo-Lysenkoist academic discipline that asserts claims that are not substantiated by evidence.


Actually it illustrates social trends using statistics. Is statistical observation anti-methodological?

Sulla the Dictator
03-07-2007, 11:34 PM
Was Noam Chomsky 'full of shit' when he proferred evidence of universal grammar to refute Foucalt's claim that all social behavior is learned?

LOL How does that invalidate sociology?

Boleslaw
03-07-2007, 11:39 PM
Was Noam Chomsky 'full of shit' when he proferred evidence of universal grammar to refute Foucalt's claim that all social behavior is learned?

Considering Im not a fan of Noam Chomsky and have never read any of his works, I can't comment on that specifically. Although it's not like there hasnt been critical reviews of Chomsky's theories, I've come across a few of them now and then.

Either way, you're just setting up a strawman. Sociology does not dictate that all social behavior is learned. Sociology is far more complex than that, far more than Dawkins can possibly imagine. Just like how he fails to grasp the complexity of religion. Which goes to shows how much he's full of shit.

In fact the big question sociologists investigate is exactly how much of human behavior is learned, and how much of it is inherited. There are sociologists on both sides of the barricades, and even some who sit on the fence.

Boleslaw
03-07-2007, 11:40 PM
LOL How does that invalidate sociology?
It doesnt. At best, it invalidates one sociological theory, which is far from invalidating an entire field of study.

Sulla the Dictator
03-07-2007, 11:45 PM
It doesnt. At best, it invalidates one sociological theory, which is far from invalidating an entire field of study.

Ha ha, yes, but I was trying to trap Thomas. :p

Thomas777
03-07-2007, 11:46 PM
BTW, please quote Richard Dawkins on that.

I suggest you read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins and On Human Nature by Edward O. Wilson. Before the Dawn by Nicholas Wade is worth a look as well, as is Race and Human Evolution by Milford Wolpoff. All of these texts provide ample evidence to substantiate the heritability of human behavior traits.

Sulla the Dictator
03-07-2007, 11:47 PM
I suggest you read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins and On Human Nature by Edward O. Wilson. Before the Dawn by Nicholas Wade is worth a look as well, as is Race and Human Evolution by Milford Wolpoff. All of these texts provide ample evidence to substantiate the heritability of human behavior traits.

If you've read them, perhaps it would be simpler if you would just quote where he says that sociology is obsolete. Akin to tarot card reading or crystal balls or entrail reading.

Thomas777
03-07-2007, 11:47 PM
Actually it illustrates social trends using statistics. Is statistical observation anti-methodological?

It documents trends and proceeds to speculate as the root causes of the catalogued phenomenon without proffering evidence. (i.e. 'Blacks are disproportionately represented in the penal system on account of "racism").

Sulla the Dictator
03-07-2007, 11:48 PM
Also, I would like to know how use of statistical analysis makes for poor methodology.

Thomas777
03-07-2007, 11:49 PM
If you've read them, perhaps it would be simpler if you would just quote where he says that sociology is obsolete. Akin to tarot card reading or crystal balls or entrail reading.


Thomas777 made the tarot card analogy, Sulla. Dawkins proffered a compelling thesis about heritability and natural selection.

All of the works that I referenced refute tabula rasa Sociology.

Thomas777
03-07-2007, 11:51 PM
Also, I would like to know how use of statistical analysis makes for poor methodology.

Documenting trends and proffering theses about the root causes of the documented trends that are not substantiated by evidence is poor methodology.

For example, it would be poor methodology if I documented the fact that Los Angeles county has poor air quality, and then I proceeded to claim that LA air quality is poor because most people in LA are not practicing Methodists.

Boleslaw
03-07-2007, 11:56 PM
All of the works that I referenced refute tabula rasa Sociology.

That's still far from refuting sociology in toto, which you earlier claimed.

Thomas777
03-08-2007, 12:00 AM
That's still far from refuting sociology in toto, which you earlier claimed.

Sociology eschews science in favor of speculation. Wilson is heralded as 'the father of sociobiology' because developing understanding of the role of genes in human behavioral phenotypes rendered speculative sociology obsolete.

Claiming that 'sociology' is still a viable enterprise is like claiming that Lamarckian theory is superior to Darwinian theory, or attempting to talk about heritability while only citing pre-Mendelian scholarship.

Sulla the Dictator
03-08-2007, 12:20 AM
It documents trends and proceeds to speculate as the root causes of the catalogued phenomenon without proffering evidence.
(i.e. 'Blacks are disproportionately represented in the penal system on account of "racism").

LOL Actually thats not the case. It identifies statistical trends, and measures the ebb and flow of these figures in relation to each other and then presents a VARIETY of causes as reasons which are measurable and observable. And in fact, your 'example' is a PARODY of a hypothesis put forth by certain sociologists.

Thats not a legitimate critique.

To reject the IDEA of measuring social trends with statistics would be saying, more or less, that you disbelieve in motive.

Do you as a lawyer disbelieve in motive?

Sulla the Dictator
03-08-2007, 12:25 AM
Thomas777 made the tarot card analogy, Sulla. Dawkins proffered a compelling thesis about heritability and natural selection.

All of the works that I referenced refute tabula rasa Sociology.

Interesting. So then we can discard ideas like functional analysis, which posits that social institutions came about to address biological and social needs. That is NO LONGER TRUE. That has been made obsolete by Richard Dawkins, God Slayer. Also, functionalism's observation that society is made up of seperate parts working towards stability is akin to reading palms.

Sulla the Dictator
03-08-2007, 12:27 AM
Sociology eschews science in favor of speculation.


I see the problem here. You are regurgitating the differences between social and hard sciences and then ONLY applying these differences to sociology.

I'm dying to hear how history, anthropology, and psychology meet mystical requirements that sociology does not.


Claiming that 'sociology' is still a viable enterprise is like claiming that Lamarckian theory is superior to Darwinian theory, or attempting to talk about heritability while only citing pre-Mendelian scholarship.

:rofl:

Not quite.

Petr
03-08-2007, 12:30 AM
Wilson is heralded as 'the father of sociobiology' because developing understanding of the role of genes in human behavioral phenotypes rendered speculative sociology obsolete.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolutionary-psychology-this-is-a-discipline/


20 January 2007

Evolutionary Psychology: This is a … discipline?

O'Leary


I have been meaning for some time to set down my reasons for thinking that evolutionary psychology is only questionably a discipline. At least seven reasons occur to me (actually more, but these seven are top of mind):


1. There is no actual “subject” for the research. The subject of evolutionary psychology is a hypothetical construct: “early humans,” whose genes are thought to survive in modern humans and govern our behaviour. But these early humans have not existed for at least a hundred thousand years, so their behaviour can never be directly tested. It reminds me of the problem with the biology of extraterrestrial life forms - a discipline without a subject, as Simpson noted.

2. It is pure conjecture that given common types of behaviour are somehow inherited from early humans. In most cases, a simpler, more obvious explanation is readily available. For example, an evolutionary psychologist might argue that a woman doesn’t want her man to cheat because he might produce children with another woman and thus prevent her from passing on her selfish genes. But such an explanation defies Occam’s Razor (the simplest explanation is best). Obviously, she does not want her man to cheat because she does not want attention directed at another woman that could be going to her. Whether she is - or ever will be - infanticipating is irrelevant to her and - for that matter - irrelevant to her genes. She would feel the same way if she were 17 or 70. It is hard to imagine a state of human or proto-human life in which things could have been any different.

3. We have no way of knowing precisely what behaviours - beyond the most obvious, like avoidance of suicide and infanticide - helped early humans survive and procreate. One hundred thousand years ago, was it better to be faithful? Unfaithful? Pious? Impious? Daring? Sneaky? Jealous? Prone to violence? Placid? Well, it takes no very great experience of life to see that almost any type of non-suicidal behaviour may be rewarded under a given circumstance. The critical thing that we do not know is exactly how those specific humans who became our ancestors behaved. We also do not know if their behaviour could be passed it on to us by some sort of irrevocable gene - but it seems unlikely.

4. The actual number of common human ancestors is widely regarded as small. This is a much bigger problem than some sources are willing to admit. If the actual number of human ancestors had been large - the majority of humans who lived 100 000 years ago, let us say - we might make do with a sort of “group psychology.” Sloppy but at least barely possible. That is, we could say that the behaviour of the majority probably helped survival and that it is tracked in the similar behaviour of the majority today. But the actual number is quite small in comparison with the numbers who have ever lived. Our chances of determining how those few individuals came to be ancestors is accordingly reduced.

5. Lack of an obvious mechanism. If there were truly a gene for infidelity, for example, maybe Francis Collins or Craig Venter could find it - and people contemplating marriage might wisely insist that prospective spouses get tested. Then the media would be full of angst about all that. But all we hear is vague talk about behaviour that supposedly spread selfish genes among early humans, and allegedly governs our behaviour today. If there was anything in it, someone would have a patent right now, and governments would be bringing in legislation against it.

6. Oh, and don’t get me started on the meme nonsense. Undeterred by the lack of genetic evidence, the evo psychos began to claim that there was an abstract equivalent of the gene, the “meme” that governs thoughts. No one has ever detected one, and the word meme has simply become a way of referring to ideas that one feels superior to. We used to call them “intellectual fads”, but I admit that “meme” is shorter’.

7. Some human behaviour does seem to stem from specific inherited tendencies, but - significantly - that isn’t the sort of behaviour that tends to interest the evolutionary psychologist. Humans are predominantly right-handed, for example, rather than left-handed. It would be interesting to know why. I am told that chimpanzees, by contrast, show a preference for one hand, but it could be either one. One outcome of the predominant human inheritance of right-handedness is that “right” vs. “left” inevitably acquires a cultural value (essentially good vs. bad). In some cultures, you just cannot be left-handed, period - even if attempts to make you right-handed result in a speech impediment (because they may interfere with speech areas of the brain).

Another probable genetic endowment is the human preference for warm climates. It is common to hear people freak out about overpopulation. As a Canadian, I have long advocated a simple answer: Move the excess human population to northern Canada. We need more people. The only problem is, they won’t GO! There’s lots of space up there, but few people seem to want it. If you want to know why, check a hardiness zone map. The fact is, humans would rather be poor and crowded in a warm place than huddled over a heater with two hundred kilometres of frigid, empty space around them - and ten thousand bucks in a bank somewhere. Of course, the fact that we don’t have a lot of body hair or fat under our skin or antifreeze in our joints probably has something to do with our prejudice against frigid climates …

In other words, there are verifiable human tendencies that can plausibly be traced to our genetic endowments. The problem is that these tendencies tell you only that our obvious, demonstrable genetic endowments have far-reaching consequences. They don’t particularly support theories that show that humans are just animals with big brains, which is the real agenda of Darwinism. So the evolutionary psychologist is generally not interested in this stuff, however significant it might be in interpreting human culture and history. No, the big prize is the nebulous stuff, like why Ned Flanders got religion and Homer Simpson didn’t - postulated as caused by a selfish gene, inherited because it “would have helped an early human ancestor find a mate.” Or maybe it didn’t … maybe it was a rogue gene that just happened to survive! Yeah really.

...

Thomas777
03-08-2007, 12:37 AM
LOL Actually thats not the case. It identifies statistical trends, and measures the ebb and flow of these figures in relation to each other and then presents a VARIETY of causes as reasons which are measurable and observable.
It doesn't account for biological bases of human social behavior yet it posits theories about the causes of human social behavior. Hence, its not credible.
And in fact, your 'example' is a PARODY of a hypothesis put forth by certain sociologists.
See above.

Thats not a legitimate critique.
False.

To reject the IDEA of measuring social trends with statistics would be saying, more or less, that you disbelieve in motive.
Statistical data, in and of itself, doesn't prove or disprove claims. That is why its inadmissible in court. Its a perfectly appropriate methodological tool, but theories that purport to interpret the significance of statistical data must be substantiated by evidence. Speculation is insufficient.


Do you as a lawyer disbelieve in motive?

Irrelevant and outside the scope.

Thomas777
03-08-2007, 12:43 AM
I see the problem here. You are regurgitating the differences between social and hard sciences and then ONLY applying these differences to sociology.
That is incorrect. Political Science, for example, remains a viable discipline because it incorporates disciplines such as economic theory, military science, and game theory into its analytical frameworks in order to predict state behavior, commercial trends, and the probable outcomes of military contests. It doesn't arbitrarily ignore large bodies of evidence and substitute appropriate methodology in favor of politically-motivated speculation.

I'm dying to hear how history, anthropology, and psychology meet mystical requirements that sociology does not.
Well, history and anthropology do not purposefully ignore scientific data. Psychology on the other hand is obsolete junk science, and it has been supplanted by Neuroscience.




:rofl:

With Sociology, everybody gets a smiley face!

Sulla the Dictator
03-08-2007, 12:48 AM
It doesn't account for biological bases of human social behavior yet it posits theories about the causes of human social behavior. Hence, its not credible.


It isn't a biological science. Its not SUPPOSED to identify biological causes of behavior (Mystical, unknown, and SPECULATIVE as they are). Its supposed to identify social causes for behavior. To deny sociology is to say that there are no social causes for behavior.

Is that ACTUALLY your position?


Statistical data, in and of itself, doesn't prove or disprove claims. That is why its inadmissible in court.


Actually statistical data does prove trends. Repeatable and testable figures. That is scientific.


Its a perfectly appropriate methodological tool, but theories that purport to interpret the significance of statistical data must be substantiated by evidence. Speculation is insufficient.


Sociology is a social science. It has no obligation to meet a standard any other social science doesn't. Your objection doesn't pass the smell test in that you haven't been able to show how history is 'obsolete palm reading' for the same 'shortcomings' that sociology supposedly suffers from.

If I take 10 Thomas 777s, 5 raised in poverty and abused by adults, and 5 Thomas777s who aren't and watch them grow over 18 years, it is valid for me to analyze where they end up. It is valid for me to chart their development. Its then of value for me to measure the experiences of these ten people.

So then I take my data to a prison and see how many of the people there share the experiences of the 10 Thomas777s. If the data shows that the overwhelming majority share the experience of the impoverished and abused 5, and my statistical sample is large enough, then I publish.

And there is absolutely nothing 'speculative' about it. Thats what sociology ACTUALLY is.


Irrelevant and outside the scope.

Is povery a real motive for threat or is there a 'stealing gene'?

Thomas777
03-08-2007, 01:01 AM
It isn't a biological science. Its not SUPPOSED to identify biological causes of behavior (Mystical, unknown, and SPECULATIVE as they are).
It is supposed to identify bases of human behavior. Biology is determinative of human behavior and this has been proven. Hence, sociology eschews known causal variables in order to construct different causes that are not substantiated by evidence.

Its supposed to identify social causes for behavior. To deny sociology is to say that there are no social causes for behavior.
'Social causes' are expressions of biological propensities.


Is that ACTUALLY your position?

Yes.

Actually statistical data does prove trends. Repeatable and testable figures. That is scientific.
Statistical data proves trends and does not, in and of itself, establish causation. This is not in controversey.



Sociology is a social science. It has no obligation to meet a standard any other social science doesn't.
It has an obligation to prove its claims based upon evidence that is consistent with known scientific facts. It has an obligation to not ignore scientific facts in the crafting of causal theories.
Your objection doesn't pass the smell test in that you haven't been able to show how history is 'obsolete palm reading' for the same 'shortcomings' that sociology supposedly suffers from.
See my other post.

If I take 10 Thomas 777s, 5 raised in poverty and abused by adults, and 5 Thomas777s who aren't and watch them grow over 18 years, it is valid for me to analyze where they end up. It is valid for me to chart their development. Its then of value for me to measure the experiences of these ten people.
That is correct. The best way to understand why any given Thomas does what he does and acts how he acts is to map his familial genotype. My doppelgangers who are mired in poverty and subjected to consistent abuse are probably people of low intelligence, who are prone to substance abuse, and lack impulse control and the ability for long-term, conceptual sorts of thought. Their sorry station in life would probably be due in large part to their inherited genetic deficiencies...the same deficiencies that caused their parents to be violent, ill-tempered, unintelligent, and mired in relative poverty.

So then I take my data to a prison and see how many of the people there share the experiences of the 10 Thomas777s. If the data shows that the overwhelming majority share the experience of the impoverished and abused 5, and my statistical sample is large enough, then I publish.
However, if you were a sociologist, you would not be able to adequately explain the bases for these anti-social behaviors.





Is povery a real motive for threat or is there a 'stealing gene'?

Various genes control for impulsiveness, temperment, intelligence, altruism and the like. These behavior traits have a strong influence on whether or not people respect the rights of others and obey the law consistently.

Petr
03-08-2007, 01:05 AM
Not that Im anti-Europe, far from it, but I do find it ironic for Europeans to whine about American pop culture when European pop culture is just as degenerate(if not more). In other words they're hypocrites.

Overall I find Europe vs. America piss contests pointless. I have as little patience for American Euro-bashers as well.
Preach on, brother!


Petr

Boleslaw
03-08-2007, 01:18 AM
I preach, but few listen. He who hungers for truth hears my voice. Yet as you can imagine, few will ever hear even that call.

Helios Panoptes
03-08-2007, 04:51 PM
2. It is pure conjecture that given common types of behaviour are somehow inherited from early humans. In most cases, a simpler, more obvious explanation is readily available. For example, an evolutionary psychologist might argue that a woman doesn’t want her man to cheat because he might produce children with another woman and thus prevent her from passing on her selfish genes. But such an explanation defies Occam’s Razor (the simplest explanation is best). Obviously, she does not want her man to cheat because she does not want attention directed at another woman that could be going to her. Whether she is - or ever will be - infanticipating is irrelevant to her and - for that matter - irrelevant to her genes. She would feel the same way if she were 17 or 70. It is hard to imagine a state of human or proto-human life in which things could have been any different.

I'd be inclined to agree, but that isn't the thesis that is advanced by evolutionary psychologists. EP predicts that women will be less concerned about sex with another woman than the formation of a close emotional bond, whereas it will the opposite for men. The reason for this is because the greatest risk to the male is said to be cuckoldry and for the female it is desertion. Research has been performed to test this hypothesis by measuring levels of anxiety in response to the suggestion that one's significant other is having sex or forming a close emotional tie outside of the relationship, and men were found to be more anxious over the sexual aspect, whereas women over the emotional.

Helios Panoptes
03-08-2007, 04:51 PM
I preach, but few listen. He who hungers for truth hears my voice. Yet as you can imagine, few will ever hear even that call.

Get over yourself, man.

Boleslaw
03-08-2007, 05:45 PM
Go to Hell!

Starr
03-08-2007, 06:23 PM
We're a big country though. We can live with Keystone's disapproval.


How about large numbers of Keystones? Does he strike you as someone who is or has been for a long time an "extremist" type? Or a regular white guy who has become fed up with the direction or society has taken? Keystone may very well be representative of the silent majority.

I reject the U.S. as it is today, not as it was. Was it perfect? no, of couse not. Is any society?

Professor John Frink
03-08-2007, 10:57 PM
I'd be inclined to agree, but that isn't the thesis that is advanced by evolutionary psychologists. EP predicts that women will be less concerned about sex with another woman than the formation of a close emotional bond, whereas it will the opposite for men. The reason for this is because the greatest risk to the male is said to be cuckoldry and for the female it is desertion. Research has been performed to test this hypothesis by measuring levels of anxiety in response to the suggestion that one's significant other is having sex or forming a close emotional tie outside of the relationship, and men were found to be more anxious over the sexual aspect, whereas women over the emotional.

The evidence is in line with the assumptions of EP.

Men are primarily scared of the prospect of raising another man's child because they can't ever be 100% sure that they're raising their own offspring. A good strategy is to monitor their partner's sexual behaviour and making sure that she isn't having sex with other men.

Women OTOH are afraid that a man would emotionally bond with another female and contribute fewer or even no resources to herself and her child, which would dramatically lower her and her offspring's quality of life (and chances for survival for that matter).