New World Order University Forum

If you attend college you will be indoctrinated into the social sciences, and even if you don’t attend college you will be bombarded with the propaganda that the social sciences establish some “truths” about society. Today we’ll help you recognize the false intellectual basis for the social sciences as part of our project of Undoing false modern beliefs. We’re going to focus on one social scientist, Emile Durkheim, as our starting point.

Emile Durkheim was a radical French republican who turned to sociology and anthropology as a way of establishing an analytical basis for the ideals of the Enlightenment. Durkheim, like the French philosophes, believed that a scientific study of society could lead to a new moral order of society.

Note that the early sociologists were driven by the false idea that the study of man could lead to the moral perfection of man. Of course, nothing like this has resulted from sociology, or from the progress of capitalism, or from socialism/Communism.

In 1882 Durkheim became professor of philosophy at Lycee of Sens. The first course in the social sciences was established at Bordeaux in his honor. Durkheim established a professional journal and was influential as a teacher.

Durkheim was a contemporary of Herbert Spencer, and both fell under the spell of the myth of progress guided by reason. He belongs to the line extending from Turgot, Condorcet, and Comte, the practical revolutionaries guided by the stage theory of history.

None of the ideas of the Enlightenment was true, and the stage theory of history was completely discredited at the end of the nineteenth century.

Durkheim developed an organic theory of society based on analogy with living organisms. He referred to the social body, social brain, and social protoplasm.

All thinking by analogy is fallacious. Society is not “like” a living organism. Don’t make abstract nouns the basis of your thinking or you will fall into error. Inventing abstract nouns is how the propagandists fool you. There really is no need to have the term “society” in your vocabulary. What exists are ethnic cultures, and, today, the mass pseudo-society. If you begin to think about “society,” this abstract noun will become an agent that acts. There is no such thing as an abstract noun that causes something. “Society” is not an actor or an agent.

The situation is similar with the word “evolution.” “Evolution” can have a very specific meaning, the appearance of new species through genetic mutations that occur by random chance but combine beneficially and fortunately to give rise to a new life form. But evolution as a social or historical or psychological process is entirely vague. Evolutionists always fall into the error of using “evolution” as a noun that causes something. Fallacy. Moreover, the propagandists use the word “evolution” to refer to results that are in fact planned, conspiratorially, to hide their source.

Durkheim objectivized social phenomena so that he could describe them with statistics. He considered social phenomena as things, as objects. Social phenomena are not objects, they are processes. All of the sociological diagrams of social life are confounded by the fact that social life is dynamic and constantly changing, even in so-called traditional societies. You can now turn to “theories of social change,” but this will merely bog you down in complexity and turn you toward materialism as the agent of cause. Once you go there, you will get lost in trying to create a hierarchy of material causation, and you will become vulnerable to materialistic determinism or eco-determinism. Once they have you focused on “environment” as causing everything, you will ignore the history of human invention and creativity. Then they have you under their control.

The error is in making social life objective. Humans are subjectivities and agents. Objectifying them is the fundamental error of the social sciences. But science cannot operate except through objectification and measurement, then reductionism through application of statistics. Social sciences create a form. The difference between the form and reality is the measure of their error. Getting stuck in their form is your error.

Durkheim insisted that social facts must be explained by other social facts. Social scientists who do this are trying to create a system, a chessboard of relations. Society is not a system. Humans do not interact solely on the basis of other social “facts” in mutual causation. All of the realms of human experience influence human experience, including thinking about stuff besides social facts.

Durkheim studied the social division of labor, suicide, morality, and religion. He popularized the idea that society dictates norms to the individual. This had the effect of destroying the contract theory of society held by Spencer and early republican radicals, though of course the radicals ignored this contradiction and continued to use sociology as part of their radical agenda of takeover.

You will often hear this confusion voiced by stupid people on TV, as if “society” were one single source of authority sending “messages” to individuals. What they complain about is “mixed messages.” What they are really referring to is Hollywood movies and the liberal junk culture approving various forms of deviance in opposition to real social values. Then they look to Congress to resolve the conflict by legislation. This is not a society. It is the Enlightenment radical pseudo-society being taken over by liberal deviants and perverts. Many of these perverts and deviants are congressmen and presidents and judges.

Durkheim believed the function of these social norms was to
defer conflict. Durkheim believed that society repressed
individualism, and he wanted to figure out how to further both
collective solidarity and individualism.

Note that Durkheim wanted to support contradictory values. But more important, social norms have multiple purposes, not just one, suppressing and managing conflict. The error in thinking in terms of collective sentiment vs. individuality is, traditional societies did not “suppress individuality.” Individuals in traditional or primitive societies have much more freedom of choice about how they spend their time than modern workers do. This entire argument is code for opposition to the Catholic church by sexual libertines who wanted to do away with it while preserving some fundamental core of social relations after destroying religion.

Durkheim wanted to elevate society over individualism to counter the propaganda of the day promoting free markets and bourgeois capitalism. Durkheim believed that individualism could not progress too far as one would lose one’s humanity. Durkheim believed that social life would disappear if society disappeared.

Durkheim was correct that individualism under capitalism cannot progress too far or the individual loses his humanity. One of our greatest problems today is the huge number of exploitive capitalist agents in the economy who go unpunished. But Durkheim did not succeed in finding the particular balancing mechanism in society that would negotiate between individualism and collective sentiment. Moreover, he did not conceive of what would follow the disappearance of society, the mass pseudo-society, with its secular institutions, and a mass pseudo-culture replacing genuine culture.

Durkheim studied suicide to try to solve the problem of the high rates of suicide among “Freethinkers.” Freethinkers were nineteenth-century radicals who promoted radical individualism and radical politics, usually under the influence of Romanticism and French revolutionary ideas of the brotherhood of man combined with “free love.”

The high suicide rates at the end of the nineteenth century were a particular challenge to the belief in progress driven by science and reason. Durkheim’s statistical studies of suicide and their publicity served as a warning that progressive policies were causing social destruction and lots of individual confusion and hopelessness.

The high suicide rates of the radical Freethinkers were a sign that the idea of pursuing freedom and happiness was not working. Your college professors will never tell you that Durkheim was motivated to study “society” because radical progressivism causes high suicide rates.

The aim of progressive policies is to cause social destruction. Durkheim was simply a naive radical who responded to the idealism of the Enlightenment revolutionaries rather than discovering their true agenda. He was brainwashed by idealistic propaganda. His project of finding a secular society that would promote secular values of freedom, happiness, and equality was doomed from the start by his own failure to dig deeper into the real values and agenda of the agents behind the French Revolution. Liberty and equality and happiness were merely slogans they used to appeal to the lower classes to take up arms. Totalitarian control was their true agenda. Most of the leaders were Freethinking pervs.

One of Durkheim’s key concepts was anomie, which means alienation or normlessness associated with freedom. Durkheim believed that, when man’s desires became strong, these desires would become tyrannical and enslave man in the absence of social limits. Durkheim was in search of a new source of moral authority to replace religion, but of course he never found it in a secular “society.”

Durkheim hoped that by finding a new source of morality he could establish a social solidarity lost in the age of republican revolution and capitalist innovation and thereby blunt the
high rate of suicide of his age. Durkheim’s error was in believing that individualism causes anomie. Progressivism causes anomie and seeks to capitalize on anomie by exacerbating it and using popular discontent to further revolution.

To understand this more clearly, refer to Marx’s writings about exacerbating contradictions (making things worse so that alienation will increase, thereby producing more radicals).

Durkheim’s problem was that he was not in the inner circle of strategists. He was just another gullible doofus with a university degree. If you have managed to penetrate inside the planning of the Bavarian Illuminati, recall that they planned to use the professors to spread their propaganda of social destruction through revolution.

Durkheim’s solution, the new institution of morality and group
solidarity to replace the family and religion, was the corporation. Of course today we find this attitude merely laughable. The corporation did not lessen rates of suicide or other social problems. The corporations did not develop as custodians of morality or replacements for the family. Instead the corporations became global predators and then were taken over by the most destructive Communist force, feminism.

If we are going to Undo all the false beliefs of modernism, we shall have to outlaw the corporation as well as all forms of radical thinking.

Durkheim’s study of religion was based on the idea that the totem has no inherent power but is merely a projection of man’s ideas about the spirit world and the sacred. Religion became for Durkheim a collection of symbols (stemming from the totem) that had assumed moral authority. Religion had shaped society, hence society (in the old medieval order and elsewhere in history) was a sacred institution. Society was everywhere the creation of and expression of religion, except under the modern secular order. Religion made social life possible through the largely unconscious adoption of ideals of cooperation by the individual. Sacred objects were thus necessary to maintain social solidarity, and religion was necessary to prevent the dissolution of order and the destruction of humanity through unbridled competition and savagery. The basic ideas of space, time, number, cause, substance, etc.–the building blocks of cosmos and worldview–arise from religious invention on the social level. Society
is the invention of religion and is essentially religious.
Rationalism cannot provide these social requirements, and empiricism cannot locate this invention at the level of the individual.

In other words, Durkehim discovered that society was sacred. That is why all the projects to remake a secular imitation of sacred society have failed. The program of sociology has always been under the control of the totalitarian takeover agenda.

Let us emphasize this fundamental fallacy at the heart of all secular thinking and all secular agendas. An ethnic group forms a web of relationships under the influence of a religion. Society is a religious invention. There really is no such thing as secular society under the rule of law. The secular pseudo-society is a fraud, an imitation, a propaganda invention designed to hold naive people under control by letting them imagine they are living in “freedom” while the legislators make “law” to take away their freedom and grant economic benefits to corporations and other special interest groups.

But today we understand that promises of freedom and happiness under endless legislation taking away our rights and controlling us is a con. The Congress is a con, a criminal enterprise serving money interests and socialists masquerading as “the will of the people.” The American system of government has nothing to do with society. It is a global cancer enmeshing everyone in webs of mutual financial dependency and levels of debt that promise permanent enslavement if it can even hold itself together. Remember, the Left is funded by the biggest global financiers, and the only question they are concerned with is how fast they can take us over.

Durkheim’s conclusions thus conflicted with his assumptions and his methods. The application of the methods of the physical sciences to society has not produced the knowledge that Durkheim and other social scientists hoped would result from their studies. One of the paradoxes of adopting a rigorous scientific methodology is that it acted to discredit earlier secular and republican theories of the Enlightenment but could not produce a robust theory of society and culture that could prevent the destruction of society and culture by the “rational” revolutionaries and secular scientists.

Another of the paradoxes of the social sciences is that one arrives at an understanding of goals, attitudes, and values as of primary importance, but the scientific method cannot come to grips with attitudes and values. Science itself is not value-free, and claims of objectivity in scientific observers are now understood to be false claims. Those who formulate hypotheses are sure to find the evidence to support them. Sociology arose from contradictory impulses, to study society and to remake society in a more rational way. These projects cannot succeed because they bear no relation to the actual forces that shaped human development historically. The social sciences and the secular society are failed experiments.

But the paradoxes Durkheim revealed in his studies did not discourage further work in sociology and anthropology. One can further examine the ideas and methods of the line of famous sociologists who followed Durkheim and find the same fallacies and paradoxes. Even worse, the social sciences were largely taken over by the Marxists Franz Boas, Ruth Benedict, and Margaret Mead in the twentieth century, who committed many frauds in their research. No social scientist has overcome the fallacy of making social life objective, then supporting hypotheses with statistical data.

As we discussed in The Hidden Masters, Adolphe Quetelet was the first to adopt this pseudo-scientific method of study, and Quetelet was everywhere guilty of the the fallacy of reductionism. Once one falls into this intellectual trap, the temptation to search for “laws of society” or “laws of history” cannot be resisted. This search has been a kind of “quest for the Holy Grail” that has caused millions of dreamers to waste their lives looking for what doesn’t exist. But the secular quest is profitable because your tax dollars support the massive overfunding of public education.

There is more to the history of the social sciences than floundering around in methods that are inherently fallacious. Recall the objective of establishing a “new moral order” of society that was inherent in Durkheim’s project of social study. No social scientist works under this goal today. The turn away from this goal marks the moment when social science came under the agenda of Marxist social control. Today social science is anti-human, not only because of the fallacies we have pointed out, but because the leading social scientists of the twentieth century were funded by New World Order controllers who wished to hold the levers of power to control the masses. We’ll explain who these evil scientists were in future posts. But first, let’s apply our present analysis to our dilemma, living under the control of Big Crooks and stupid liberal bureaucrats.

Tags: anomie, Emile Durkheim, Freethinking, sociology is anti-human, study of suicide

This entry was posted by Director on Tuesday, March 30th, 2010 at 10:01 am and is filed under NWO History. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.