PDA

View Full Version : The false sciences have caused great suffering towards man




Uncle Emanuel Watkins
07-22-2008, 12:19 PM
The American Founding Fathers first used the metaphysical science of natural law to divorce American Colonists from British tyranny -- as is clearly demonstrated in The Declaration of Independence -- before they likewise used it to marry them into a new nation with a proper government -- in The U.S. Constitution. The Founding Fathers were existentialists with the happiness of Americans as their focus and purpose.

Theoretical science did not exist during their day. Americans weren't thought of by the Founding Fathers as orthodox liberal this or radical conservative that. In how science concluded during that time, our Founding Fathers only knew that the ideal "positive" government unified by it reducing to the self evident truths and the unalienable rights.

It wasn't a matter of political science but a matter of natural rights being established through the use of the laws of nature. They narrowed and unified government to a "best principled statement" (Platonic) of self-evident truths rather than narrow it to a division of possible theories.

While Aristotle established "All men are mortal" as a major premise, our founding fathers established "All men are created equal" as both a major premise and a conclusion. This is how science came to work after Galileo had demonstrated that Aristotle's logic was faulty.

Likewise, the cognizant sciences did not exist during the time of the Founding Fathers. After all, the awakening of the epistemological age was just beginning with Immanuel Kant. It wasn't until after this time that "political science" took a dark turn for the worse delving the fate of millions into the bottomless pits of Marxism, Naziism and Fascism.

The problem with the socalled cognizant sciences lie in the "philosophy of science" question of whether or not they reduce to unify with the natural sciences. The large numbers of their theories, some argue, should reclassify them as members of the "art" world instead.

The inclusion of the cognizant sciences in politics is what has caused modern science to wander away from man as its existential purpose to live not in any particular nation but to live in its own gruffy looking, long haired, international community. On the other hand, reclassifying the cognitive sciences as members of the art world rather than part of science would solve this problem. An artist does not believe in that single method, one which often times damns mankind to misery, but believes instead in an endless number of methods to achieve his or her purpose. The helping of people would then become an art for which the psychological and sociological artists are willing to starve themselves.

Malakai
07-22-2008, 12:26 PM
The idea's of freedom and proper role of government our founders had largely came from philosophers of/before their day. I've read John Stuart Mill and his idea's are echoed loud and clear in our Constitution. On Liberty was fantastic.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
07-22-2008, 12:41 PM
The idea's of freedom and proper role of government our founders had largely came from philosophers of/before their day. I've read John Stuart Mill and his idea's are echoed loud and clear in our Constitution. On Liberty was fantastic.

The modern leaders of today use themselves as their foundation. They pull off this trick by using a modern organization of manipulative people as the foundation of their campaigns. Rather than they submit to the self-evident truths and the unalienable rights of the people, the modern organization manipulates the people.

In contrast, our pious Founding Fathers did not use themselves as the foundation for a new nation but they learned to cherish first the thousands of years of effort put into crafting the concept of "positive" government. This positive government developed to concern itself not with just the happiness of the master class, which was how primitive governments worked in the past, but with the contentment of all citizens.

Truth Warrior
07-22-2008, 12:56 PM
It is instructive for everyone to look at the failure of the US Constitution, and how supposedly limited constitutional government has grown to the unlimited, unconstitutional state leviathan of today. Many believe the Constitution was destroyed by the tyrant Lincoln, who assumed the powers of an absolute dictator, while waging a genocidal war to falsely preserve the union. Others point to the traitor Wilson who saw the federal income tax, Federal Reserve, and direct elections of senators all occur during his watch, while needlessly involving the US in a world war that would precipitate a greater calamity, and started the disastrous trend toward world government with the ill-fated League of Nations . Some say it was as late as the socialist turncoat FDR and his unconstitutional New Deal, who also pointlessly involved the US in another world war by deceit that ended up delivering most of Eastern Europe to communism and igniting the Cold War, and was a prime sponsor of the boondoggle known as the UN. The truth is that these three great traitors just more fully took advantage of the inherent flaws that were intrinsic to the Constitution at its birth.



The myth of the golden age of US minarchy is dispelled by looking at events that transpired before the megalomaniac Lincoln trampled over the Constitution. The US Constitution was stillborn at its inception, as it institutionalized slavery as the law of the land – so much for all men being created equal. Shortly after the Constitution was adopted, Alexander Hamilton and his cronies established the tradition of looting the US treasury for the politically connected, which has only grown in its abuse with passing years. Also, shortly after the Constitution was passed, there was an armed insurrection, the Whiskey Rebellion, as many were already disgusted with the tyranny the US government was turning into. Then there was the theft of personal property of Native American Indians that led to genocide in the infamous Trail of Tears. This was followed by a war of conquest and aggression, the Mexican-American War. The only redeeming characteristic of this early period was that the state hadn’t metastasized into the all-encompassing leviathan of today, and if a person was not in one of the many state-proscribed groups, then a person could lead his life with very little government interference. But the seeds of tyranny were always present right from the start, and to think that the state was ever bound by the chains of the Constitution is naďve at best.



A closer look at the Founding Fathers also reveals why the Constitution failed. While many view the Founding Fathers as some type of saints of liberty, a closer inspection reveals that they were not the paragons of freedom that they are typically portrayed as. A case can be made that the reason they favored a decentralized national government was because they distrusted one another, and were afraid of having their powers and rights usurped by one of their own. Even Jefferson, arguably the most libertarian of the lot, like politicians and bureaucrats of all times, was long on rhetoric, short on action. They did manage to publish the very impressive and libertarian Declaration of Independence, a manifesto of freedom that still rings true today, but like politicians everywhere, their actions and words didn’t match up. The fact is they founded a state where their rights were protected at the expense of others, that violated the inalienable rights of others that they proclaimed was their reason for seeking independence. Most people seem to overlook the faults of the Founding Fathers by claiming they were forced to accept what they term “practical compromises” due to political expediency. These people forget that political expediency is just a euphemism for denying liberty and is a poor excuse to justify the state’s tyranny and mayhem.



In view of the abysmal failure of the current US Constitution, I would like to make a proposal that will attempt to blend elements of limited constitutional government, minarchy, and anarchy. This would allow competing elements of these philosophies to concurrently exist. Hopefully this would accomplish two objectives, one being a better system of checks and balances to prevent growth of government, and the other being a living experiment where people could see the benefits and flaws of different systems of government. People would then be in a much better position to determine which type of government suits them and meets their individual needs.



First the current US Constitution would need to be abolished. A new constitutional convention would be required where the libertarian ideals of the Declaration of Independence are actually enshrined as the law of the land. Any ambiguous reference to the common good that could be incorrectly interpreted must be avoided. It should be clearly stated that the constitution is not a living document subject to the interpretation and whims of judges, legislators, and executives, but only serves to limit what powers they may exercise in their duties. Most importantly, it must emphasize individual sovereignty, where the rights and property of individuals are not subject to group whims and demands, and that it is illegal to use force or coercion to gain individual compliance to any program. Forced collectivism of any type must be fully renounced as inimical to the foundation of individual liberty.

Deborah K
07-22-2008, 01:06 PM
Geezus. Has it not occurred to you that the reason we're in the mess we're in is due to the SUBVERSION of the Constitution?????? Abolishing it is absurd!!! Adherence to it is the answer!

Truth Warrior
07-22-2008, 01:16 PM
Geezus. Has it not occurred to you that the reason we're in the mess we're in is due to the SUBVERSION of the Constitution?????? Abolishing it is absurd!!! Adherence to it is the answer!

Who Killed the Constitution? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods92.html)
Tom Woods on its stranglers.

:)

Deborah K
07-22-2008, 01:29 PM
Who Killed the Constitution? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods92.html)
Tom Woods on its stranglers.

:)

I had the distinct pleasure and honor of meeting Tom Woods as his liaison for the Revolution March and book signing. I enjoyed the piece you linked but if you posted it to back up your argument, I'm not following you.

Truth Warrior
07-22-2008, 01:51 PM
I had the distinct pleasure and honor of meeting Tom Woods as his liaison for the Revolution March and book signing. I enjoyed the piece you linked but if you posted it to back up your argument, I'm not following you. :cool:


Geezus. Has it not occurred to you that the reason we're in the mess we're in is due to the SUBVERSION of the Constitution?????? Abolishing it is absurd!!! Adherence to it is the answer!
If you choose to adhere to the DEAD, I suppose that is your choice. :(

Clearer now? ;)

:)

torchbearer
07-22-2008, 01:55 PM
If you choose to adhere to the DEAD, I suppose that is your choice. :(

Clearer now? ;)

:)

Think about our current congress taking the lead in "rewriting" the constitution.. and how that would come out. Think about that one... long and hard. ;)
There would not be enough KY in the world....

Truth Warrior
07-22-2008, 02:00 PM
Think about our current congress taking the lead in "rewriting" the constitution.. and how that would come out. Think about that one... long and hard. ;)
There would not be enough KY in the world....
Thanks! I prefer to think ( outside the box ) of NO Congress. ;)

Don't we really already have much more than enough laws ( so called ) NOW? :rolleyes:

RJB
07-22-2008, 02:00 PM
Think about our current congress taking the lead in "rewriting" the constitution.

Extremely good point.

torchbearer
07-22-2008, 02:09 PM
Thanks! I prefer to think ( outside the box ) of NO Congress. ;)

Don't we really already have much more than enough laws ( so called ) NOW? :rolleyes:

Without the backing of People who were already in power. there would have been no american revolution.
thus- Those without power cannot defend freedom.
But also- those without power cannot control the direction of the country.
they cannot control the enforcement of the current constitution, nor can the enforce a new one.
only those with power can create a constitution. since we few, see ourselves as sovereigns of our own power, and the super-majority see themselves as below their government, we have already been defeated.
Talking about rewriting constitutions at a time when our economic conquerors control the seats of power is very dangerous... and will end very badly for us.

Truth Warrior
07-22-2008, 02:16 PM
Without the backing of People who were already in power. there would have been no american revolution.
thus- Those without power cannot defend freedom.
But also- those without power cannot control the direction of the country.
they cannot control the enforcement of the current constitution, nor can the enforce a new one.
only those with power can create a constitution. since we few, see ourselves as sovereigns of our own power, and the super-majority see themselves as below their government, we have already been defeated.
Talking about rewriting constitutions at a time when our economic conquerors control the seats of power is very dangerous... and will end very badly for us.


A closer look at the Founding Fathers also reveals why the Constitution failed. While many view the Founding Fathers as some type of saints of liberty, a closer inspection reveals that they were not the paragons of freedom that they are typically portrayed as. A case can be made that the reason they favored a decentralized national government was because they distrusted one another, and were afraid of having their powers and rights usurped by one of their own. Even Jefferson, arguably the most libertarian of the lot, like politicians and bureaucrats of all times, was long on rhetoric, short on action. They did manage to publish the very impressive and libertarian Declaration of Independence, a manifesto of freedom that still rings true today, but like politicians everywhere, their actions and words didn’t match up. The fact is they founded a state where their rights were protected at the expense of others, that violated the inalienable rights of others that they proclaimed was their reason for seeking independence. Most people seem to overlook the faults of the Founding Fathers by claiming they were forced to accept what they term “practical compromises” due to political expediency. These people forget that political expediency is just a euphemism for denying liberty and is a poor excuse to justify the state’s tyranny and mayhem.

:)

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
07-22-2008, 02:17 PM
Geezus. Has it not occurred to you that the reason we're in the mess we're in is due to the SUBVERSION of the Constitution?????? Abolishing it is absurd!!! Adherence to it is the answer!

Yes. People tend to think that great things come in fat packages. Most of what we need and desire already exists as our inheritance. Our duty as Americans is to learn to cherish what we already have. We do this with reconsecrating American movements. After we have learned to cherish, then we need only tweak what we already have. That is what ammending means. Just a the smallest of clarification is all that is needed for us to greatly increase our contentment as Americans.

Truth Warrior
07-22-2008, 02:22 PM
Yes, just learn to cherish, love, embrace AND be grateful for the soon coming NAU and NWO. :p

:rolleyes:

torchbearer
07-22-2008, 02:23 PM
A closer look at the Founding Fathers also reveals why the Constitution failed. While many view the Founding Fathers as some type of saints of liberty, a closer inspection reveals that they were not the paragons of freedom that they are typically portrayed as. A case can be made that the reason they favored a decentralized national government was because they distrusted one another, and were afraid of having their powers and rights usurped by one of their own. Even Jefferson, arguably the most libertarian of the lot, like politicians and bureaucrats of all times, was long on rhetoric, short on action. They did manage to publish the very impressive and libertarian Declaration of Independence, a manifesto of freedom that still rings true today, but like politicians everywhere, their actions and words didn’t match up. The fact is they founded a state where their rights were protected at the expense of others, that violated the inalienable rights of others that they proclaimed was their reason for seeking independence. Most people seem to overlook the faults of the Founding Fathers by claiming they were forced to accept what they term “practical compromises” due to political expediency. These people forget that political expediency is just a euphemism for denying liberty and is a poor excuse to justify the state’s tyranny and mayhem.

:)

I don't worship the founders. And there fallacies do not take away from the principles. All Men are imperfect beings.
But none of the above quote changes the facts of the dangers posed by the idea of rewriting a constitution at this point in time.

Truth Warrior
07-22-2008, 02:26 PM
I don't worship the founders. And there fallacies do not take away from the principles. All Men are imperfect beings.
But none of the above quote changes the facts of the dangers posed by the idea of rewriting a constitution at this point in time.

OK! That works for me TOO. Let's just forget it all. ;)

:D

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
07-22-2008, 02:53 PM
It is instructive for everyone to look at the failure of the US Constitution, and how supposedly limited constitutional government has grown to the unlimited, unconstitutional state leviathan of today. Many believe the Constitution was destroyed by the tyrant Lincoln, who assumed the powers of an absolute dictator, while waging a genocidal war to falsely preserve the union. Others point to the traitor Wilson who saw the federal income tax, Federal Reserve, and direct elections of senators all occur during his watch, while needlessly involving the US in a world war that would precipitate a greater calamity, and started the disastrous trend toward world government with the ill-fated League of Nations . Some say it was as late as the socialist turncoat FDR and his unconstitutional New Deal, who also pointlessly involved the US in another world war by deceit that ended up delivering most of Eastern Europe to communism and igniting the Cold War, and was a prime sponsor of the boondoggle known as the UN. [THESIS STATEMENT:] The truth is that these three great traitors just more fully took advantage of the inherent flaws that were intrinsic to the Constitution at its birth.


The myth of the golden age of US minarchy is dispelled by looking at events that transpired before the megalomaniac Lincoln trampled over the Constitution. The US Constitution was stillborn at its inception, as it institutionalized slavery as the law of the land – so much for all men being created equal. Shortly after the Constitution was adopted, Alexander Hamilton and his cronies established the tradition of looting the US treasury for the politically connected, which has only grown in its abuse with passing years. Also, shortly after the Constitution was passed, there was an armed insurrection, the Whiskey Rebellion, as many were already disgusted with the tyranny the US government was turning into. Then there was the theft of personal property of Native American Indians that led to genocide in the infamous Trail of Tears. This was followed by a war of conquest and aggression, the Mexican-American War. The only redeeming characteristic of this early period was that the state hadn’t metastasized into the all-encompassing leviathan of today, and if a person was not in one of the many state-proscribed groups, then a person could lead his life with very little government interference. But the seeds of tyranny were always present right from the start, and to think that the state was ever bound by the chains of the Constitution is naďve at best.



A closer look at the Founding Fathers also reveals why the Constitution failed. While many view the Founding Fathers as some type of saints of liberty, a closer inspection reveals that they were not the paragons of freedom that they are typically portrayed as. A case can be made that the reason they favored a decentralized national government was because they distrusted one another, and were afraid of having their powers and rights usurped by one of their own. Even Jefferson, arguably the most libertarian of the lot, like politicians and bureaucrats of all times, was long on rhetoric, short on action. They did manage to publish the very impressive and libertarian Declaration of Independence, a manifesto of freedom that still rings true today, but like politicians everywhere, their actions and words didn’t match up. The fact is they founded a state where their rights were protected at the expense of others, that violated the inalienable rights of others that they proclaimed was their reason for seeking independence. Most people seem to overlook the faults of the Founding Fathers by claiming they were forced to accept what they term “practical compromises” due to political expediency. These people forget that political expediency is just a euphemism for denying liberty and is a poor excuse to justify the state’s tyranny and mayhem.



In view of the abysmal failure of the current US Constitution, I would like to make a proposal that will attempt to blend elements of limited constitutional government, minarchy, and anarchy. This would allow competing elements of these philosophies to concurrently exist. Hopefully this would accomplish two objectives, one being a better system of checks and balances to prevent growth of government, and the other being a living experiment where people could see the benefits and flaws of different systems of government. People would then be in a much better position to determine which type of government suits them and meets their individual needs.



First the current US Constitution would need to be abolished. A new constitutional convention would be required where the libertarian ideals of the Declaration of Independence are actually enshrined as the law of the land. Any ambiguous reference to the common good that could be incorrectly interpreted must be avoided. It should be clearly stated that the constitution is not a living document subject to the interpretation and whims of judges, legislators, and executives, but only serves to limit what powers they may exercise in their duties. Most importantly, it must emphasize individual sovereignty, where the rights and property of individuals are not subject to group whims and demands, and that it is illegal to use force or coercion to gain individual compliance to any program. Forced collectivism of any type must be fully renounced as inimical to the foundation of individual liberty.

Your claim that we should cut all ties with tradition divides the national dinner table while causing thoughts of derision; while, our Founding Fathers cut all ties to the traditions of persecution (tyranny) by establishing the self evident truths and the unalienable rights. They then as The People themselves used the same method to establish a new proper national dinner table with the full understanding that it was a necessary evil.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
07-22-2008, 02:57 PM
OK! That works for me TOO. Let's just forget it all. ;)

:D

Another supporter for the cutting oneself from all tradition rather than the cherishing of that which cut us from the traditions of persecution.

Truth Warrior
07-22-2008, 02:57 PM
Your claim that we should cut all ties with tradition divides the national dinner table while causing thoughts of derision; while, our Founding Fathers cut all ties to the traditions of persecution (tyranny) by establishing the self evident truths and the unalienable rights. They then as The People themselves used the same method to establish a new proper national dinner table with the full understanding that it was a necessary evil.
I already ate. :rolleyes:

Thanks anyway, maybe the next time. :D

torchbearer
07-22-2008, 03:00 PM
I would like to add to that, the context of that day.
The sociology of that day... if someone looked nothing like you or your nations people. They were truly not the same or equal. as in the black skin people are different, not as "civilized" and thus, must be a stage between monkey and man?
The whole perceptions of race was different back then. I'm not saying what they did is right, i'm not saying this is an excuse for slavery. I'm saying, this is how they saw the world. Pre-Darwin stuff.
Imagine people in the future, looking back on us.. and looking at horror at the gas guzzlers we drive. And to us, its no big deal. It is in the context of its day.
Sociology doesn't have a very pretty beginning. Sad to say.. but it is good, that we recognize our faults and learn from them. And progress to being better humans.

Truth Warrior
07-22-2008, 03:04 PM
Another supporter for the cutting oneself from all tradition rather than the cherishing of that which cut us from the traditions of persecution.
"Tradition cherisher!" :p

:D

Deborah K
07-22-2008, 03:07 PM
Yes, just learn to cherish, love, embrace AND be grateful for the soon coming NAU and NWO. :p

:rolleyes:


Ummmm....somehow I doubt that abolishing the Constitution and writing a NEW one will change the order of things yet to come....in fact, my guess is such a thing will serve only to propel it.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
07-22-2008, 03:14 PM
A closer look at the Founding Fathers also reveals why the Constitution failed. While many view the Founding Fathers as some type of saints of liberty, a closer inspection reveals that they were not the paragons of freedom that they are typically portrayed as. A case can be made that the reason they favored a decentralized national government was because they distrusted one another, and were afraid of having their powers and rights usurped by one of their own. Even Jefferson, arguably the most libertarian of the lot, like politicians and bureaucrats of all times, was long on rhetoric, short on action. They did manage to publish the very impressive and libertarian Declaration of Independence, a manifesto of freedom that still rings true today, but like politicians everywhere, their actions and words didn’t match up. The fact is they founded a state where their rights were protected at the expense of others, that violated the inalienable rights of others that they proclaimed was their reason for seeking independence. Most people seem to overlook the faults of the Founding Fathers by claiming they were forced to accept what they term “practical compromises” due to political expediency. These people forget that political expediency is just a euphemism for denying liberty and is a poor excuse to justify the state’s tyranny and mayhem.

:)

The truth will set you free not the freeth will set you true.
The ideals of liberty did not originate with the Greeks (Romans) but with the Christian heritage. The Greek Orthodox freed themselves from the persecuations of the Catholic Church. The Protestant Catholics freed themselves from the persecuations of the Catholics. The Puritan Anglicans freed themselves from the persecutions of the State Church of England. The "Atheists" are freeing themselves from the persecuations of religion (they were all thought of as the atheists of their time).
In Comparison, the ancient Greeks had another agenda which involved establishing a greater order for a different set of laws. They established the seed for modern "positive" government which ultimately put the primitive caste system of government to death or at least to shame.

Truth Warrior
07-22-2008, 03:15 PM
Ummmm....somehow I doubt that abolishing the Constitution and writing a NEW one will change the order of things yet to come....in fact, my guess is such a thing will serve only to propel it.

Whether we do or don't is irrelevant.<IMHO>

The die has been cast and the course is set. :(

Thanks! :)

torchbearer
07-22-2008, 03:19 PM
The truth will set you free not the freeth will set you true.
The ideals of liberty did not originate with the Greeks (Romans) but with the Christian heritage. The Greek Orthodox freed themselves from the persecuations of the Catholic Church. The Protestant Catholics freed themselves from the persecuations of the Catholics. The Puritan Anglicans freed themselves from the persecutions of the State Church of England. The "Atheists" are freeing themselves from the persecuations of religion (they were all thought of as the atheists of their time).
In Comparison, the ancient Greeks had another agenda which involved establishing a greater order for a different set of laws. They established the seed for modern "positive" government which ultimately put the primitive caste system of government to death or at least to shame.

Ah! I didn't catch it until the second time... Libertymongering
Yes- that is what it is... it is the flip side of the scale, but falls into another form of tyranny...but not from one of monolithic structure..but one born out of chaos.
The law of the jungle, so to speak.

I'm impressed. I sensed something in between the lines. You nailed it. I was just chalking it up to a fast, rough day.

Truth Warrior
07-22-2008, 03:22 PM
The truth will set you free not the freeth will set you true.
The ideals of liberty did not originate with the Greeks (Romans) but with the Christian heritage. The Greek Orthodox freed themselves from the persecuations of the Catholic Church. The Protestant Catholics freed themselves from the persecuations of the Catholics. The Puritan Anglicans freed themselves from the persecutions of the State Church of England. The "Atheists" are freeing themselves from the persecuations of religion (they were all thought of as the atheists of their time).
In Comparison, the ancient Greeks had another agenda which involved establishing a greater order for a different set of laws. They established the seed for modern "positive" government which ultimately put the primitive caste system of government to death or at least to shame.
Here, parse the whole thing, ......................... before dinner. :D


http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/weebies/weebies7.html

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
07-22-2008, 03:24 PM
I would like to add to that, the context of that day.
The sociology of that day... if someone looked nothing like you or your nations people. They were truly not the same or equal. as in the black skin people are different, not as "civilized" and thus, must be a stage between monkey and man?
The whole perceptions of race was different back then. I'm not saying what they did is right, i'm not saying this is an excuse for slavery. I'm saying, this is how they saw the world. Pre-Darwin stuff.
Imagine people in the future, looking back on us.. and looking at horror at the gas guzzlers we drive. And to us, its no big deal. It is in the context of its day.
Sociology doesn't have a very pretty beginning. Sad to say.. but it is good, that we recognize our faults and learn from them. And progress to being better humans.

There didn't exist a sociology of that day actually. Epistemology was just getting started with Immanuel Kant. Just give the Founding "gentlemen" huge credit for setting in motion the necessary steps to put the "gentleman" concept to death altogether in society. Is it any wonder that so many "gentlemen" rebelled against the Constitution at that time as they still do today?
I have a feeling that Truth Warrior considers himself one of these modern born "gentlemen."

torchbearer
07-22-2008, 03:29 PM
There didn't exist a sociology of that day actually. Epistemology was just getting started with Immanuel Kant. Just give the Founding "gentlemen" huge credit for setting in motion the necessary steps to put the "gentleman" concept to death altogether society. Is it any wonder that so many "gentlemen" rebelled against the Constitution at that time as they still do today?
I have a feeling that Truth Warrior considers himself one of these modern "gentlemen."

Sociology as a formalized science didn't begin until the 1900s.
The ideas of societies have been around since Men gathered in groups.
We can learn the perceptions of a society through the writings/letters of that period.
We didn't need surveys handed out back then to tell us what people were thinking, we can read their writings.
And indeed, the societal position was that the dark skin humanoids from africa were not human.
In fact, up well into today's rural south, there are still some ignorant fucks that think dark skin people are not the same.. but a "different race" which makes them unequal in the picture of humanity.

How often do I see stories from the bible, or events in history discussed in today's context, but never realizing their significance in their own context too.

Truth Warrior
07-22-2008, 06:02 PM
There didn't exist a sociology of that day actually. Epistemology was just getting started with Immanuel Kant. Just give the Founding "gentlemen" huge credit for setting in motion the necessary steps to put the "gentleman" concept to death altogether in society. Is it any wonder that so many "gentlemen" rebelled against the Constitution at that time as they still do today?
I have a feeling that Truth Warrior considers himself one of these modern born "gentlemen."

Hint: Go with that feeling! ;)
Index to the Antifederalist Papers
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/index.htm

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
07-23-2008, 03:54 PM
I would like to add to that, the context of that day.
The sociology of that day... if someone looked nothing like you or your nations people. They were truly not the same or equal. as in the black skin people are different, not as "civilized" and thus, must be a stage between monkey and man?
The whole perceptions of race was different back then. I'm not saying what they did is right, i'm not saying this is an excuse for slavery. I'm saying, this is how they saw the world. Pre-Darwin stuff.
Imagine people in the future, looking back on us.. and looking at horror at the gas guzzlers we drive. And to us, its no big deal. It is in the context of its day.
Sociology doesn't have a very pretty beginning. Sad to say.. but it is good, that we recognize our faults and learn from them. And progress to being better humans.




But there were blacks from Africa who knew how to function in American and European societies because they were raised in the master class of their particular caste system in Africa or, in particular, in Western Africa. A dynasty in Africa was similar to a a dynasty in India, one in Mayan civilization, in Chinese civilization and so on. Don't forget that the barbarian tribes in Western Europe existed shortly before the civilizations around Timbuktu, Mali, Africa rose and then fell into chaos. Yet, which major culture have the pagans adopted? A Judea / Greek / Roman / Christian one. Paganism is still prevalent, yes, but it takes a back seat.
And let us not forget that the Slavs in Eastern Europe weren't the ones being called the derogatory name of "Western Africans" but that it was the Western Africans who were being called the derogatory name of "Slaves."
Anyway, I agree with everything but not with anything doing with the cognizant.
I just have a problem with the idea that everyone can get along just as long as everyone is a sociologist or a psychologist and not a poor southern white man who drives a pickup and chews tobacco. While the nifty college educated fellow knows to give his babe orgasms, the best ole Bubba will ever know is to try to buy her some at the flower shop on his way home. The conclusion attempts to perpetuate the notion that we can all live in a perfect world just as long as we project and reinforce positively to ourselves a perfect world. Yippee! We can all be better conditioned when we all develop to do our thinking in the air conditioning, so to speak.
If we all got a college education in a northern Ivy League University, lived in a gated community isolated from crime, and commuted back and forth from work in a chauffeur driven limosine, then we could look dignified doing the news while pitying those prejudiced people who grow food in the south.
You know, why can't we expand the concept of Uptown as an unbrella to include every precious head of the impoverished too? Wouldn't it be nice if we all lived in a tellytubby like land filled with pastel marshmallows, glittering neon lights, and Lime Street like gay bars of drag queens and unprejudiced Canadians?

Truth Warrior
07-23-2008, 04:05 PM
That sure would be a long term solution to the world human over population issue ..................... eventually. :rolleyes: :p

:D

torchbearer
07-23-2008, 04:11 PM
But there were blacks from Africa who knew how to function in American and European societies because they were raised in the master class of their particular caste system in Africa or, in particular, in Western Africa. A dynasty in Africa was similar to a a dynasty in India, one in Mayan civilization, in Chinese civilization and so on. Don't forget that the barbarian tribes in Western Europe existed shortly before the civilizations around Timbuktu, Mali, Africa rose and then fell into chaos. Yet, which major culture have the pagans adopted? A Judea / Greek / Roman / Christian one. Paganism is still prevalent, yes, but it takes a back seat.
And let us not forget that the Slavs in Eastern Europe weren't the ones being called the derogatory name of "Western Africans" but that it was the Western Africans who were being called the derogatory name of "Slaves."
Anyway, I agree with everything but not with anything doing with the cognizant.
I just have a problem with the idea that everyone can get along just as long as everyone is a sociologist or a psychologist and not a poor southern white man who drives a pickup and chews tobacco. While the nifty college educated fellow knows to give his babe orgasms, the best ole Bubba will ever know is to try to buy her some at the flower shop on his way home. The conclusion attempts to perpetuate the notion that we can all live in a perfect world just as long as we project and reinforce positively to ourselves a perfect world. Yippee! We can all be better conditioned when we all develop to do our thinking in the air conditioning, so to speak.
If we all got a college education in a northern Ivy League University, lived in a gated community isolated from crime, and commuted back and forth from work in a chauffeur driven limosine, then we could look dignified doing the news while pitying those prejudiced people who grow food in the south.
You know, why can't we expand the concept of Uptown as an unbrella to include every precious head of the impoverished too? Wouldn't it be nice if we all lived in a tellytubby like land filled with pastel marshmallows, glittering neon lights, and Lime Street like gay bars of drag queens and unprejudiced Canadians?

Did I also mention that those educated dark skinned people also owned slaves here in america? People of the same color. How does one rationalize that one.

And no, gayness would not make the situation better.
My best friend is/was gay, I've seen their scene. One word would triumph. DRAMA.
:D oh- and foam parties. No better than political parties. Just a bunch of guys jerking off each other... and screwing each other.
Really no different.

torchbearer
07-23-2008, 04:12 PM
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3072/2694545210_3f32c54159_o.jpg

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
07-23-2008, 11:01 PM
Did I also mention that those educated dark skinned people also owned slaves here in america? People of the same color. How does one rationalize that one.

And no, gayness would not make the situation better.
My best friend is/was gay, I've seen their scene. One word would triumph. DRAMA.
:D oh- and foam parties. No better than political parties. Just a bunch of guys jerking off each other... and screwing each other.
Really no different.

Your example is hideous but quite accurate.

Without murder, rape and foam parties, where would we find the metaphors to explain government corruption? Thank the Lord for crime and perverted behavior.

I had a friend who had a difficult time explaining his family to me. He eventually got around to explaining that his father was a pimp while he was also the offspring of one of his prostitutes. After taking great pain to explain this, I then realized why he had so many half brothers and sisters which numbered 12. When asked how he felt when the state came to take him away to put him up for adoption, he explained that to a 4 year old child it was the most normal thing in the world.

This is how slavery was to most people in the world. It was a peaceful relationship that they shared with those who mastered over them. The prince and the young master class were trained to become the king and the ruling master class while the livelihood of the slave's offspring was likewise caste into slavery from birth. Such were not allowed to be taught because it was believed their minds weren't able to do so.

That is the significance of the Platonic dialogue "Meno." In it the courageous Socrates demonstrates clearly that the mind of a slave can learn. The rest is Western Civilization history.