/lit/ - Literature

By sucking cock son.

But seriously, other than sucking cock, teaching or some sort of foundation/government job. If you're really good, research.

Now go out into the world and start sucking cock, competition be fierce yo.

you weren't before so why are you asking now

If you aren't at a top tier school your ass better get ready for grad school at one.

>>4262451
Basically this, but where I live the most common place you'll end up is in research.

Eh, who fucking cares. You'll graduate, spend years in debt, and become a sort of conscientious white guy who drinks IPAs and drives a shitty car. It's better than your current life, probably.

Whats the best way to get into research?

>>4262468
Being good at it, writing meaningful papers and articles, doing groundbreaking work and kissing the right asses.

>>4262468
What is your area of interest? What made you decide to switch into sociology? Start to think about and square in on a few niches in the field and read all the literature you can about them in your free time.

OP here. so on average how much cock would I need to suck to get into a research position at Amherst or Berkeley? Im scared......

I was always interested in the political spectrum and institutional spectrum of sociology. I found that history was lacking certain understandings compared to sociology.

>>4262495
Focus on doing well first you nigger. Sucking cock is just a back up plan to which unfortunately (heh) a lot of Sociology majors have to fall back to.

>>4262495
you're not a fag? what? mind=blown

>16 year old sister
>takes a course in sociology
>expects to learn about the social structure of society, etc.
>play a video in lesson, some dyke saying "all men are bastards"

she dropped that course not long after.

based sister being impervious to feminist bullshit.

>>4262553
le manchild face

>>4262566
What, because I despise feminism that means I don't like or that I'm not liked by females? I've always had good relationships with women. I respect women who respect themselves, and feminists are self-loathing troublemakers acting-out because their fathers did not love them enough.

>>4262553
Implying sociology just teaches hardcore feminist principles

I'm taking the political and institutional spectrum of it fag lord.

>>4262575
Yeah, it also teaches the Marxist principles of envying the wealth of others.

>>4262574
>>4262581
you sound like an insufferable moron

>>4262581
>the Marxist principles of envying the wealth of others.

Oh great, here comes the Libertarian internet defense force. Go back to your containment board.

>>4262581
" ahhhhh socialism !!!!!! Mommy mommy the scary poor men are gonna eat tonight. Wasn't Reagan gonna stomp on the dirty bad men?!"

Go suck your neo liberal cock

>>4262586
>>4262587
>>4262592

>responding to an obvious troll

>>4262587
I'm not Libertarian. I despise Marx and his offspring.
>>4262592
Socialism just means a strong central bank, i.e. more economic tyranny than there is in corporate capitalism. All of the socialist nations in history up to this point are proof of this.

>>4262597
Ya..... Because there aren't any libertarians in lit.

>>4262601
Socialism means democratic ownership of the means of production. You obviously know nothing about socialism now go back to your fox news.

>>4262592
>UH-OH, SOMEONE I DON'T LIKE! Gotta resort to name-calling!!!!!!
Socialists, ladies and gentlemen. Marx would be so proud.

>>4262612
Look m8. I was a socialist when I first came into contact with Marx. Marx was clever, and his writing does have a certain fire to it. That said, Marx has had such a baneful influence on history that it's unreal. It's downright irresponsible these days to still uphold Marx as a prophet morally or economically. I'm English, I didn't grow up in a Republican American household. My parents are historically Labour voters who are the more "socialist" of the two main parties in the UK.
Marx spiritually is defined by envy, spite, hatred and a twisted messianism. Many Marxists STILL believe in "The Revolution" that is to usher in a golden age. But this is the true fate of every such revolution: "The slave begins by demanding justice and ends by wanting to wear a crown."
Do you know that Marxism has been funded by rich bankers since its inception? The bankers love socialism/communism! It means giving them absolute control.

>>4262632
>Marx spiritually is defined by envy, spite, hatred and a twisted messianism

By morons like you?

>>4262632
>I didn't grow up in a Republican American household
Don't tell them that. In their minds, everyone who disagrees with them is a stupid redneck Republican /pol/tard from the American Midwest. It helps them feel better about themselves.

>>4262637

By anyone who wants a piece of what the rich got.

>>4262637
By anybody that's read him. His hatred for the "Bourgeoisie" is astounding. Read Moliere's depiction of the Bourgeois man a couple of centuries earlier --- there the Bourgeois is represented as he truly is, which is an ignorant laughingstock, a plebeian fool with money. Moliere makes light of him, Marx loathes him with deadly spite.

>>4262632
>>4262641
what makes you think Marx was like this? He was private school educated and came from an affluent background.

>>4262632
Did you know there are many types of socialism. Market socialism, democratic socialism. I dislike revolutionaries too. But to say that the rich support communist doctrine is idiotic at the least. Calling a state beuricratic system communist is malarkey.
If you were to read up on
Howard zinn
Richard Wolff
Chomsky
David Harvey
You would know the fucking difference.
Uneducated people cannot argue against it. You sound like 12 century priest suggesting capitalism is impossible.

Learn some basic coding and get in the tech field. Most brats that work at start-ups are soc/poli/lit/art majors anyway.

I mean fuck, I'm getting my masters in poli sci and I'm working at a shitty hipster start-up that sells shitty apps to solve yuppie problems.

Get in any humanities = Develop a seething hate for everything in the world.

>>4262651
>beuricratic
An educated /lit/izen indeed.

>>4262632
Did you know there are many types of socialism. Market socialism, democratic socialism. I dislike revolutionaries too. But to say that the rich support communist doctrine is idiotic at the least. Calling a state beuricratic system communist is malarkey. >>4262662
Oh fuck off it was a mistake and thus far your only argument against me is in my spelling. You have no argument!
If you were to read up on
Howard zinn
Richard Wolff
Chomsky
David Harvey
You would know the fucking difference.
Uneducated people cannot argue against it. You sound like 12 century priest suggesting capitalism is impossible.

>>4262467
this is one of the most honest posts i have seen in a while

>>4262651
The biggest bane to the economic life of the world at the minute is the existence of central banks who make people pay interest on everything. Did you know that in the first 200 years of the USA's history there was NO inflation? Then in the early 1900s the "Federal Reserve Bank" was created, which is a PRIVATE (not state owned bank) which prints money for the US government and makes the US government pay back the bank WITH INTEREST, and that money comes from the taxpayer. This is what creates inflation. These central banks are everywhere in the world. They amount to the robbing of the working man. The working man is enslaved to the banks who have the governments in their thrall.
This is the main enemy, not "capitalism".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfEBupAeo4

I do have sympathy with the hatred for mercantile values, the idea that the ability to make money is the greatest of virtues and that the greatest goal in the life is to be wealthy. There is no moral system more repugnant than this. I despise the morals of Ayn Rand and the neoconservatives. In this sense I am aligned with the Marxists, but after that we are sharply divided --- because whereas I seek my values in religion and philosophy they look to little political movements like the LGBT movement, the feminist movement, etc., where each little community demands its own value system to be respected, the rest of society be damned. I'm a "traditionalist" or conservative in this sense.

>>4262683
As Orwell was. You can fix the problem stated above by disbanding private corporations especially the federal reserve. I find it absurd that such a private system that wields that much power is even able to flourish under a democratic system. It's corporatism and it will be the death of us!

>>4262648

muh oppression
muh class struggle
muh privilege

>>4262708
What is this 'muh'-thing I keep seeing? Is this a /pol/-gag or just some general pop-cultural reference that is beyond me?

>>4262721

Yes, it's a /pol/ tactic. It just means he has nothing left to add to the argument.

Back to stomfront, sparky!

>>4262721
It's from /pol/ used by white privileged youth who have Ayn Rand on their summer reading list. Who frequent the neo nazi website storm front.

>>4262683
>they look to little political movements like the LGBT movement, the feminist movement, etc

I think you mean to say that those 'movements' appropriated some Marxists ideals. Marx would probably be spinning in his grave fast enough to generate his own gravity field if he ever knew how misinterpreted and manipulated his ideas have been in recent years.

>>4262721

Dialectical materialism reduces history and thus humanity to a history of class struggle. He seeks to rectify the errors of history by redistributing wealth and the means of production, making everyone economically equal. While this is a powerful interpretive method, it does assume that wealth is in itself valuable and he indeed raises it to the highest value. The whole ordeal is founded on blind love of mammon and jealousy toward the comfort that the rich enjoy. That is end. He can speak of nothing immaterial. Marx is largely responsible for the vacuity of our age.

Avoid cliches like the plague.

>>4262632
>you know that Marxism has been funded by rich bankers since its inception? The bankers love socialism/communism! It means giving them absolute control.

Go to bed Alex Jones

>>4262749
/pol/ here. I was under the impression that /lit/ didn't understand this.

Good for you guys!!

>>4262779
I cringed

>>4262749
>The whole ordeal is founded on blind love of mammon and jealousy toward the comfort that the rich enjoy. That is end. He can speak of nothing immaterial. Marx is largely responsible for the vacuity of our age.

No, its founded on the idea that post-scarcity everyone could enjoy a comfortable material existence. I don't see what spirituality has to do with this, in fact it seems like we could have a more spiritual, less materialist world if we were Marxist. But I really don't think you understand what you're talking about. The TV, for example, is way more responsible for cultural vacuity.

I can't imagine majoring in Sociology. I was required to take several classes in the Humanities, including a couple of Sociology classes, and they were intensely, intensely boring.

>>4262817
Agreed
People must understand the historical context of material wealth/ production and value. Marx was in no way pressing for Neolithic conditions. He believed production would get to a point that all of the people's need would be served and hence they could have time in the day to build their individual.

People trying to discredit Marx with loaded bullshit.

>>4262467
>>4262467
>>4262467
>>4262467

>>4262779
Yeah a whole board dedicated to " ironic" shit posting. You guys must definitely be the cream of the intellectual crop. Fucking morons

>>4262826
To each man his own.

>>4262749

If you knew anything about Marx's work, you would know that redistributive methods are fundamentally bourgeois, and ultimately nothing more than temporary reforms - the problems of capitalism remain. The means of production themselves are not redistributed, but (in Marx's vision) relegated to the management of the workers and the collective ownership of society.

This does not have the immediate effect of making everyone economically equal, but begins a period of transition from generalized commodity production to socialized production for use (communism). Every era has a period of transition from old economic relations to new, viz. feudalism to capitalism. It is not expected to be some instantaneous answer to some perceived historical 'wrong'.

The critique of capitalism by Marx is that capitalism, once revolutionary itself, has since lost its revolutionary potential, and now it doomed to an eternal cycle stagnation, boom, decline, and crisis. The forces that necessitate these crises - the accumulation of capital, overproduction, mass poverty as a consequence of unemployment (the result of increasing efficiency of machines, and so the cheapness of labor-power) - are intrinsic to the capitalist system. The inevitable result is famine and war, and so the old battle-cry; "Socialism of barbarism."

The crisis of capitalism is the moment of revolution. It is in this moment that revolutionary change, the march towards communism, can begin. This is not to say that it *will* or *must*. The proletariat, however, more or less consciously *must* pursue this end due to fundamental friction between their own class and the class of capitalists.

As for your pseudo-intellectual babbling about 'mammon and jealousy' and your thinly veiled religious jingoism, I find it ironic that accuse others of 'vacuity'.

>>4262817

I speak of the death of God where comfort and materiality supersedes any form of struggle toward salvation/excellence as the end of living. It is brought by industry, the emergence of the bourgeoisie, and intellectual preoccupation with modern, technological ideals. This allows Truth to escape its conception alongside God, as it was in the Christian age. Marx is the author of one of the major 19th century technological ideals. You cannot deny his nefarious influence if you truly understand history.

>>4262853

The moment you can identify a single negative aspect of technological progress without conjuring up prosaic Luddite twittery and mystic yammering, we can have a conversation.

I took two sociology courses in college and they were terrible. The first was your basic 101 class taught by some retard who got massively butthurt when one of the students rightly said that Andy Warhol was shit and refused to continue the lecture until the student left. The second was some shitty class on American social problems that dealt almost entirely with minority and women's issues, which was bad for me because I was like the only non-white person in the class so the teacher, an overweight middle aged white woman with hairy arms and legs and dreadlocks, always looked to me whenever she had questions about what it was like to be discriminated against and oppressed.

The only thing I learned in either class is that I was not like other leftists.

>>4262865
Ya tbh that's the part of sociology I tend to shy away from. They spend to much time on race, sex not enough on institutions, or for that matter systemic social interactions.

>>4262749
>>4262779
Good God. Are people really this intelectually dishonest and lazy?
A perfect example of Poe's Law in action.

>>4262864

World War 1
World War 2
The Holocaust
The Great Leap forward
The Gulags
The Cold War Nuclear Threat

It's not technological advance that is bad, but technological thinking and that means reducing human existence to a calculus of utility and material.

>>4262874

World War I was a war that nominally began as a war over the assassination of an Archduke, and really began as a consequence of capitalist crisis. It was between British banks and the French Labor Exchange on the one hand, and German heavy industry on the other in a competitions for markets.

World War II was a direct result of the economic rape of Germany in the aftermath of the Great War along with the mass-unemployment of the army. The Nazi's came to power with the direct funding of English (and other European) banks, and were seen as a necessary buffer against post-revolutionary Russia. The Holocaust, often wrongly named as the extermination of the Jews only, was in reality an extermination of the entire left (as much as such a thing was possible). The 'Jewish conspiracy' was little more than a pantomime to justify political suppression and secret police raids.

The Gulags were mere prisons for political repression, viz. the left opposition.

The Cold War was America's justification for world-wide imperialism, political suppression, etc. The U.S.S.R. profited (politically) nearly as much.

And not a single one of those things has a jot to do with technological progress or utilitarianism. There were wars and crimes of exactly the same character before the modern age.

I switched from English to Theology.

1. become a monk
2. get the ladies
3. reject the ladies

>>4262899
Brilliant I'm so happy someone like you is on 4chan. To many neo liberals and Andy Randy's on it

>>4262899

And all of that is the result of the technological ideologies proposed in the 19th century to fill the void left by the sudden disbelief in traditional structures of meaning.

>>4262587
>Go back to your containment board.

Intolerant of opposing views? Grade A Marxist.

>>4262955

Your assertion - what was your original assertion - remains unevidenced, and can be summarily dismissed. If you simply intend to repeat that the wicked progress of science ruined all that folksy spiritualism and broke the Feudal utopia, we can not have a discussion at all.

You have not yet provided a single example of a single social ill that arose uniquely from the machinations of modern thought. War, rape, pestilence, slavery, famine, and general want are concepts familiar throughout history and have only become less frequent - sometimes barely visible - in modern (Western) society.

>>4262968

what about environmental issues

>>4262985

What about them? I attribute the unrestricted exploitation of certain natural resources and their utilization en masse without thought towards the potential (detrimental) effects to be a byproduct of capitalist competition. The advance of science, I might add, is the only reason we are aware that such exploitation does have a harmful byproduct that requires certain considerations.

It isn't enough to name current issues that you think (and may very well be) important. You have to demonstrate a link between, one the one hand, modern 'mechanical' thinking and technological progress, and on the other, crises unique to the current era.

>>4262968

The problem is that you are entrenched in the modern way of thinking and you read your valuations into my argument. I never claim that that prior to modernity there was no war, rape, pestilence, etc. I am aware of the fact that humans were in greater need in the past. You have directed the line of argument away from the point I intended to make, which is precisely against your way of thinking. Let me first address what I mean by technological ideology, so that you might see that my argument is more than "folksy spiritualism".

When I speak of technological ideologies I mean the major ideologies that arose in the 19th century which each promised social progress: nationalism, darwinism, liberalism, capitalism, marxism etc. The "capitalist crisis" which caused WW1 is a result of the capitalist mode of thinking and modern national banking. World War 2 is moreso a result of German national insecurity following its losses in WW1 than it is a grand British political ploy gone wrong. This translated also into the claims of racial superiority and thusly also the violent anti-semitism. The other two speak for themselves, no? They are battles fought specifically over 19th century ideologies. But this is not central to my interest in the matter. It's a convenient line of argument merely.

>>4262438
>How will I be able to feed myself?
You've already failed.

>>4263128
>World War 2 is moreso a result of German national insecurity following its losses in WW1
Blatant ignorance of the devastating impact of the Treaty of Versailles on the German people and the general state of the country before Hitler came to power. You can only be joking when you vaguely mention 'national insecurity' as one of the reasons for WW2.

>>4262955
>>4263128
but the problem with your line of thinking is that ideology can exist independent of technology. Ideology in the form of religion, so this "technological ideology" you are describing- how is it different from christianity or islam?

>>4263172

Germany made itself to be great and all of the sudden it loses the great war and is economically devastated, but there still remains the belief that Germany is great. This is what allows Hitler to rise to power and dictates entirely the ethos of the national socialist party. Germany goes empire building as proof to the world--and itself--that it is great.

Your tendency to remove the human factor from history is showing.

>>4263184
I especially underlined the human factor when I mentioned the the post-war consequences on the German people. You're attributing the rise of Hitler to a barely definable and unquantifiable sentiment which, even though it was there as is in most other countries, pales in comparison to the joblessness, poverty and hunger.

>>4263174

The difference is that these ideologies are themselves initially conceived of as technologies. They aim at measurable progress where the religious aims at nothing (if I were to speak as a modern).

Polisci major here. I feel far worse.

That said this thread has made me realize that I'm on the verge of graduating and I'm not well read enough. Of course I've "read" the essentials but only enough to write a paper and not cover to cover. What are some essential books for political science. Marx and the Federalist Papers are at the top of my list.

>>4263193

You mention it in terms of dollars an cents, but you don't speak of its effect on national or personal identity. Your critiques are entirely soulless. Truly you are a product of Marx.

>>4262587

>containment board

lol'd. I never thought of /pol/ as a containment board so much as a festering breading ground of racism and associated filth.

I'm a refugee from /pol/ on /lit/. If there's one thing I've discovered in the transition, it's that well-read people tend to be leftists.

>>4263201
what exactly do you mean by conceived? aren't ideologies produced by hegemony unconsciously in response to a structural dependency on the social relations of production? In a gramscian sense that is

>>4263202
>I'm on the verge of graduating and I'm not well read enough
wat
> What are some essential books for political science
WAT

>>4263202

Son, you should be reading constantly. "Political Scientist Academic" is code for "Professional Reader of political texts."

To answer your question: Hannah Arendt's "The Origins of Totalitarianism" would probably be a good thing to read, along with Eichmann in Jerusalem.

>>4263214
>but you don't speak of its effect on national or personal identity
Do tell, what was the effect of money or lack thereof on the German national identity pre-WW2)

>Dad I'm so hungry, why is there no food?
>Stop whining you pussy, what you need is national identity.

>>4263231

I favor a great man view of the history of ideas rather than a populist view. Jesus and Paul intervene in the advance of history and create a Christianity just as Marx intervenes and creates the method of dialectical materialism. This isn't to say that these men were not themselves the product of history.

>>4263244

What you must first understand is that the greatness of the German "Volk" becomes a fundamental assumption of its people as a means of unifying the new German nation. When they enter into WW1 and lose, the pride is shattered not only because of the loss, but also because the German nation is punished economically as a condition of the peace. The individual blames their plight on the inferiority of their nation, which has been culturally internalized as part of themselves.

>Dad I'm so hungry, why is there no food?
>Germany was once a great nation, but it is no longer.

Poli Sci and Sociology double major here with a minor in Criminal Justice. Currently in my fourth year of coasting through school. Sitting on a 3.7 GPA and never opened most of my textbooks, although I do enjoy reading outside of class.

Best case scenario is I become a cop in some upper-middle class town/city here in CT and spread Father Zosima's teachings of love and forgiveness through a position of law enforcement while raking in decent pay and benefits. Could be better, could be worse.

>>4263256
>diamat
>great man theory
Stalinist detected.

>>4262438
Huh? Sociology's better than English Lit, history etc, no? Anyway, my brother got a decent job with it. His secret was to take a couple of statistical analysis modules despite not being particularly good at maths. Even if you hate it, a few weeks of figure-juggling is worth more to most employers than years of hardcore reading.

>not studying mathematics

>>4262574

>>4263964
Why doesn't twitter list any of those tweets?

>>4262467
>>4262467
>>4262467

This is what came up alot during my study of Sociology in the Netherlands:

>What can the government do to fix X?
>Psychology uses different methods that produce radically different results/explanations for a phenomenon. (Like 2+2=4, except when using methods B, C or D when it could also be 2+2=3/5/6)

>Alot of studies try to be extremely elaborate, only to find they'd only 'explain' 0.5% of the whole problem.
>Biology is ignored unless it's explained in a simple manner, until then, let's focus on cultural explanations
>equality, Equality, EQUALITY!
>We should try and understand other cultures
>You're also a bigoted racist when you reject cultures you thought you understood perfectly
>Women's issues about how they're better at say, banking, than men but aren't as assertive when asked what they'd like to make and thus shoot themselves in the foot by being too nice. The government should help and 'Old boys network' is unfair ;_;

>>4263227
>it's that well-read people tend to be leftists

No shit given that University humanities curriculums are so overwhelmingly left-leaning.

Have you done your essay on why the merchant of venice is a racist play yet?

Have you done your essay on why Joseph Conrad is a racist yet?

Have you read all your postcolonial literature reading list yet?

Please. If you were born in 1930s Germany you'd be a National Socialist. You're just someone who takes established and accepted political paradigms a little bit further than your average libtard.

>>4264050
That's some powerful denial right there. How do you think it came to be that Universities are so left-leaning? Was there a global hostile take-over by morons who changed the curriculum?

>>4264056
>denial

Denial of what? You'd have to be out of your mind not to think we live in a liberal paradigm right now. The West has been on a liberal trajectory ever since the French Revolution, and it's only intensified since the mid 20th century.

Or do you think ordinary people from all periods of History went around writing lengthy, verbose essays about how evil their ancestors were for doing what everyone else on Earth has always done?

Funny how Homer's conception of war is more nuanced than your average anti-war libtard faggot.

>>4264050
> If you were born in 1930s Germany you'd be a National Socialist
What, you mean a Nazi pre-teen?

>>4264058
>The West has been on a liberal trajectory ever since the French Revolution
Intredasting. And that's also around the time education became available to anyone other than a very small minority of people. I wonder if these are in some way connected?

>>4264056
>How do you think it came to be that Universities are so left-leaning?

Because as much as /lit/ is used to eschewing responsible, the West is wholly liberal. Mainstream conservatism emphasizes the "freedom of individual agency" aspect and mainstream leftism emphasizes the "equality as a moral good" aspect.

The fact these things are unquestioned assumptions is enough illustration of how liberal the west is.

>>4264066
>Intredasting. And that's also around the time education became available to anyone other than a very small minority of people. I wonder if these are in some way connected?

No, it's because people became wealthy enough to isolate themselves from reality to the point they could come up with pseudo-scientific assumptions about the world as absurd as human behavior being determined entirely or almost entirely by environment.

It's worth wondering why liberalism/leftism are only actually compatible with extreme wealth, I mean, if they're objectively the best forms a polity can take politically, culturally and socially then they should be able to subsist anywhere, except they're a macrohistorical piss in the wind and probably won't exist for more than a century more given the way the West is headed.

In before laughable marxist interpretations of antiquity.

>>4264056
>How do you think it came to be that Universities are so left-leaning?

Because as much as /lit/ is used to eschewing responsibility, the West is almost wholly liberal at a political, social and cultural level. Mainstream conservatism emphasizes the "freedom of individual agency" aspect and mainstream leftism emphasizes the "equality as a moral good" aspect although both emphasize each others main thrusts too, to lesser degrees.

The fact these things are unquestioned assumptions is enough illustration of how liberal the west is.

>>4264068
>human behavior being determined entirely or almost entirely by environment
Huh. What books are you reading that use that as a defining feature of liberalism? And what would you say was the prevailing paradigm before this environmental determinism?

>>4264077
>Huh. What books are you reading that use that as a defining feature of liberalism?

Gee, I dunno, everyone from Locke onwards? Or like, the entire modern canon of "cultural anthropology"?

I love it when liberals deny how much of liberalism rests on the premise of environmental determinism, I mean, are you really so stupid or are you just playing dumb so you don't have to mount a defense of the scientific foundation on which 90% of your extrapolations about the world rest?

>And what would you say was the prevailing paradigm before this environmental determinism?

Jesus Christ, just go and read Plato and Aristotle. The importance of heritability was emphasized of course, this isn't to say environment had no role, Plutarch actually talks about this, but they certainly accepted the importance of inherited traits in what we'd consider verboten ways.

Try suggesting for even a second in the modern political climate that X group disparity is in large part genetic in origin and not environmental and see the reaction you get.

>>4264079
>Try suggesting for even a second in the modern political climate that X group disparity is in large part genetic in origin and not environmental and see the reaction you get.

in a world convinced of the value of individuality, attacks on identity are the worst crime.

>>4264086
Their own conception of individuality.

The idea that group identity and individual identity are antagonistic concepts is a liberal fiction.

>>4264066
This is correct (sort of). I can only talk about england, but the demise of feudalism and the urbanization that came with it did increase peoples literacy. The poor became semi literate, having signs to read off of while the merchants and other middle class had access to education which helped in their business activities. The poor also had access but most due to financial issues could not spend long in it due to expenses. Much of this was before the french revolution though.
>>4264068
>No, it's because people became wealthy enough to isolate themselves from reality
No, people became educated so as to aid themselves in business affairs. At the time being rich was considered the same as being virtuous. The middle classes of this era HATED the previous aristocracy who they viewed as being lazy as parasitic.
>pseudo-scientific assumptions about the world as absurd
This did not happen in this time period.
>as human behavior being determined entirely or almost entirely by environment.
I don't see the problem with this. Much of these ideas came from Hume who was pro induction and science.
>In before laughable marxist interpretations of antiquity.
You do realize that Marx used a lot of empirical evidence, accounts, reports in his work. Though he may be wrong with his assumptions of materialist dialectic, he is quite good at describing the process which lead us from feudalism to capitalism.

>>4264091
>The middle classes of this era HATED the previous aristocracy who they viewed as being lazy as parasitic.

That's true, it also doesn't contradict what I said.

The wealthy middle classes just wanted power and disliked the birthright of aristocracy as a result, it wasn't really as high minded as you're making out.

>At the time being rich was considered the same as being virtuous.

No it wasn't, this is a Marxist oversimplification of aristocracy. Aristocracy doesn't work that way, not even in the Venetian Republic.

>This did not happen in this time period.

Yes it did, read Locke, that's where the idea of the blank slate as a justification for liberalism first appears.

>I don't see the problem with this.

The problem is that they're demonstrably untrue.

>You do realize that Marx used a lot of empirical evidence, accounts, reports in his work.

Marx believed in the blank slate too, read his Theses on Feuerbach.

>>4264089
Note that in lieu of organic group identities (community, nation, race etc), dysfunctional ones pop up in their stead (musical subcultures as a group identity is a good example).

>>4264091
>he is quite good at describing the process which lead us from feudalism to capitalism.

He also isn't good at this. Marx's Historical Materialism when applied to antiquity simply doesn't work and contradicts basically every primary source and the entire material record, which is why Marxist historians have to invent nonsense like the idea of the "gift economy" accounting for all trade in the ancient world.

It's also funny how Marx was incapable of explaining China's historical trajectory so he just dismissed it as a unique example.

He really was such a Jewish hack it's amazing anyone still believes in him, but then again there's people who think Foucault had interesting things to say so it's hardly surprising.

>>4262865
>American sociology education in a nutshell

>>4264113
That's sociology as a whole, it's a political movement masquerading as an academic discipline, and then you clowns wonder why so few people take humanities and soc sciences seriously.

I'll take my 19th century bigots over your 20th century faggots thanks.

>>4264079
I was referring to the paradigm of fate or God's will, really. I thought you were championing pre-modern elitism vs. modern liberalism, but it looks instead like you're more interested in 19th century genetics.

>>4264117
What distinguishes liberalism, broadly speaking, is its belief in equality as a innate moral good. Part of the scientific rationalization for this belief is an understanding of the world, usually implicit, that assumes virtually all human behavior and human capability and talent is derived from environment.

Of course, that this is technically impossible is besides the point, the point is that this is what liberals implicitly believe and therefore it must be exploded.

>>4264079
>the entire modern canon of "cultural anthropology"
Which contemporary authors are you referring to here? Pretty sure anthropologists on the whole dislike determinism of any kind.

>>4264121
Better tell that to Boas and Mead.

Assuming you're right: Can you find me a single cultural anthropologist who acknowledges the possibility of racial differences in intelligence being part genetic, part environmental?

>>4264121
...actually, forget that, you're not really talking about determinism, you're talking about genetics vs. environment.

>>4264114
>it's a political movement

>and then you clowns wonder why so few people take humanities and soc sciences seriously.

What political movement do you mean? Elaborate please.
Also, most people who are saying they can't take soc sciences seriously never attended an advanced sociology study class (not including 90% of american sociology "schools").

>>4264137
Most liberals are de facto environmental determinists, if they weren't they'd be able to accept that uncomfortable traits like predisposition to aggressive tendencies, intelligence etc involved a genetic component that can influence group level disparities.

Except you won't. The only genetically determinist thing liberal fucktards believe in is the fucking "gay gene", lol. Talk about selective standards of proof...

>>4264136
>can you find me a single cultural anthropologist who acknowledges the possibility of racial differences in intelligence
Probably not, that's what biological anthropology is for.

>>4264140
>Also, most people who are saying they can't take soc sciences seriously never attended an advanced sociology study class (not including 90% of american sociology "schools").

If Sociology really is the study of Society divorced from political sympathy, then I'll take you seriously when there's real pluralism, to the point of people defending elitism, monarchy and fascism in these fields.

After all, there are no sacred cows in our temples of freethought, right?

>>4262853
>I speak of the death of God where comfort and materiality supersedes any form of struggle toward salvation/excellence as the end of living. It is brought by industry, the emergence of the bourgeoisie, and intellectual preoccupation with modern, technological ideals.

Hahaha, this is what I hate about modern philosophy in general --- the idea that "modernity" is special, and that what was true a thousand years ago is no longer true for modernity.

"Comfort and materiality" have ALWAYS superseded the struggle towards salvation/excellence. Paul writes incessantly on this fact in the New Testament. It isn't "brought about by industry" or "the emergence of the bourgeoisie", it's an eternal fact of man's existence on earth that he will be tempted by "comfort and materiality" and that salvation is the "narrow way" that but a few walk along.

Modern philosophers are always talking about "the modern condition". There is no such thing as the modern condition, this is the great big lie of modern philosophy.

>Bad times, hard times, this is what people keep saying; but let us live well, and times shall be good. We are the times: Such as we are, such are the times.
-St. Augustine (354 AD - 430 AD)

>>4264145
So physical anthropologists and cultural anthropologists believe in two contradictory premises?

Your point is absurd because plenty of behavioral geneticists and physical anthropologists talk about environmental effects on behavior as well as genetic effects.

You're clutching at straws.

>>4264136
why are you so desperate for someone to confirm your racist beliefs? just keep on fighting the good fight mah cracka.

>>4264150
You misunderstand me, my point is to illustrate the predominance of liberal thought in the West, the absurdity of suggesting there's any real pluralism (there never has been, every era has its paradigmatic beliefs that nearly everyone believes in) and the fact 90% of you don't even seem to understand why you believe in the things you do, which is why when you're challenged on the most basic assumptions of liberalism, like equality as a moral good, you're clueless.

>>4264146
>then I'll take you seriously when there's real pluralism, to the point of people defending elitism, monarchy and fascism in these fields

People "defending" political/cultural movements completely missed the point of soc sciences. That's why I mentioned American sociology education earlier; to an european sociologist who studied on a good university American soc studies look like a debate club full of liberals.
But it's a shame that even in my University a big percentage of the students almost exclusively support gender studies, trying to turn their studies into some quality argument.

>>4262968
>You have not yet provided a single example of a single social ill that arose uniquely from the machinations of modern thought.

Marxism, Feminism, Utilitarianism, LGBT, Social Darwinism, Logical Positivism, Realpolitik, Psychoanalysis, etc.
Who knows PRECISELY how these ideologies have effected social ills, but their impact on society in the west in undeniable. How would you measure the impact that they have had?

IMO, the decline of the Catholic Church in particular and Christianity in general that has been slowly unfolding over the last several hundred years since the Renaissance/Enlightenment/Reformation is a huge loss for society and culture. The industrial revolution has been an emancipation in many ways and a new form of slavery in others.

>>4264164
>Feminism, LGBT
euphoric

>>4264149
>So physical anthropologists and cultural anthropologists believe in two contradictory premises?
Not necessarily, it's just that cultural anthropologists study culture so I wouldn't expect them to spend their careers tracking genes- there's a whole field of study for that, and its academic requirements are very different (maths and lab coats are involved). But you're confusing the issue by referring to 'racial differences' instead of simply 'genetic inheritance'. Most anthropologists (and people in general) would agree that the latter is a major influence on how humans act, in interaction with their environment, of course. But that's not the same as believing races are a useful way to classify these genetic inheritances, and I wouldn't expect someone without professional expertise in genetics to make assertions about

>>4264168
lol at this fag trying to act like modern atheism isn't entirely either classical liberal garbage or orthodox leftard garbage.

>>4264174
...that. But anyway, most people will assume genetics and the environment work together.

>>4264118
>What distinguishes liberalism, broadly speaking, is its belief in equality as a innate moral good.

No, that's egalitarianism, which has been allied with liberalism to some extent. What distinguishes liberalism is the Utilitarian moral principle of, "do what thou wilt as long as it does not prevent others from doing what they wilt". That's what "classical liberalism" (what many today call libertarianism) was founded upon, and it's what has lead to modern liberalism (which really ought to be called Marxism) which focuses on little social/political movements in order to prevent the hurting of anybody's feelings as the way to be moral, instead of the virtue ethics that you'd find in the Platonists, Stoics, Scholastics, etc., that was promoted by the Church in Europe.

>>4264174
>it's just that cultural anthropologists study culture so I wouldn't expect them to spend their careers tracking genes

lol, but this is completely unrelated to what we're talking about. Cultural anthropologists make pretty explicit assertions about the importance of environment over genes, have you never read Mead or Boas?

>But that's not the same as believing races are a useful way to classify these genetic inheritances, and I wouldn't expect someone without professional expertise in genetics to make assertions about

But if I pointed out to you that the vast majority of East Asian researchers believe in race as a valid form of taxonomic division, you'd dismiss them as irrelevant since East Asia isn't liberal enough to qualify.

>>4264168
They are modern movements par excellence. Not to say that there has never been a society where women have had power or gays and lesbians have been able to practice their fetishes, only that it is very modern(/marxist) that women and gays and lesbians would form a political movement and act as though its their divine right.

>>4264178
>No, that's egalitarianism, which has been allied with liberalism to some extent. What distinguishes liberalism is the Utilitarian moral principle of, "do what thou wilt as long as it does not prevent others from doing what they wilt".

No, there was never any "egalitarian" political movement.

Both of the axioms you're describing emerged from modern liberalism. The idea of emphasizing the morality of increasing an individual's agency to act actually comes from the former axiom of equality as a moral good in the first place.

"Egalitarianism" was just a constituent part of classical liberal thought, not a thing unto itself.

I more or less agree with your distaste for it, but you're mistaken in trying to separate the concept of the moral goodness of equality from early liberalism.

Equality shouldn't be viewed as morally good. Quite to the contrary, equality is morally evil. Nothing provides a better justification for destructive social engineering projects than the idea that equality is morally good and that man can be rewritten as blank sheet of paper.

>>4264176
>...that. But anyway, most people will assume genetics and the environment work together.

You'll have to tell the leftists in the social sciences who have been denying the heritability of intelligence for the past 6 decades that then, I'm sure they'll be delighted to know.

Perhaps we should rephrase.

Insofar as it doesn't carry any political expedience for a trait to be genetic and environmental, soc "scientists" are prepared to accept it as such.

Verboten areas, such as propensity for violence and intelligence most assuredly are not accepted as "part genetic, part environmental", if they were, any group level disparity in test scoring wouldn't immediately be put down to some form of phantom discrimination.

>>4264068
>It's worth wondering why liberalism/leftism are only actually compatible with extreme wealth, I mean, if they're objectively the best forms a polity can take politically, culturally and socially then they should be able to subsist anywhere, except they're a macrohistorical piss in the wind and probably won't exist for more than a century more given the way the West is headed.

Tell us, Wise One, where "the West is headed". I am not being sarcastic, you seem fairly learned and I'm eager to know. "Liberalism/leftism" seems to be getting stronger by the day in my eyes.

>>4264184
>Equality shouldn't be viewed as morally good. Quite to the contrary, equality is morally evil. Nothing provides a better justification for destructive social engineering projects than the idea that equality is morally good and that man can be rewritten as blank sheet of paper.

I agree absolutely with this. I do much prefer Antiquity's notion of excellence and the hierarchical structure of the Middle Ages to the democratism and egalitarianism of the modern age. Still, I'm reminded of Kierkegaard, who combined a hatred for the modern democracy's "putting the public on the throne" and a love of monarchy, with the idea that there is a Universal human quality which does make us equal in a spiritual sense.

>>4264190
>Tell us, Wise One, where "the West is headed".

1) The "West" isn't inseparable as a geopolitical entity from the people who created Western Nations. It's likely we'll see the US become increasingly neutered the more racially diverse it becomes, a nation of tribes (tribalism fostered not just by their physical presence in the US, but actively promoted by the academic classes in the form of things like ethnic studies), can't compete against a hegemonic power like China.

>"Liberalism/leftism" seems to be getting stronger by the day in my eyes.

Who commands the Titanic is of no concern to me. In case you haven't noticed, there's a world beyond North America, Scandinavia and wider Western Europe.

Or do you believe China and Russia are going to have their own Soros funded color revolutions?

lol, not a chance libby.

>>4264180
And other cultural anthropologists criticised them for that. Hell, I'm pretty sure even the two you've picked to make your case have explicitly denied being environmental determinists.

And no, you're making completely unwarranted assumptions. I'm open to the possibility that races are a useful way to divide people, although I suspect that they wouldn't break down into broad 19th century categories- which means 'race' might not be the best word for it. But I am no geneticist.

>>4264206
>And other cultural anthropologists criticised them for that.

Who?

Which specific cultural anthropologists specificially criticized Mead and Boas for not placing enough emphasis on genetic explanations for human behavior.

Name just one.

>>4264201
>with the idea that there is a Universal human quality which does make us equal in a spiritual sense.

I agree with this also, but medieval Christians had no problem reconciling this with a belief in hierarchy and the importance of inequality on a material level.

It seems that a lot of liberalism is sort of like a cursory, cheap, emotional understanding of Christianity that has been secularized. The "white guilt" concept sitting alongside "original sin" for example.

>>4264203
OK, so you see their being a shift in power to the East, but I'm still interested to know what internal shifts will happen in the West as a result of this. More nationalism?

Are the Russians/Chinese the enemies of those who own the central banks (like the Federal Reserve) in the West, or are they allied to them? How does Israel/Palestine/The Middle East factor into this, because that seems to be an important square on the chessboard at this moment.

>>4264215
Here's the quote from Kierkegaard

To bring about similarity among people in the world, to apportion to people, if possible equally, the conditions of temporality, is indeed something that preoccupies worldliness to a high degree. But even what we may call the well-intentioned worldly effort in this regard never comes to an understanding with Christianity. Well-intentioned worldliness remains piously, if you will, convinced that there must be one temporal condition, one earthly dissimilarity – found by means of calculations and surveys or in whatever other way – that is equality. If this condition become the only one for all people, then similarity would have been brought about. For one thing, however, this cannot be accomplished, and, for another, the similarity of all by having in common the same temporal dissimilarity is still by no means Christian equality. Worldly similarity, if possible, is not Christian equality. Moreover, to bring about worldly similarity perfectly is an impossibility. Well-intentioned worldliness actually admits this itself. It rejoices when it succeeds in making temporal conditions the same for more and more people, but it acknowledges itself that its struggle is a pious wish, that it has taken on a prodigious task, that its prospects are remote-if it rightly understood itself, it will perceive that this will never be accomplished in temporality, that even if this struggle is continued for centuries, it will never attain the goal. Christianity, by contrast, aided by the shortcut of eternity, is immediately at the goal: it allows all dissimilarities to stand but teaches the equality of eternity. It teaches that everyone is to lift himself up above earthly dissimilarity. Notice carefully how equably it speaks. It does not say that it is the lowly person who is to lift himself up while the powerful person should perhaps climb down from his loftiness-ah, no, that kind of talk is not equable; and the similarity that is brought about by the powerful person’s climbing down and the lowly person climbing up is not Christian equality-it is worldly similarity. No, even if it is the one who stands at the very top, even if it is the king, he is to lift himself up above the difference of loftiness, and the beggar is to lift himself up above the difference of lowliness. Christianity allows all the dissimilarities of earthly life to stand, but this equality in lifting oneself up above the dissimilarities of earthly life is contained in the love commandment, in loving the neighbor. Because this is so, because the lowly person fully as much as the prominent and the powerful, because everyone in his different way can lose his soul by not Christianly willing to lift himself up above the dissimilarity of earthly life, and, alas, because it happens to both and in the most varied ways-therefore, willing to love the neighbor is often exposed to double, indeed, to multiple danger.

>>4264218
>More nationalism?

Yes.

You can't just try to extinguish ethnic groups in their own homelands without a consequent reaction. The more racial diversity you import, the more racial conflict you import.

>>4264219
Everyone who in despair has clung to one or another of the dissimilarities of earthly life so that he centers his life in it, not in God, also demands that everyone who belongs to the same dissimilarity must hold together with him-not in the good (because the good forms no alliance, does not unite two nor hundreds nor all people in an alliance), but in an ungodly alliance against the universally human. The one in despair calls it treason to want to have fellowship with others, with all people. On the other hand, these other people are in turn differentiated by way of other temporal dissimilarities and perhaps misunderstand it if someone not having their dissimilarity wants to side with them. Strangely enough, in connection with the dissimilarities of earthly life, through misunderstanding there are conflict and agreement simultaneously-one person wants to do away with one dissimilarity, but he wants another put in its place. Dissimilarity, as the word signifies, can mean the very different, the entirely different; but everyone who struggles against dissimilarity in such a way that he wants one specific dissimilarity removed and another put in its place is, of course, fighting for dissimilarity. Whoever then will love the neighbor, whoever thus does not concern himself with removing this or that dissimilarity, or with eliminating all of them in a worldly way, but devoutly concerns himself with permeating his dissimilarity with the sanctifying thought of Christian equality-that person easily becomes like someone who does not fit into earthly life here, not even in so-called Christendom; he is easily exposed to attacks from all sides; he easily becomes like a lost sheep among ravenous wolves. Everywhere he looks he naturally sees the dissimilarities (as stated, no human being is pure humanity, but the Christian lifts himself up above the dissimilarities); and those who in a worldly way have clung firmly to a temporal dissimilarity, whatever it may be, are like ravenous wolves. May your patience in reading correspond to my diligence and time in writing.

>>4264223
and here are a couple of quotes on democracy/monarchy:

>“Every movement and change that takes place with the help of 100,000 or 10,000 or 1,000 noisy, grumbling, rumbling, and yodeling people...is eo ipso untruth, a fake, a retrogression. For God is present here only in a very confused fashion or perhaps not at all, perhaps it is rather the Devil.... A mediocre ruler is a much better constitution than this abstraction, 100,000 rumbling nonhumans”

>“Is it tyranny when one person wants to rule leaving the rest of us others out? No, but it is tyranny when all want to rule"

>“A people’s government is the true image of Hell”

>“People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.”

>>4264110
>He really was such a Jewish hack it's amazing anyone still believes in him

"Marx is a Jew and is surrounded by a crowd of little, more or less intelligent, scheming, agile, speculating Jews, just as Jews are everywhere, commercial and banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers of all shades; in short, literary brokers, just as they are financial brokers, with one foot in the bank and the other in the socialist movement, and their arses sitting upon the German press. They have grabbed hold of all newspapers, and you can imagine what a nauseating literature is the outcome of it.Now this entire Jewish world, which constitutes an exploiting sect, a people of leeches, a voracious parasite, Marx feels an instinctive inclination and a great respect for the Rothschilds. This may seem strange. What could there be in common between communism and high finance? Ho ho! The communism of Marx seeks a strong state centralization, and where this exists there must inevitably exist a state central bank, and where this exists, there the parasitic Jewish nation, which speculates upon the labor of the people, will always find the means for its existence.
In reality, this would be for the proletariat a barrack regime, under which the workingmen and the working closely and intimately connected with one another, regardless not only of frontiers but of political differences as well - this Jewish world is today largely at the disposal of Marx or Rothschild. I am sure that, on the one hand, the Rothschilds appreciate the merits of Marx, and that on the other hand, women, converted into a uniform mass, would rise, fall asleep, work and live at the beat of the drum; the privilege of ruling would be in the hands of the skilled and the learned, with a wide scope left for profitable crooked deals carried on by the Jews, who would be attracted by the enormous extension of the international speculations of the national banks."

>>4264229
reminds me of that whole "guru effect" thing MacDonald talks about, when one Jew comes up with some stupid idea that appeals to the novelty-seeking proclivities of liberal whites and the other Jews purposefully build him up to be some kind of infallible guru.

Same thing happened with the Jew Derrida.

>>4264212
Derek Freeman.

>>4264262
(although when I referred to criticism I meant criticism against environmental determinism, not criticism in favour of genetic determinism)

>>4264148

There is a clear shift in the subject of our thinking and polity beginning roughly with the work of Descartes and Luther. What began with these men was a thinking which doubted the truths which we were handed down. Suddenly it is not enough to have a world before us, we have to be able to prove it. Suddenly it is not enough to accept the teachings of the Church, religion has to be personal. Alongside this thinking is the steady development of merchant class which could economically challenge those born into wealth. All of this builds throughout the Renaissance and eventually culminates in The French Revolution where the lower social classes, discontent and disbelieving in the power of the monarch seek to rule themselves. The war is financed largely by the new merchant class specifically to serve their economic ends. The second industrial revolution grants this class even more power. Modernity is the slow erosion of traditional culture by the mass.

Our age is characterized by doubt, individualism, and money. Up until the Americanization of Europe following WW2, there still existed rural populations which existed in the Pre-modern, Christian mode. These people had little ambition to power or social mobility. Their only desire was to make ends meet and to be happy. They were pious and meek. They were not yet taken by the ideas which rule our age.

>>4264221
Do you people HONESTLY believe this is happening in the western world, or that is has a chance of happening? I mean, honestly, beyond the bullshit and the rhetoric, do you seriously believe that the dominant ethnic groups of the different western nations are commiting some kind of ethnic/racial suicide?
>>4264203
Do you actually live somewhere beyond the western world or are you talking out of your ass? Because I do, and the broad political trayectory in South America, Africa, the middle east and the rest of Asia is a crawl towards liberal and progresssive values, in some places quicker (LA, East Asia), and in some places slower (Africa, the middle east), and different places have different priorities among the different progressive and liberal causes (for ex, it will be a long time before homosexuality is acceptable in africa and the middle east, but people there are still clamoring for more democracy).
The reason the chinese population is currently so complacent with their authoritarian government is because: 1) The brutal repressions of 1989 against the pro-democracy movement, 2) Inmense economic growth. When the chinese economy slows down, something similar to the color revolutions or the arab spring will happen, and the chinese government wil have to compromise on some points, or else a slow descent into North Korea-style madness will begin.
As to Russia, yes, they are slowly sliding into fascism, but the again, Russia has always been a fuck-up. They failed as an empire, they failed as a communist state, they failed as a liberal democracy, and they will surely fail as a fascist state. The best the rest of the world can do to contain Russia's idiotic destructive tendencies is to give them some country as a sacrificial lamb for them to beat up (maybe Ucraine? Russians love to whine about Ucraine) when the Russians inevitably sober up and realize they are a failure as a culture and as a country, and they need to take out their frustation on some poor neighbor so they can avoid the guilt and project their own responsibility onto some "foreign enemy".

>>4264566
>I mean, honestly, beyond the bullshit and the rhetoric, do you seriously believe that the dominant ethnic groups of the different western nations are commiting some kind of ethnic/racial suicide?

Not him, but yes. That's what the demographics projections say. Short of significantly stricter immigration laws, these projections will eventually come to pass.

For my part, I don't want to be replaced by foreign races with foreign cultures on the soil my ancestors shed blood to defend.

You can wax lyrical about the importance of it all from a postcolonial perspective I suppose. Perhaps you'll even get a small Guardian column to pontificate.

>the broad political trayectory in South America, Africa, the middle east and the rest of Asia is a crawl towards liberal and progresssive values

No it isn't.

East Asia has the superficial trappings of liberalism, but the reality is that even in a place like Japan if it reverted to a Meiji-restoration like system, you'd see little public opposition to it.

Africa is just... Hopelessly dysfunction, and that's the more advanced states like SA and Botswana, let alone the less wealthy ones. As for the Middle East, didn't the so called "arab spring" teach you anything?

China is the real challenge, since it presents itself almost as a reborn Confucian state these days.

Chinese people may hate local officials, but they've got a lot of respect and admiration for the central leadership of the CCP.

Your historical materialism is so deluded it's actually sort of scary.

>As to Russia, yes, they are slowly sliding into fascism, but the again,

No, Russia is managed autocracy.

Fascism has a real definition, not just "people to the right I don't like", and Russia is not nearly corporatist enough at this stage to be considered fascist.

>The best the rest of the world can do to contain Russia's idiotic destructive tendencies is to give them some country as a sacrificial lamb for them to beat up

Ah. I can hardly contain all this tolerance for pluralism!

"They don't like public promotion of homosexuality, so they deserve to be destroyed as a nation state."

- White Liberal Americans, ladies and gentlemen!

You are aware that virtually none of Asia would tolerate what Russia is taking steps to oppose too, right? Why not go beat on China? Scared?

>>4264566
>failure as a culture and as a country

Says the people who give us Miley Cyrus and think that half of all children being raised by single mothers is part of some kind of progressive transitional model of the family.

>>4265485
>"They don't like public promotion of homosexuality, so they deserve to be destroyed as a nation state."

>- White Liberal Americans, ladies and gentlemen!

Both of you should watch this video. You are right that the liberals in the West have this notion that their ideology is some benelovent force that is "tolerant of other cultures", when it is nothing but a new form of imperialism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob6C7DU10Sc

>>4264566
>As to Russia, yes, they are slowly sliding into fascism, but the again, Russia has always been a fuck-up. They failed as an empire, they failed as a communist state, they failed as a liberal democracy, and they will surely fail as a fascist state. The best the rest of the world can do to contain Russia's idiotic destructive tendencies is to give them some country as a sacrificial lamb for them to beat up (maybe Ucraine? Russians love to whine about Ucraine) when the Russians inevitably sober up and realize they are a failure as a culture and as a country, and they need to take out their frustation on some poor neighbor so they can avoid the guilt and project their own responsibility onto some "foreign enemy".

8/10 anon gj

>>4265558
I know of Dugin:
According to Dugin, the triumph of liberalism has been so definitive, in fact, that in the West it has ceased to be political, or ideological, and become a taken-for-granted practice. Westerners think in liberal terms by default, assuming that no sane, rational, educated person could think differently, accusing dissenters of being ideological, without realizing that their own assumptions have ideological origins.

The definitive triumph of liberalism has also meant that it is now so fully identified with modernity that it is difficult to separate the two, whereas control of modernity was once contested by political theory number one against political theories two and three. The advent of postmodernity, however, has marked the complete exhaustion of liberalism. It has nothing new to say, so it is reduced endlessly to recycle and reiterate itself.

How accurate is this?

>Liberalism is a cosmopolitan individualistic worldview and affiliated philosophy—usually a euphemism for plutocracy—within which the impulses of an urban commercial class and capital are the dominating currents of society. The movement developed in Europe and is analogous with the rise of freemasonry and the so-called "Enlightenment". The ascent of liberalism emerged largely as a reorientation of the basis of Western society against the Ancien Régime of throne and altar. Libertarianism can be seen as the purist form of liberalism.

>Liberalism has been established as a useful political outlook after the U.S. declaration of independence (1776) and after the Masonic Revolt in France (1789–1794), standing at the forefront of political conceptions of the nineteenth century and first decades of the twentieth century[1]. Liberalism is the ideology that has taken different forms over time: classic and revisionist liberalism, old and new political and economic liberalism, perfectionist liberalism and minimal liberalism[2].

>According to the British professor John Gray, all these forms of liberalism listed above, they share four elements: individualism, egalitarianism (equality before the law), universalism and progressivism. Typically, liberal societies are ruled by a Judeo-Masonic oligarchy, which presents itself to the public as a participatory democratic system through elections and sets the agenda of talking points for the parliamentary circus games through social engineering influence in mass media and state education systems.
>Liberalism stressed from the outset on "tolerance" and "pluralism", the limitation of political power and the separation of powers, individual freedom and private property, uniqueness and inviolability of the individual, individual rights and personal autonomy.

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

>>4265677
The problem with equating liberalism with plutocracy is that it misses the central point of why liberalism is a bad ideology.

Liberalism leads to plutocracy, but that's almost incidental, since liberalism advocates mass electorates and universal franchises, and mass electorates are always easier to manipulate than a smaller electorate with more of a handle on realpolitik.

>individualism, egalitarianism (equality before the law), universalism and progressivism

Agreed with all except the last, it's just a marketing buzzword. Egalitarianism extends to more than just negative liberty (before the law) too and forms the justification for more invasive legislation.

I do love Metapedia though.

>>4262655
You sound like a loathsome human being.

>>4265760
Although at least you don't sound too happy about the way that you are making your money.