Best international & world politics books according to redditors

We found 665 Reddit comments discussing the best international & world politics books. We ranked the 285 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Subcategories:

Arms control books
International treaties
International diplomacy books
Political trades & tariffs books
African politics books
Asian politics books
Australian & Oceanian politics books
Canadian politics books
Caribbean & Latin American politics books
European politics books
Middle Eastern politics books
Russian & Soviet Union politics books

Top Reddit comments about International & World Politics:

u/coldnever · 339 pointsr/worldnews

Most have no clue what's really going on in the world... the elites are afraid of political awakening.

This (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttv6n7PFniY

Science on reasoning, reason doesn't work the way we thought it did:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

Brezinski at a press conference

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kmUS--QCYY

The real news:

http://therealnews.com/t2/

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/

http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Government-Surveillance-Security-Single-Superpower/dp/1608463656/r

http://www.amazon.com/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190206446/

Look at the following graphs:

IMGUR link - http://imgur.com/a/FShfb

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Actual_estimated_ideal_wealth_distribution.gif
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Net_worth_and_financial_wealth.gif
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

And then...

WIKILEAKS: U.S. Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti So Hanes And Levis Would Stay Cheap

http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-haiti-minimum-wage-the-nation-2011-6

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnkNKipiiiM

Free markets?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349

http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Illusion-Literacy-Triumph-Spectacle/dp/1568586132/

"We now live in two Americas. One—now the minority—functions in a print-based, literate world that can cope with complexity and can separate illusion from truth. The other—the majority—is retreating from a reality-based world into one of false certainty and magic. To this majority—which crosses social class lines, though the poor are overwhelmingly affected—presidential debate and political rhetoric is pitched at a sixth-grade reading level. In this “other America,” serious film and theater, as well as newspapers and books, are being pushed to the margins of society.

In the tradition of Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism and Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death, Pulitzer Prize-winner Chris Hedges navigates this culture—attending WWF contests, the Adult Video News Awards in Las Vegas, and Ivy League graduation ceremonies—to expose an age of terrifying decline and heightened self-delusion."

Important history:

http://williamblum.org/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcA1v2n7WW4

u/kaiwanxiaode · 103 pointsr/worldnews

Then there is this book about Australia. Silent Invasion: China's Influence in Australia

u/BrotherBodhi · 85 pointsr/worldnews

A book if you're interested



EDIT: The book is "Tomorrow's Battlefield: U.S. Proxy Wars and Secret Ops in Africa" by Nick Turse



It released in 2015 and documents the growing number of secret US military operations across Africa, investigates the purpose of these operations, and gives predictions for what directions these operations will take and how they will affect all countries involved.




Here is the book description:


"You won’t see segments about it on the nightly news or read about it on the front page of America’s newspapers, but the Pentagon is fighting a new shadow war in Africa, helping to destabilize whole countries and preparing the ground for future blowback. Behind closed doors, U.S. officers now claim that “Africa is the battlefield of tomorrow, today. In Tomorrow’s Battlefield, award-winning journalist and bestselling author Nick Turse exposes the shocking true story of the U.S. military’s spreading secret wars in Africa."

u/PrinceCamelton · 46 pointsr/The_Donald

I just got done finishing Clinton Cash. That book completely rips right into this and explains it so well. The Clintons and their charity is complete scum. If some of you are looking for a good read, give it a shot.

u/mushcloths · 46 pointsr/canada

This is United Front in action - China's self-described "magic weapon", a special unit of it's government working to influence Western perception.
The Financial Times had a great article on it, here.


>This has given a boost to United Front efforts to woo overseas Chinese. Even though more than 80 per cent of around 60m overseas Chinese have taken on the citizenship of more than 180 host countries, they are still regarded as fertile ground by Beijing. “The unity of Chinese at home requires the unity of the sons and daughters of Chinese abroad,” says the teaching manual.

>It recommends a number of ways in which United Front operatives should win support from overseas Chinese. Some are emotional, stressing “flesh and blood” ties to the motherland. Others are ideological, focusing on a common participation in the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese people”. But mainly they are material, providing funding or other resources to selected overseas Chinese groups and individuals deemed valuable to Beijing’s cause.


There's also a new book all about China's attempts to influence Canada, called Claws of the Panda.

[edit: quote boxes]

u/rrriot · 45 pointsr/politics

A lot, and they've been crossing paths for years.

Seriously, if you really want to dive down this rabbit hole, check out Proof Of Collusion and Proof Of Conspiracy.

It's all sourced from major news reporting and it's mind-boggling.

Also follow the author's twitter feed: @SethAbramson

u/alaijmw · 40 pointsr/politics

> I hope his interest doesn't end at sexual impropriety.

Well he has a new book coming out called "War on Peace: The End of Diplomacy and the Decline of American Influence"... so I would say his interests are broad.

u/Hortler_Frozen · 29 pointsr/australia

This is but one of several attempts to soften public perception before a more aggressive stance take place. China plans 100 years ahead in many aspects, while our government rarely plans beyond an election cycle.

A good read for those interested in some of Chinas tactics.

https://www.amazon.com.au/dp/1743794800/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_c_d8LlDbKVATNPD

u/penpractice · 27 pointsr/TheMotte

>They don't want territorial expansion

The fact that they steal so much and spy so much indicates that it's possible they haven't formally expanded due to a practical reason and not an ethical reason. Yet they're already heavily influencing Africa and, more frighteningly, Australia. The Chinese influence and population in Australia and New Zealand is rising so fast (already 5.6%) that military invasion would be a amateurish blunder; they're already getting what they want at a slow and steady pace.

u/dragonite1989 · 26 pointsr/geopolitics

George Friedman is terrible at East Asian geopolitics. Absolutely terrible.

​

In his 1991 book that he published/authored, entitlted: "The Coming War with Japan", available on Amazon with a measley 3 star rating, he predicts US will go to war with Japan in the future. The guy has been wrong for 27 years and counting!

​

He doubled down on Japan by predicting in the next 100 year's book that Japan will be the Leader of Asia, and China/India somehow disappears from relevance from internal upheaval. A fiction sci-fi American nationalistic narrative.

​

What a complete farce.

​

u/Ubermensch-1 · 24 pointsr/CarletonU

> is my breaking point.

Is it though? Would you actually get angry and stand up for yourself if someone came to try and disrupt the rally? Pro-HK rallies in Vancouver have been repeatedly disrupted by pro-China protesters. Demonstrators at SFU also had their wall taken down.

Organizing something like this on reddit is a likely way to have a "counter-protest" show up. The CCP actually exerts considerable influence among Chinese-Canadians and foreign exchange students (and it's not like Carleton has any lack of those). Canada's leading Chinese newspaper is indirectly controlled by the Beijing government. There's a pretty good book on the subject if you want to read more.

Point being, this sub regularly complains about issues like stress and mental health issues brought on by school, which would pale in comparison to the stress brought on by actual political activism. The HK issue is a political crisis and not really the place for slacktivism. Personally, I'd support a rally, but I'm also not the kind of person who clutches my keys between my fingers while walking to my car at night. Just some food for thought.

u/[deleted] · 22 pointsr/canada

Claws of the Panda - Beijing's Campaign of Influence and Intimidation in Canada


\^Required, very dry, reading for all interested in our relationship/history with the Chinese government.

Remember: It's the Chinese Communist Party we're against. Not Chinese people.

u/WastedFrustration · 20 pointsr/The_Donald

Nearly finished with Clinton Cash, 10/10 should indict

https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369288

80% of the legwork is already done by the author, should ship copies to Congress

u/BellyFullOfSwans · 20 pointsr/Documentaries

Read Zbigniew Brzezinski's book The Grand Chessboard

There is no one person short of Henry Kissinger who has been more of a political insider through last 4 decades than Brzezinski. He was a key figure in supporting the Mujahideen and he almost single handedly created Al Qaeda (Al Qaeda means "the base", which referred to Brzezinski's database of useful Mujahideen fighters).

Brzezinski has advised on foreign policy from Carter to Obama and everyone in between. His book and his own words document the reasons for and the consequences of the US' role in the creation of Al Qaeda.

Any video claiming to give information on the beginnings of Al Qaeda/ISIS is horribly incomplete without THAT story....especially when the words come from the horse's mouth and the man is still alive today (his daughter is the co-host of Morning Joe on MSNBC).

u/barfy_the_dog · 19 pointsr/SandersForPresident

Big money is center to right; it prefers control and manipulation to ensure profit at the upper echelons of politics. The Democratic party wants to appear left leaning with social policy regarding gender and race, but in all other matters it is right of center. Center wouldn't even be bad if it protected a stable middle class, but that's not the case.


I just finished reading Clinton Cash. If you have any doubts about where the Democratic party is headed if she wins the election, read this book. It will give you a clear understanding why the Democratic party under Clinton will push for more fracking, the Keystone Pipeline, further uranium sales to Russia, strip mining and more war. And if you have any doubts at all about what will happen with affordable education, then the parts in the book describing the millions of dollars the Clintons have made with Sylvian/Laureat will help you understand that the very politicians who say they will help make education more affordable actually profit from it not being affordable.

So I'm not even sure the Democrats are centrist. They are right of center.

u/Pseudobeau · 18 pointsr/PoliticalHumor

Seth wrote "Proof of Conspiracy which lays out the reasons trump was elected and who benefited the most by his election. We, America, lost the 2016 election. Not because Hillary lost, but because it was more rigged than even Georgia's state elections.

u/cannibalking · 15 pointsr/politics

Links to everything that was disproved. 'Cause dis book still in circulation and the documentary adheres completely to the 2015 published copy.

Gotta cite your sources, otherwise I'm not grading your paper.

u/bombcart · 12 pointsr/The_Donald

Clinton Cash

Hillary would sell weapons or arrange for them to be made available to countries, and then surprisingly those same countries would make a large donation to the Clinton Foundation.

u/Scoundrelic · 12 pointsr/politics

Not a single mention about any China questions...

Even after Ronan Farrow did thorough investigation

u/Coloradofire · 12 pointsr/history

I have not downvoted you. But I want to clarify why many are.

We don't completely disagree with you, but while your outlook is more educated than the average, you still seem to be whitewashing the U.S intentions in these engagements.

Examples:

>Had we not supported, say, the Taliban, the the Soviets would likely have overrun Afghanistan. The Bin Laden thing, well, it's a nice theory because it makes it easy to demonize the US, but it's just false.

Should read: Had we not supported any and all radical regimes in the middle east and elsewhere worldwide, including dictators and brutal thugs; whomever we're cooperative with our economic, political and hegemonic aspirations, (who would receive our funding, weaponry, and on the world stage, our backing), --- We would not have control of the vast array of global resources that we do now, most importantly in the middle east, crude.

It wasn't to just keep the Soviets out, it was to keep the soviets out of our oil and natural resources.

>Hussein we supported and created. And then when we went to clean up our mess, America went ballistic.

Hussein we supported and created, for the reasons described above. When he no longer supported our agendas, we revealed him to the world as who he always was. A brutal dictator, which up until that point, did not bother us so long as the sweet crude kept flowing. As soon as it was politically better to remove him, we murdered his ass.

>The US didn't support the Taliban for funsies. The US didn't support Hussein because we thought he was a swell fella. The US did those things because at the time they were expedient and we were facing a threat from the Soviet Union - a bloc of countries responsible for a fair number of heinous things including genocides on par with the Holocaust.

Again, this could be summed up with. DON'T LET THE COMMIES GET OUR OIL. - Side note, again I cannot stress enough that we as a country, yes the US has murdered 10's of millions simply by financially, and politically supporting brutal dictators around the world whom were cooperative with our regional interests. Even this argument wears thin in the case of iraq, were specifically our military and our private contractors have killed thousands of civilians, and displaced millions from their homes, tortured people, denied them the right to a trial, etc....

Overall, the concern is this (For TL;DR users): While we may not actually use our military to murder millions, (I still use this loosely, as we only have a much quieter way of doing so, check out COIN theory) we by proxy support brutal dictators, thugs and otherwise in the pursuit of our goals, even when we know for a fact that our support is the reason why the millions of deaths they pursue are possible.

We are murderer enablers. Not because we like to. But because we have no choice in an economic system that demands permanent growth. The raw materials and oil have to come from somewhere, somehow, essentially NO MATTER THE COST.

I highly recommend reading Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival for references to whom we have supported and why, as well as Sleeping with the devil, how we sold our souls for Saudi crude, by former CIA agent Robert Baer for insight on our rather strange relationship with our Saudi "friends", The House of Sa'ud.

EDIT: Spelling.






u/BornSlinger · 12 pointsr/australia

Silent Invasion is something I've been slowly making my way though. Old mate Huang is referenced in the index more times than Japan...Shall we send tissues along with our baby formula?

u/digiphaze · 11 pointsr/politics

I'm wondering if this is tied to the Terry McAuliffe investigation now. Remember waaay back with the Clinton China gate in 1996? There are lots of well founded allegations of the Clintons getting funded via China in exchange for technology transfers. In particular, guidance technology that was used when the Chinese shot down one of their own satellites, and now threatens our national security.
Well now Terry McAuliffe is being investigated over Chinese money influencing US Politics. He also has tight connections to the Clintons through the Clinton Foundation. And as mentioned above, Clinton Foundation servers were seized. =
Things are starting to come together, and there is speculation that the unsecured server was a way of transferring information to the Clinton's foreign connections in exchange for money flowing in through various people and back channels.
... This is what you hang people over.. I mean I don't care what your politics are, this is some grade A fucked up shit. If the FBI puts all the pieces together and rounds up a huge ring of people involved in this INCLUDING the Clintons.. Man that would just restore my faith in the US government. This book, Clinton Cash.. Its author and contents are quickly becoming very very accurate.I would expect the same treatment of people like the Bushs if declassified papers find they took money influencing their politics from the Saudis in return for hiding their connection to 9/11. (I'm still not sold on the theory that the US was involved as well).

u/-AnD · 11 pointsr/The_Donald

If you haven't read it, you should read Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer. In this book, a chapter is dedicated to Hati, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere immediately after the earthquake that killed half a million people. I'm not going to get too far into it here, but needless to say, Bill shows up on behalf of the Foundation (unapproved by the IRS) and starts raising money for the "relief" effort. Long story short, most of that money never made it to Hati--something like only two or three percent. Talk about pure evil. To take money from the poorest of countries after this devastating disaster and you and your cronies pocket it? Deplorable. Things got so bad when Chelsea went to visit, she wrote to Hillary about the awful conditions highlighting the out of control sickness and paid special attention to the diaharea for some odd reason. Read the emails on Wikileaks. Cholera also broke out, which we found out later was brought by UN relief workers. In addition, Clinton managed to squeeze open pit gold mining rights from Hati and put a mining company her own brother was vice-president of, while only paying Hati back 3% of the revenue--which is completely unheard of in these kind of deals. This is just scratching the surface of all the shit they did, but I would encourage all centipedes to red this and become even more informed.#MAGA

u/FriendlyDaegu · 11 pointsr/korea

Still waiting on our "coming war with Japan."

u/BigOldNerd · 10 pointsr/technology

Documetary adaptation of the book Clinton Cash. Shows how the Clintons acted as global power brokers for the wealthy and powerful while using the foundation and speaking to accept legal bribes.

u/DoughnutButtersnaps · 10 pointsr/neoliberal

Here's the thing, International Relations is all about figuring out why states act as they do, using culture as the metric misses a lot of motivation for how states interact as logical players in a somewhat anarchistic game of survival as a state.

I haven't read this book, but I've read Joesph Nye and he's also one of the standards that most IR students will end up reading.
https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Global-Conflict-Cooperation-Introduction/dp/0205851630/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

I also mention Mearsheimer's Tragedy of Great Power Politics in another comment. It's heavily assigned and great if you loved playing Risk as a kid.
https://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Great-Power-Politics-Updated/dp/0393349276

u/jf_ftw · 10 pointsr/actualconspiracies

Especially when its laid out in a book by Jimmy Carters National Security Advisor

http://www.amazon.com/The-Grand-Chessboard-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261

u/News2016 · 9 pointsr/politics

Hillary Clinton’s Problematic Record in Foreign Policy:

...when Secretary Clinton was Secretary of State, she took very little action to bring about peace.
-former President Jimmy Carter in a recent interview - http://time.com/56770/jimmy-carter-jesus-christ-iran-putin-clinton-kerry/

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Bernie Sanders Is the Commander in Chief We Need - http://time.com/4266766/bernie-sanders-commander-in-chief/

“The commander in chief of the world’s most powerful military must have the sound judgment to know when to use America’s military power and, just as important, when not to use that power.” –Rep. Tulsi Gabbard

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Slams Clinton’s Failed Foreign Policy Record [video] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwQY-2Y9UB8

There’s a very clear difference between what someone says and what they actually do, and that’s where as we look at this most important question of who our next Commander-in-Chief could be and what qualities we look for in them, we can tell what they would do by looking at their past. I have not heard Secretary Clinton actually apologize to my brothers and sisters in uniform, military families for her vote for the Iraq war. –Rep. Tulsi Gabbard

Hillary Is the Candidate of the War Machine - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-is-the-candidate_b_9168938.html

Hillary Might Break the Glass Ceiling If She Wins, But She Won't Put a Dent in the Military-Industrial Complex - http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/hillary-clinton-might-break-symbolic-glass-cieling-if-she-wins-presidency-its-doubtful

Ten Reasons Why Bill and Hillary Clinton Do Not Deserve a Third Term in the White House - http://www.globalresearch.ca/ten-reasons-why-bill-and-hillary-clinton-do-not-deserve-a-third-term-in-the-white-house/5520424

Hillary the Hawk - http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35011-hillary-the-hawk

Hillary Clinton’s Six Foreign-Policy Catastrophes - http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clintons-six-foreign-policy-catastrophes/5509543

Hillary Clinton’s Energy Initiative Pressed Countries to Embrace Fracking, New Emails Reveal - https://theintercept.com/2016/05/23/hillary-clinton-fracking/

How Hillary Clinton's State Department sold fracking to the world - http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/10/how-hillary-clintons-state-department-sold-fracking-to-the-world

Clinton Foundation:

Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich (book) - http://amzn.com/0062369288

Hillary Clinton's Complex Corporate Ties - http://www.advfn.com/news_Hillary-Clintons-Complex-Corporate-Ties_65560730.html

Oil Companies Donated To Clinton Foundation While Lobbying State Department - http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/oil-companies-donated-clinton-foundation-while-lobbying-state-department-2348832

As Colombian Oil Money Flowed To Clintons, State Department Took No Action To Prevent Labor Violations - http://www.ibtimes.com/colombian-oil-money-flowed-clintons-state-department-took-no-action-prevent-labor-1874464

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

Clinton's Chevron ties - http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clintons-chevron-ties/article/2564237

UBS Deal Shows Clinton’s Complicated Ties - http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/30/capital-journal-ubs-deal-shows-clintons-complicated-ties-congress-faces-a-turbulent-fall-next-hurdles-for-the-iran-deal/#1

Hillary Helps a Bank—and Then It Funnels Millions to the Clintons - http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/

Hillary Clinton, Cisco And China: Company Funded Foundation, Was Lauded By Clinton Despite Role In Repression - http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clinton-cisco-china-company-funded-foundation-was-lauded-clinton-despite-role-1884160

The cash donations Hillary simply has no answer for - http://www.salon.com/2015/0/31/the_cash_donations_hillary_simply_has_no_answer_for_partner/

Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors - http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals

Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department - http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

Arab nations’ donations to Clinton Foundation: Curing world’s ills or currying favor? - http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article24782695.html

Related Info: A searchable index of Clinton Foundation donors - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/02/26/a-searchable-index-of-clinton-foundation-donors/

Related Info: Clinton Foundation Contributor and Grantor Information - https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors

Related Info: Speeches for the Clinton Foundation by President, Secretary, and Chelsea Clinton - https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/speeches

Honduras:

How to Hide a Coup: The US Role in the 2009 Honduran Coup - http://uchicagogate.com/2016/05/30/how-to-hide-a-coup-the-us-role-in-the-2009-honduran-coup/

"She's Baldly Lying": Dana Frank Responds to Hillary Clinton's Defense of Her Role in Honduras Coup - http://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/13/shes_baldly_lying_dana_frank_responds

“"I want to make sure that the listeners understand how chilling it is that a leading presidential candidate in the United States would say this was not a coup. … She’s baldly lying when she says we never called it a coup." –Dana Frank, an expert on human rights and U.S. policy in Honduras

Another Indigenous Activist Is Assassinated, Urging Calls for Clinton to Come Clean on Role in Honduran Coup - http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/another-indigenous-activist-assassinated-urging-calls-clinton-come-clean-role-honduran

Hundreds of Scholars Demand Justice for Assassinated Honduran Indigenous Activist Berta Cáceres - http://www.alternet.org/world/hundreds-scholars-demand-justice-assassinated-honduran-indigenous-activist-berta-caceres

Open Letter to Secretary of State John Kerry - http://www.coha.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/LetterSecStateKerry1.pdf

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Enabled the Coup in Honduras - http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/34941-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-enabled-the-coup-in-honduras

Hillary Clinton is lying about the criminal U.S.-backed coup in Honduras. It should be as scandalous as Libya - http://www.salon.com/2016/04/15/hillary_clinton_is_lying_about_the_criminal_u_s_backed_coup_in_honduras_it_should_be_as_scandalous_as_libya/

Before Her Assassination, Berta Cáceres Singled Out Hillary Clinton for Backing Honduran Coup - http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/11/before_her_assassination_berta_caceres_singled

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Enabled the Coup in Honduras - http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/34941-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-enabled-the-coup-in-honduras

Uproar Over Hillary's Role in Honduran Coup Grows as Her Campaign Denies Connection - http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/uproar-over-hillarys-role-honduran-coup-grows-her-campaign-denies-any-connection

The Clinton-Backed Honduran Regime Is Picking Off Indigenous Leaders - http://www.thenation.com/article/the-clinton-backed-honduran-regime-is-picking-off-indigenous-leaders/

Iraq:

Hillary Clinton vs. Bernie Sanders on Whether to Invade Iraq – 2002 [video] - https://youtu.be/2ySJLIc5BJM

Campaign 2016: Hillary Clinton Pitched Iraq As 'A Business Opportunity' For US Corporations - http://www.ibtimes.com/campaign-2016-hillary-clinton-pitched-iraq-business-opportunity-us-corporations-2121999

Hillary Clinton Iraq Business Opportunity [video] - https://youtu.be/sQq3hs_lXpY

The CIA Just Declassified the Document That Supposedly Justified the Iraq Invasion - https://news.vice.com/article/the-cia-just-declassified-the-document-that-supposedly-justified-the-iraq-invasion

Latin America:

A Voter’s Guide to Hillary Clinton’s Policies in Latin America - http://www.thenation.com/article/a-voters-guide-to-hillary-clintons-policies-in-latin-america/

Libya:

A New Libya, With ‘Very Little Time Left’ - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/libya-isis-hillary-clinton.html

“And Mrs. Clinton would be mostly a bystander as the country dissolved into chaos, leading to a civil war that would destabilize the region, fueling the refugee crisis in Europe and allowing the Islamic State to establish a Libyan haven that the United States is now desperately trying to contain.
The lessons of the Libya experience have not tempered her more aggressive approach to international crises.”

The Libya debacle undermines Clinton’s foreign policy credentials - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/libya-debacle-undermines-clintons-foreign-policy-credentials/2016/03/30/e57e36d4-f5db-11e5-9804-537defcc3cf6_story.html

Money, Power and Oil. Exposing the Libyan Agenda: A Closer Look at Hillary’s Emails - http://www.globalresearch.ca/exposing-the-libyan-agenda-a-closer-look-at-hillarys-emails/5514010

Cleaning Up Hillary’s Libyan Mess - http://www.globalresearch.ca/cleaning-up-hillarys-libyan-mess/5518041

“Clinton’s ultimate vulnerability on Libya is that she was a principal author of another disastrous “regime change” that has spread chaos not only across the Middle East and North Africa but into Europe, where the entire European Union project, a major post-World War II accomplishment, is now in danger.

Clinton may claim she has lots of foreign policy experience, but the hard truth is that much of her experience has involved making grievous mistakes and bloody miscalculations.”

u/ltsaGiraffe · 9 pointsr/geopolitics

> According to Stratfor's prediction

I'll be honest, Russia's current Federal structure isn't exactly a rock of stability, but a total USSR or Yugoslavia-style breakup/meltdown is a long-shot at best (worst). Besides, I wouldn't trust anything from Stratfor farther than I can throw George Friedman.

u/plistig · 9 pointsr/600euro

Weitere Erklärungen wurden nachgereicht!

>
Ich habe 8 Jahre für die Bundeswehr / NATO gearbeitet. Da bin ich oft in die USA, dort wurde mir das 2003/4 schon gesagt. Ebenso die Entwicklung in Syrien.
>
Eine Revolution oder ein Krieg ist immer lange geplant. Das passiert alles nicht zufällig und einfach so. Es wird die politische Lage beobachtet und dann entweder gegengesteuert, wenn man eine Entwicklung nicht haben will oder befeuert wenn die Entwicklung im nationalen Interesse ist. Dann wird eine Werbekampagne gefahren (Brunnen bauen in Afghanistan, böser Russe muss zurückgedrängt werden, im Irak gibt es Massenvernichtungswaffen, Erdogan böse, deswegen sind wir jetzt in Jordanien). Eigentlich spielen alle das gleiche Spiel und alle miteinander. Ebenso ist die Krim-Übername der Russen von allen mehr oder weniger abgesegnet. Dafür kann der Rest zur EU, mit Krim und Schwarzmeerflotte wäre das nicht möglich gewesen.
>
In Jordanien sind wir aber nicht wegen Erdogan, sondern wegen den Palästinänsern, und ihrem neuen Staat den es bald geben wird und Jordanien dabei eine wichtige Rolle spielen wird.
>
Mehr gibts eigentlich nicht zu erklären. DIe Nachrichtendienste sind dabei die, welche die Informationen sammeln, und Nachrichten für die Öffentlichkeit aufbereiten. Nicht in Deutschland, aber die deutschen Medien sprechen auch alles nach, was von Übersee kommt.
>
Das ganze funktioniert sogut, weil die allermeisten bei den Themen gleich austeigen und es nicht glauben wollen. Andere beschuldigen dann sie seien Verschwörungstheoretiker und so geht das Spielt halt weiter.
>
Wenn Du Dir das Buch "The Great Chessboard" durchliest, dann wurde da schon ziemlich genau die Zukunft 15 Jahre vorausgessagt. Das ist durchaus möglich. Wenn die Vorhersage also im nationalen Interesse ist, wird versucht, das geschehen zu lassen.
>
Und die AfD war eben, dann guter Aufklärung schon 2003 bekannt, ebenso wie 1998 die Entwicklung in der Ukraine oder im Nahen Osten bekannt war (Buch dient als Beweis)

Falls jemand sich das Buch kaufen will https://www.amazon.de/_/dp/0465027261

u/momerath · 9 pointsr/politics

Invading Iraq, and doing an ostensibly bad job of it, were only one small part of the desired outcome of 9/11. Read PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses. The Grand Chessboard by Obama adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, is similarly illuminating and nausea-inducing.

u/Freud-Slipped · 8 pointsr/The_Donald

Make sure to buy or check out Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich from your local library. Tons of dirt. The Clintons are corrupt to the bone and belong in jail.

u/catmeow321 · 8 pointsr/geopolitics

George Friedman's projections on Eastern Europe and Russia is spot on (likely because he is of Polish descent).

However, his projections and analysis on East Asian affairs leaves much to be desired.

Check out George Friedman's book published in 1991 called: The Coming War With Japan It's been 27 years, and his projections is completely off the mark, since US and Japan has not gone to war, and Japan remains a steadfast US ally.

Take what George Friedman says in The Next 100 years with a grain of salt, he predicts China and India to somehow magically disappear while Japan becomes the Leader of Asia.

u/hobbes305 · 8 pointsr/worldnews

A highly relevant read:


>War on Peace: The End of Diplomacy and the Decline of American Influence, By Ronan Farrow





https://www.amazon.com/War-Peace-Diplomacy-American-Influence/dp/0393652106

u/Rey_del_Doner · 8 pointsr/Turkey

Anti-Turkish sentiment was unleashed when Turkey began accession negotiations to join the EU. The more reforms Turkey passed, the more frantic many Europeans became, so they began accepting all anti-Turkish propaganda available on every Turkish issue.

Now the anger is about Turkey going with the alternative of a Middle East strategy. This wasn’t Erdoğan’s idea. Turkey becoming more Islamic and increasing its cooperation with Russia and the Arab world after being outcasted by the EU was a rational act predicted by political scientists before AKP ever came to power.

Most Westerners don’t have agendas related to Turkey and they're usually reasonable people, but there’s definitely a derangement people develop by reading Western news about Turkey. At this point, you’d have a more accurate understanding of the PKK, the 2016 failed coup and its aftermath, Erdoğan, etc. from reading Daily Sabah than you would from much of the Western press. That’s sad.

u/FalconGK81 · 7 pointsr/The_Donald
u/the2belo · 7 pointsr/japan

If you want sheer awesomeness in the "failed predictions" genre, you can't go wrong with this.

u/CQME · 7 pointsr/NeutralPolitics

IMHO the realist/Clausewitzian explanation is by far the most effective. The theory posits that all states are inherently confrontational, as all states seek to maximize their own security, and doing so necessarily compromises the security of other states. The situation is tragic, as elucidated by Mearsheimer.

How this is Clausewitzian is that he posited that any state in a position of strength would become aggressive, whereas any state that is weak would become passive and seek peace. China and Russia were both in positions of extreme weakness around 2000 economically, something that they both fixed during the GWB administration. Note China and Russia's economic ascendance during his terms. Both the Chinese and Russians have expressed the desire for peaceful relations with the US, neither of which receive much reciprocation, because the US doesn't have to, at least not yet.

So, bottom line, China and Russia have become aggressive because they can now actually challenge US aggression...and make no mistake the US has been ultra-aggressive since the end of WWII (chart #2 shows % of global military spending by US since 1988).

u/somewhathungry333 · 7 pointsr/Futurology

Shit is getting real in secret, this is former national security advisor of the united states Zbigniew Brezinski, rule of law is effectively over:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY

A book he wrote in 1969:

https://www.amazon.com/Between-Two-Ages-Americas-Technetronic/dp/0313234981/

"The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities."

The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives

https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261/

u/Sparkle_Chimp · 6 pointsr/politics

Yeah, pretty much. There's already one book on the subject. It has 50 pages of sources.

u/logicalutilizor · 6 pointsr/politics

I think it's a hybrid on both what Israel and the US wants. Multinational western corporations has a huge interest in protecting the availability and resources in competition with e.g. China. A few years back I read Zbigniew Brzezinski's (Obama's dad) book "The Grand Chessboard", there he makes the case for a crucial economical, geopolitical interests (for US-EU) that is dependent on a strong Israel as a stronghold towards the new far east trading blocks.

Every American should read this book.

u/xingfenzhen · 6 pointsr/Sino

Well, you are not the ones decide to invade not invade. Here are some article that give hint of what's going on in the head of those who do. Brzezinski's book is especially interesting, as it was written in the 1990s. Many event since then, especially in the middle east and central asia, follows its advice. And the guy who wrote the come war with china is in the trump government as their china expert.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1100/RR1140/RAND_RR1140.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261

https://www.amazon.com/Coming-China-Wars-Revised-Expanded/dp/0132359820

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2018-12-11/who-will-run-world

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2018-10-15/vanishing-nuclear-taboo

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2018-10-15/beijings-nuclear-option

and to put things in historical perspective read the following as well

https://www.amazon.com/Problem-Asia-Effect-International-Politics/dp/0765805243

https://www.iwp.edu/docLib/20131016_MackinderTheGeographicalJournal.pdf

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/1947-07-01/sources-soviet-conduct

u/Blogipeligo · 6 pointsr/IAmA

| They know that their neighbours in the south live better

Did they actually say this to you? Most defectees I have seen interviewed say they are taught and believed that south korea is a desolate wasteland where the people who live there are the slaves of Americans. They believed that just about all communicable disease came from the south.

In Kim Hyon Hui's book Tears of My Soul (about her role in the bombing of Korean Air flight 858) she describes how even when traveling abroad, she had mental blockages from her indoctrination that prevented her from recognizing that other countries were more prosperous than hers.

Edit: Typo

u/pbrand · 6 pointsr/geopolitics

> In terms of trade, China treats Australia far better than the US treats Canada.

Australia, however, is paying a price for that in other realms, especially political. I'd very much recommend reading https://www.amazon.com/Silent-Invasion-Chinas-Influence-Australia/dp/1743794800

If you want to read an article about the book, NPR just recently covered Hamilton: https://www.npr.org/2018/10/02/627249909/australia-and-new-zealand-are-ground-zero-for-chinese-influence

edit: if you don't have a counterargument, don't downvote me. That's cowardice and very un-/r/geopolitics of you.

u/JAFO_JAFO · 5 pointsr/politics

More context: NYTimes article

Rolling Stone article

Clinton Cash book which is a primary source for much of the corruption allegations.

Newsweek review of Clinton Cash book which actually says there isn't proof, just situations that look bad.

Article by The Atlantic about Clinton Cash. Again, it looks bad, but you would need an FBI investigation to prove it's illegal.

u/DolphinLundgren · 5 pointsr/worldnews

ROFL at the George Friedman links. I think I'll pass. It's imprudent to learn geopolitics from a self-promoting moron. Here's another Friedman classic

u/Daleborr · 5 pointsr/europe

Friedman has always had a boner for Japan for some reason.

Russia will become irrelevant, it's time is over as a global power.

Population is important, but geography is the name of the game. He does make some unorthodox prediction through the book, but I think he was completely right with Russia. It was pretty obvious if you were looking for it.

u/anon36 · 5 pointsr/gaming

This is the usual place to start: 1953 Iranian coup d'état

> The 1953 Iranian coup d'état occurred on August 19, 1953. Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown by forces loyal to the Shah, and coordinated by British and American intelligence services.

Tip of the iceberg, really. WWI also had an oil & middle east component, but that was more Great Britain than America per se.

The current situation is best described by Zbigniew Brzezinski in The Grand Chessboard, IMO.

u/etago · 5 pointsr/politics

its a transcript of a speech, and its obviously designed as a medley. its also not really fitting to the conference he spoke, so i guess its designed as a one size fitts all speech to perform at mildly important conferences. (link to video)

its still an interesting speech, but its not like this is the only thing he published- coincidentally, his new book is where he picks up some of the things he doesn't want to go on about in this speech. (us foreign policy and "terrorism")

u/batsofburden · 5 pointsr/worldnews

Read Seth Abramson's book 'Proof of Conspiracy' if you want to find out more about how Trump has been buddying up with some of the scummiest leaders in the world for his personal gain.

u/johnnight · 5 pointsr/european

First, of all, rational arguments NEVER convince anyone. You can find all the data you want, it won't work. It just makes you look like a sneaky crypto-racist, who won't admit to his immorality.

Second, the way to win is to do what Ben Shapiro has perfected: be the first one accusing the other side of a moral transgression, so that THEY have to defend themselves from accusation.

The debate is biased anyway, because arguing against immigration immediately invites the moral accusation of racism. This means that it cannot be argued in good faith, so it is necessary to go for the nuclear weapons of moral accusation early.

I'd go all in and say that: "I don't care about them". Islam's core and irremovable goal is to make Sharia the law of the land everywhere on earth, which is unconstitutional (requires removal of European constitutions), so there is zero room for debate with Muslims on this [100% true][1]. Everybody who argues for the bringing in of Muslims is an enemy of the European civilization and a traitor, and therefore is an immoral person that needs to be prosecuted for treason and executed on the spot. There is no room for debate here.

Just go all in and accuse the other side of the worst.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Catastrophic-Failure-Blindfolding-America-Jihad/dp/1511617500

u/i_be_doug · 4 pointsr/The_Donald

Dont' forget Clinton Cash, Unlimited Access, and the Starr Report (which covers both Whitewater and the Lewinsky purjury/obstruction

u/crsy10 · 4 pointsr/politics

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0062369288?fp=1&pc_redir=T1

Happy reading. It happened. A lot. If you take away the accusatory narrative and just look at the facts. It's really not that hard to come to the conclusion that she's corrupt as fuck. If ONE instance in that book is true then she's a corrupt politician. But there's an entire book. On true events. Some person, government, company, gives the clintons money, and they get favorable treatment. Obviously there's no way to say that X directly contributed to Y but the sheer amount of times this shit happened speaks for itself.

u/AndrewRichmo · 4 pointsr/nonfictionbookclub

This is the list I have right now, but I might take something off before tomorrow.

Walden – Henry David Thoreau

The Blind Watchmaker – Richard Dawkins


The Shallows: What The Internet Is Doing To Our Brains – Nicholas Carr

Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics – John J. Mearsheimer

Voices from Chernobyl: The Oral History of a Nuclear Disaster – Svetlana Alexievich

u/SuperHondo · 4 pointsr/de
u/Putin_loves_cats · 4 pointsr/conspiracy

The Grand Chessboard. Written by: Zbigniew Brzezinski.

u/capkap77 · 4 pointsr/geopolitics

From Amazon:

The world is changing in ways most of us find incomprehensible. Terrorism spills out of the Middle East into Europe. Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China and Japan vie to see who can be most aggressive. Financial breakdown in Asia and Europe guts growth, challenging hard-won political stability.

Yet for the Americans, these changes are fantastic. Alone among the world's powers, only the United States is geographically wealthy, demographically robust, and energy secure. That last piece -- American energy security -- is rapidly emerging as the most critical piece of the global picture.

The American shale revolution does more than sever the largest of the remaining ties that bind America's fate to the wider world. It re-industrializes the United States, accelerates the global order's breakdown, and triggers a series of wide ranging military conflicts that will shape the next two decades. The common theme? Just as the global economy tips into chaos, just as global energy becomes dangerous, just as the world really needs the Americans to be engaged, the United States will be...absent.

In 2014's The Accidental Superpower, geopolitical strategist Peter Zeihan made the case that geographic, demographic and energy trends were unravelling the global system. Zeihan takes the story a step further in The Absent Superpower, mapping out the threats and opportunities as the world descends into Disorder.

u/Stormcloud23 · 4 pointsr/geopolitics

The Absent Superpower by Peter Zeihan would be a good start. He's also got a "sequel" coming out early next year called Disunited Nations which should go into even more detail. There are also plenty of recorded speaking events on youtube you can check out to get a general gist of his analysis. Here are the two most recent:

Keynote - Peter Zeihan 2019

The New World (Dis)Order - Peter Zeihan - 72nd CFA Institute Annual Conference

u/EnjoyFotos · 3 pointsr/europe

I think that's a great argument for the rising importance and power of Poland. But his simultaneous argument that the EU is inevitably going to fail in the face of nationalism seems to gloss over the mammoth amount of thought every architect of the EU has given to exactly this problem. It's a huge obstacle to overcome, no doubt; but simply pointing to it doesn't make it insurmountable.

Let's just hope he's as wrong about this as he was when he predicted war between Japan and the US during the 90s.

u/rwat1 · 3 pointsr/geopolitics

You mean George Friedman's 1991 book titled: "The Coming War with Japan" ?

George Friedman's knowledge on East Asian geopolitics is a joke compared to Robert Kaplan, who is also employed at Stratfor.

u/CushtyJVftw · 3 pointsr/badeconomics

I mean, he did write this in 1991, claiming that war with Japan was inevitable within the next 20 years. I don't think "crank" is too unjustified.

u/tweettranscriberbot · 3 pointsr/ANTM

^The linked tweet was tweeted by @tyrabanks on Apr 23, 2018 20:11:03 UTC (22 Retweets | 265 Favorites)

-------------------------------------------------

The man has lips. 👄

The man has smize. 👀

The man could be on Cycle 25. 📺



The man is @RonanFarrow and he’s both brilliant and beautiful. 💛



Get his book 📚: https://www.amazon.com/War-Peace-Diplomacy-American-Influence/dp/0393652106/

#WarOnPeace

Attached photo | imgur Mirror

-------------------------------------------------

^^• Beep boop I'm a bot • Find out more about me at /r/tweettranscriberbot/ •

u/funkybside · 3 pointsr/politics

Also the guy who wrote this this.

u/ricebake333 · 3 pointsr/politics

>I really appreciate you posting this stuff. Its a real eye opener.

You'll probably enjoy books by blum:

http://williamblum.org/aer/read/137

US distribution of wealth

https://imgur.com/a/FShfb

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html


The grand chessboard

http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261/

u/freedompolis · 3 pointsr/IRstudies

The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives

by Zbigniew Brzezinski

Zbigniew Brzezinski tackles the United States grand strategy on maintaining American preeminence in the twenty-first century.

> Central to his analysis is the exercise of power on the Eurasian landmass, which is home to the greatest part of the globe's population, natural resources, and economic activity. Stretching from Portugal to the Bering Strait, from Lapland to Malaysia, Eurasia is the ”grand chessboard” on which America's supremacy will be ratified and challenged in the years to come. The task facing the United States, he argues, is to manage the conflicts and relationships in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East so that no rival superpower arises to threaten our interests or our well-being.The heart of The Grand Chessboard is Brzezinski's analysis of the four critical regions of Eurasia and of the stakes for America in each arena—Europe, Russia, Central Asia, and East Asia. The crucial fault lines may seem familiar, but the implosion of the Soviet Union has created new rivalries and new relationships, and Brzezinski maps out the strategic ramifications of the new geopolitical realities. He explains, for example: Why France and Germany will play pivotal geostrategic roles, whereas Britain and Japan will not. Why NATO expansion offers Russia the chance to undo the mistakes of the past, and why Russia cannot afford to toss this opportunity aside. Why the fate of Ukraine and Azerbaijan are so important to America. Why viewing China as a menace is likely to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why America is not only the first truly global superpower but also the last—and what the implications are for America's legacy.

u/horse_spelunker · 3 pointsr/conspiratard

One of the cycling official reasons, yes. For a less jingoistic understanding of US foreign policy, I might suggest The Grand Chessboard by Brzezinski and Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky and Herman. In short, the US would never mobilize its considerable war power at such cost just out of pure, altruistic desire to topple a dictator. No doubt you're aware of the many dictators the US has installed and supported over the years.

u/go_fly_a_kite · 3 pointsr/conspiracy

>is this a proxy confict with Russia?

yes

  • balkanization

  • detente

  • realpolitik

    "How America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources."

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Grand-Chessboard-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261
u/jamers89000 · 3 pointsr/GoldandBlack

This guy was on the Tom Woods show, it might be of interest to you: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0982775717/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_lQxhDbC3QBMEH

u/send_nasty_stuff · 3 pointsr/SubforWhitePeopleOnly

/r/911truth and r/holocaust has source driven stuff. The ron unz site is good.

Starter, source driven, articles.

https://www.unz.com/runz/our-american-pravda/

http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/

http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-911-conspiracy-theories/

Source driven full texts.

Jews and sexual 'freedom' agenda

http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/1999/libido_ad.html

Jews as revolutionaries and subversionaries through history all the way up to the neo con movement.

http://www.culturewars.com/Reviews/RevolutionaryReviews.html

https://www.bookdepository.com/Culture-Critique-Kevin-Macdonald/9780759672222

If you don't have the time to read 800 and 1200 page books here are two documentaries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCkc-ZF_TSY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiGYtQ1EWZw

this doc covers lots of the issues.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJl0bH8ey-M

The late Emeritus Professor Dr. Tony Martin covers jews and the slave trade. WITH SOURCES

https://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Onslaught-Despatches-Wellesley-Battlefront/dp/0912469307

Here's a shorter read on jews and the slave trade.

https://wethoughttheywerewhite.tumblr.com/WhoAreTheJews

Those sources should cover 90% of /u/translate4mepls post. Please let me know if you have questions.

and if you need jews and bolshevism the Juri Lina books and documentaries are good and of course Solzenitzyn.

edit. if you are VERY short on time this is a compact documentary (20 minutes) yet still data/source driven.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljMPafQpfDU

edit 2. sorry I left out more specific israel lobbying books.

https://www.amazon.com/Big-Israel-Israels-Lobby-America/dp/0982775717

https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374531501/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=2AP6DCM7502FT8F0FNZZ

https://www.amazon.com/Where-Right-Went-Wrong-Neoconservatives-ebook/dp/B003J56502/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=neo+conservatives+pat+buchanene&qid=1553479646&s=books&sr=1-1-spell

Need more sources?

https://imgur.com/a/RI1lA1j

https://imgur.com/a/IOSTDYs

https://imgur.com/a/rMMHiQv

https://imgur.com/a/mx4KK9X

https://imgur.com/a/oxPYWCc

https://imgur.com/a/sBtcAEh

https://imgur.com/a/XPosuJ6

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJl0bH8ey-M

Also read the Hooton Plan and Kalergi plan. Here are two funny animations about this topic as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKDeyuM0-Og

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faNge-o0V-k

need more?

Quick history on the last 200 years of jews.

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAltRight/comments/a8u6rp/the_cuck_and_based_map_of_white_countries/eced3ar/

Small collection of jpgs on the jews

https://old.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/a9qw2y/the_rothschilds_started_the_civil_war/ecln6kd/?context=3

Thread on Study resources

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAltRight/comments/a56b51/jewish_study_resources/

Step by step guide on Jews

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAltRight/comments/a13foq/how_to_explain_the_jq_in_a_simple_stepbystep_guide/eamjm9n/

Jews and Communism

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAltRight/comments/a1bf7q/debunking_jewish_communism/eaodfbt/

Why the JQ is important to white identitarianism movements

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAltRight/comments/9wxv0m/what_is_the_specific_importance_of_the_jq/e9o46qe/

Jews and Pedophillia

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAltRight/comments/9t18cm/ok_im_sold_now_what/e8vtgmp/

The JQ simplified in plain language.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SubOfPeace/comments/9n7iin/2_am_schitzopost/e7krwez/

Thread on THE Epic Unz Article

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAltRight/comments/9bi1rv/the_holocaust_did_not_happen/

Jew in their own words

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAltRight/comments/93gzrj/can_anybody_here_just_admit_that_the_jq_is_dumb/e3d92gg/

A redpill story and some JQ info from /u/certifiedrabbi

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAltRight/comments/8szqmz/is_the_altright_environmentalistwhat_altrights/e14rdzd/

Jews vs the Parsi

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAltRight/comments/91cejs/the_reason_you_fight_for_an_open_society_is/e2xqyvz/

Jewish Tricks: driving cognitive overload to overwhelm enemies

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAltRight/comments/8zmix9/cognitive_load_is_the_driver_of_pilpul_and/

Example of how jews first stigmatize, isolate and destroy enemies.

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/8xbmrs/the_social_shaming_of_racists_is_working/e22bb07/

Examples of jewish subversion in the west

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAltRight/comments/8wisse/frequently_among_the_altright_i_see_posts_talking/e1vuaif/

Understanding Jewish motives

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAltRight/comments/8o4fmt/what_are_some_altright_beliefs_you_dont_100_agree/e00p9fx/

Understanding why whites ignore the JQ

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAltRight/comments/8o4fmt/what_are_some_altright_beliefs_you_dont_100_agree/e0125ba/

Do jews really want to genocide whites?

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAltRight/comments/8jfaao/i_need_some_clarification_on_white_genocide/dyzei69/

Data on broken social cohesion

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAltRight/comments/8jee6p/does_the_altright_want_nonwhite_americans_to_leave/dyzflru/

u/TheIllustriousWe · 3 pointsr/politics
u/slinky783 · 3 pointsr/The_Donald
u/Ryean1 · 3 pointsr/exmuslim

Good video and typical of these poster boy "Muslim moderates" who happen to be the opposite of what they, and other around them, promote in the public eye. As per the comment at the end: the book has scholarly consensus, ijma. One man's opinion means what to it? This "doctor" becomes a doctor of bullshittery. It would be like saying "Yeah the jury said I was guilty but I'm not so fuck off."

Stephen Coughlin's book, "Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad" is a great one to look up on this subject. It analyzes the Reliance of the Traveler, which reading it alone would be a magnificent effort. It is a few thousand pages with many "problematic phrases" which hides reasoning and intent. Catastrophic Failure breaks them down and uses other sources, including Qutb and Islamic Jurisprudence, to break down the content and make it easy to digest. It is still a big book however at around five hundred pages.

u/pecuniology · 3 pointsr/bitcoinxt

> [I]t becomes more important that we who believe fungibility is necessary ensure that laws guaranteeing it for all currencies are entrenched and protected.

In spite of my comments below, I wholeheartedly hope that you succeed.

However, as long as one is more than a few steps away from a bitcoiner under investigation, one might be in the clear, if some of one's satoshis trace back to Silk Road. After all, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials auctioned the things off.

With regard to this from the article:

> The debate about whether Bitcoin is fit to be a currency rather than a payment layer between currencies is as alive as it has ever been.

Actually, that debate is rather new, and it is driven by one specific development team, with very little input from miners and essentially no input from those who hodl the largest bitcoin hoards, i.e. people who have funded this enterprise and actually have skin in the game. (Oddly, altcoin promoters feature rather prominently in that debate.)

Considering that bank executives worldwide have been deputized by the US Treasury Department in the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism, the US dollar's fungibility has been broken for decades. Those interested this topic are encouraged to read Juan Zarate's Treasury's War. I know a bank executive who tells me that things have become even more so, since this book was first published.

As for this:

> “[Fungibility] is the idea that a 10 dollar note is the same as any other 10 dollar note. So if you receive a note that was involved in a theft 10 transactions go and the police investigated the theft, then they would have no right to take the note away from you,” according to Adam Back, the inventor of Hashcash.

It appears that Dr. Back is unfamiliar with Civil Forfeiture in the USA. One's $10 bill can be seized for any or no reason. It is so bad in the USA that CBC Senior Correspondent, Neil Macdonald, has warned Canadians visiting the USA not to carry cash.

If pure, perfect fungibility prevailed, then Source of Funds would be an empty concept. Also, if pure, perfect fungibility prevailed, then one might expect DHS agents to rain hellfire and fury on Bitcoin users.

I'm not saying that it is a good thing, but love it, hate it, or be indifferent to it, there it is.

u/mike_hearn · 3 pointsr/Bitcoin

You're using a text about "financing of terrorism" to state that HSBC execs knew about drug money. There is no connection between these.

To understand what's going on here, you should read a book called "Treasury's War" by Juan Zarate:

http://www.amazon.com/Treasurys-War-Unleashing-Financial-Warfare/dp/1610391152

During the period of time under discussion the US Treasury decided it was going to single handedly fight Bush's War On Terror. Its own staff members had inserted into the PATRIOT Act a new clause stating that it could designate any financial institution anywhere as being of "primary money laundering concern". This was effectively a death warrant for the institution in question. However, no requirements were put on these designations. No evidence, process or really anything was needed. And people like Zarate were determined to go home and tell the wifey that they were brave freedom fighters keeping America safe.

The book details their titanic screwups in enormous detail, which is kind of amazing because it is written by one of the guys most responsible. Even now he can't see how awful the book makes him look.

For example, your quote talks about Saudi banks. The Treasury liked to designate foreign banks as being key players in global terror networks based on ...... no evidence at all. Or sometimes just a single account. Yet it expected everyone to immediately cut ties with those banks on their say so.

One notorious case (documented in Zarate's book) involved a very old and respected US bank that happened to have many foreign embassies as clients. Zarate's team at the Treasury Dept decided that foreign embassies of middle eastern countries were inherently suspicious. No real justification for this view is provided in the book - they just felt sure those embassies were up to no good. So they designated the bank as of "prime money laundering concern" under their PATRIOT Act powers and it went bankrupt. Of course, now the US is screwed because suddenly lots of foreign embassies don't have bank accounts anymore and can't pay their employees. What's more, no other bank will touch them because they're afraid of the hit men at the Treasury. Cue minor diplomatic crisis. Eventually the State Dept had to intervene and give some other banks assurances that they wouldn't be prosecuted or forcibly bankrupted by taking on the embassies. All those embassies (except Cuba I think) got bank accounts back. So, net result: one dead US bank. No other impact. Repercussions on the Treasury staff who did this: none, because even though it was widely recognised as an epic fail, they were just fighting terrorists y'see? And in wars mistakes happen.

In short, after reading this book, I really can't see American statements about banks being involved in terrorist financing as anything meaningful. There are too many well documented instances where they simply made things up, or whacked random institutions just because they could.

u/realityhacker55 · 2 pointsr/saraba1st

那只是你在牆内不清楚而己。中國的長手伸入美國,歐洲的例子已報導很多了。 他們对西方世界的核心價值和生活方式巳形成侵蝕。以後再鍵接一些有関中國統戦部海外活動的報導。

舉個例子就好: 你知道為什麼澳洲今天這麽反華嗎?讀一讀這本2018的書就知道:

Silent Invasion: China's Influence in Australia
https://www.amazon.com/Silent-Invasion-Chinas-Influence-Australia/dp/1743794800

u/33degree · 2 pointsr/conspiracy

The book draws a straight line from the Benghazi gun running operations to the Syrian Rebels and then to ISIS (apparently). Guess I'm gonna have to preorder this one:

http://www.amazon.com/The-REAL-Benghazi-Story-Hillary/dp/1936488868/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1410272234&sr=8-1&keywords=the+real+benghazi+story

u/jackrousseau · 2 pointsr/worldpolitics

http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Government-Surveillance-Security-Single-Superpower/dp/1608463656

You think Tom Englehardt is some lunatic conspiracy theorist too? Looks like it's time for you to shut the fuck up and educate yourself.

u/Adam1936 · 2 pointsr/samharris

Of course. Or pressure their government to put sanctions on South Africa. Each case would need to be looked at individually and moreover take into account what one's government could do, perhaps with good intentions, under the guise of humanitarianism. How much of a chance is there to get our government to go into Darfur? What would occur if American troops went into Darfur? Would we set up a corrupt government and implement disastrous economic policies that wreck the economy and give all the contracts to corporations that not only waste funds but hire Americans rather than locals and leave infrastructure deteriorating leading to skyrocketing unemployment, crime and conflict as in Iraq?

You have to look at what the US government is institutionally capable of doing. I for one came to the conclusion that our government cannot, in general, be trusted to complete humanitarian missions a while ago, helped in part by reading Michael McClintock's Instruments of Statecraft (available in full online: http://www.statecraft.org) This is one of the hardest points to get through to people (it took ages for me) when they accept US military presence and funding as essentially benign.

You can see Chomsky emphasizing this point here: "One can imagine a world in which intervention is undertaken by some benign force dedicated to the interests of people who are suffering. But if we care about victims, we cannot make proposals for imaginary worlds. Only for this world, in which intervention, with rare consistency, is undertaken by powers dedicated to their own interests, where the victims and their fate is incidental, despite lofty professions.

The historical record is painfully clear, and there have been no miraculous conversions. That does not mean that intervention can never be justified, but these considerations cannot be ignored — at least, if we care about the victims."
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/11/noam-chomsky-interview-isis-syria-intervention-nato/

So to answer your question yes it is theoretically possible but rarely that straightforward. I cannot think of a time where Americans were able to get their government to enable in a humanitarian mission but plenty where they were able to mitigate what it was inflicting (South Africa, East Timor, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Vietnam, the list goes on). However if I thought it could be done and saw intervention as a worthy endeavor I would of course do so. However the only two examples I know of where a blatant act of invasion was justified was India into Bangledesh and North Vietnam into Cambodia, both of which were opposed by the United States (going so far as to send a nuclear submarine off the coast of India and telling its ambassadors in Bangledash to shut up as they were screaming to Kissinger America was supporting genocide; had it not been for the Soviet Union, yes THAT Soviet Union, sending its own sub to follow ours the ploy may have worked and the slaughter would have continued).

Given this observation and given that we are actively engaged in so many horrific policies (operation Columbia, unilaterally supporting the Israeli occupation, channeling millions of dollars in military aid to subsaharan Africa which has already enabled a coup in Mali (http://www.amazon.com/Tomorrows-Battlefield-Proxy-Secret-Africa/dp/1608464636) our provision of billion of dollars in military aid to Saudi Arabia as it slaughters People in Yemen, our support for dictatorial regimes in Central Asia, and recent help in solidifying 2 coups against democratically elected governments in Honduras in 2009 and Ukraine more recently) and given that mainstream intellectual culture in our society either supports them or sees them as unworthy of comment it makes sense to focus on the harm our government is engaged in that we have a chance of mitigating.

But I once again emphasize that if I thought our government could be pressured into doing something good, I would do so but given my understanding of the world much more can be done by attempting to mitigate its crimes.


u/caferrell · 2 pointsr/The_Donald

Read "Clinton Cash". Hillary has always been all about the Benjamins. She has no morals at all, she just wants money and power. She has done and will do anything to get money and power.

u/SolusOpes · 2 pointsr/worldnews

I recommend Why leaders lie. The truth about international politics.

It's a great, fast read from insiders that talk about how leaders, to each other, privately, are brutality honest. It's only to their people, to drum up support, or continue a narrative, etc, do they lie.

It's why Israel and Saudi Arabia can have financial and even intelligence cooperation while publicly condemning each other.

It's why the US and Russia can "hate" each other. While working in the UN and with space programs and on intel sharing against various entities.

u/truthnineseven · 2 pointsr/politics

To pander to you ill give you the first, trump really said "i hope you can let this go," the president is free to fire the Director of the FBI even if he has no "valid" reason. Here is a source i know you trust:

http://www.newsweek.com/can-president-fire-fbi-director-trump-comey-594716

and again there is nothing illegal about firing the director of the FBI even during a pending investigation...you will find ZERO evidence of that


instead i recommend you reading a good book that will help you understand why leaders lie and it might help with your level of sensitivity

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Leaders-Lie-International-Politics/dp/0199975450/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510688764&sr=8-1&keywords=why+leaders+lie&dpID=41RLA4I3lKL&preST=_SY344_BO1,204,203,200_QL70_&dpSrc=srch

u/lotharofthehillpeeps · 2 pointsr/news

And I wonder if this rejoinder will appear in Arabic-language newspapers tomorrow? How many in the ME will hear this news? Or will they just hear what Assad said and just blame the US?

I wonder if John Mearsheimer's 'Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying In International Politics' has something to say about it. And once again, the ME is being fed lies by their local shit media.

u/ViaAlpina · 2 pointsr/DarkEnlightenment

> but like it or not an age of war is coming

Every age is an age of war. Absent technology that neutralizes fission and fusion, mass deployment of conventional forces between major powers seems unlikely. Best leave the predictions to the experts.

----

> we will need them to drive trucks, push paper, and support logistics to free up bodies.

The US could easily draft a force of 15+ million men without resorting to children, the elderly, or women. How many shitty little proxy wars do we need to fight? Women are more expensive and less expendable.


Every woman employed in almost any military capacity represents a reduction in potential combat power.

-----

> ... the value in trained women as Intel officers...

This is the only solid point in in any of your posts. But I don't think anyone here would dispute that women have been extremely useful in intelligence gathering.

---

> bunch of edgelords

Am I wasting time arguing with an entryist?

u/colin_000 · 2 pointsr/worldpowers

I think that The Tragedy of Great Power Politics is a really neat book. This is somewhat unrelated to your niche, and some of you guys have heard me speak about this on IRC. I have no education in International Relations and a high school education in history, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but it really does a good job at explaining ambitions that underpin nations foreign policy and what causes them to have such ambitions. It's certainly not a perfect book, but it does a good job at explaining a staunchly, sobering realist theory of international relations. One reviewer puts it this way, "I found the book an enjoyable read but Mearsheimer has a surprisingly superficial grasp of world history. However, he does provide a helpful explanation of American foreign policy over the past 200 years." That's important to know before digging into this book, and it's also important to know that John is very staunchly realist. In my own opinion, I think realism is a very good theory, but it also assumes (again, my uneducated opinion) that (like with books like the Dictators Handbook) that leaders are psychopaths with no emotions. That ideology doesn't play a role on some level in decision making. That foreign policy is entirely predicated around protecting a nation.

I'd like to hear /u/Fresh-Snows thoughts on it. He studies international relations extensively from what I've heard. He could offer an interesting opinion.

Also, Ender in Exile is a very good book that I am currently reading. If you have read Enders Game, or of Scott Cards books on the Ender universe in general, I highly suggest picking up this book.

u/richiecherry · 2 pointsr/Ask_Politics

A book recommendation for you: The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Mearsheimer builds up a clear argument, with analysis of historical relevance stretching from Napoleonic France, Nazi Germany up to the modern United States.

His view is arguably colored by his assumptions about International Politics. However, the author makes this clear in the first few chapters, explaining his theory of Offensive Realism. It is at the same time a logically understandable and depressing view of the interaction of states.

The book finishes with a chapter wherein it is predicted that the rise of China is unlikely to be peaceful. There also are suggestsions of strategies for the U.S. to deal with this change in the balance of power. A clear and convincing read, highly recommended.

To give some sense of overview, there are other views of International Poltitics, this is just one of them, there is enough room to be critical. This book gets a serious debate going though, which you are looking for, reading from your post.

And since you are asking my opinion: Great Power politics are likely to trump relatively minor factors of environment and language in international relations. I assume that being the leading nation in the world means having the most power in the world. This has little to do with language and less to with environmental policy. It has everything to do with military forces, arsenals and alliances. Economic power as well, has a higher priority.

I am not saying the factors you point out are unimportant. The spread of language and the accompanying culture can be a spread of "soft power". The spread and popularity of Hollywood movies is an example of this. Many people throughout the world today speak English. But this can change. It is not hard to imagine that in three generations Chinese can have spread its influence as a language significantly.

If Chinese military and economic growth can be turned into a dominant position, other countries will study its culture in order to court and befriend it and hopefully benefit from associating with them.

u/TweetTranscriber · 2 pointsr/ANTM

📅 2018-04-23 ⏰ 20:11:03 (UTC)

>The man has lips. 👄

>The man has smize. 👀

>The man could be on Cycle 25. 📺

> 

>The man is @RonanFarrow and he’s both brilliant and beautiful. 💛

> 

>Get his book 📚: https://www.amazon.com/War-Peace-Diplomacy-American-Influence/dp/0393652106/

>#WarOnPeace

>— Tyra Banks ✅ (@tyrabanks)

>🔁️ 22 💟 268



📷 image



 

^(I'm a bot and this action was done automatically)

u/Bizkitgto · 2 pointsr/geopolitics

Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard is a great place to start.

u/markth_wi · 2 pointsr/politics

I would say in so far as one considers the overall question of who's interests are being served in the greater middle east, while clearly up until the 1960's or so, there was a favorable attitude towards Israel as a strong proxy in resistance to Communism , it could be seen as a secondary.

A fascinating book on neoconservative political though, Leo Strauss' "Thoughts on Machiavelli", pointed out that among what we would today identify as neoconservatives, they should endeavor to gain and keep literary and ideological influence in the US political structure.

Strauss makes a second major (although very obscurant) observation that given the Western penchant for representative government, if one really wants to lead, the "best" form of representative democracy is in fact totalitarian democracy, whereby people elect a leadership, but that leadership effectively has absolute power, during it's tenure.

Even a cursory reading of constitutional writings makes it pretty abundantly clear, this vision is not exactly what the founders had envisioned, and in fact can be seen as highly incompatible with the original intent of US constitutional processes.

Neoconservatives, however, during the later years of the 1960's (and this is a FASCINATING observation made by many early neoconservatives), especially after the 1967 days war and the attack on the USS Liberty, it became increasingly clear to Irving Krystol and others that polemic influence was rapidly declining as the "left" in the United States became increasingly difficult to gain reliable outputs from the political process ;Representative "Scoop" Jackson was being investigated for espionage, the Viet Nam anti-war movement was in full swing, and it was unclear the "left" would long remain uncritical of Israeli political/military positions, indefinitely)

So the notion to "switch" political affiliation started ,and astutely re-ordered itself slowly becoming rhetorically reflective of and ultimately part and parcel of the conservative movement - which was seen as far more capable of being managed rhetorically.

More painful to read was that what neoconservatism should do, first and foremost is decide what is wanted, and disregard the practical considerations , or reasons one might not want to do such a thing; this is a tragic element of neoconservatism since it encourages the political class to disregard the well being of any host society and perform at some political 'id' level of functioning - effectively giving philosophical sanction to sociopathy - that makes Ayn Rand look positively generative by comparison.

In this way we can attribute the decline of "realpolitik" to the political maneuverings and ascent of neoconservatism within the Reagan administration, ultimately consigning that political tradition to the last holders of those political views in the 1990's , (Schultz, Bush Sr, Scowcroft even Kissinger were marginalized)

Today we see this in the preposterous ideological stances of some Israeli leaders (Avi Lieberman for example) proposes that non-loyal Jews (and of course all Arabs/Sephardi) be required to take loyalty tests or be "relocated", how one fails or passes a loyalty test and when the disloyal Israeli citizen is relocated is not mentioned. More perverse is the notion of racial purity gangs sprouting up, that are not actively discouraged. That said, I'm not Israeli, these days, if they want to setup racial purity laws, or ethnically houseclean, it's not my concern, although history clearly shows that ultimately it does become our concern eventually (honestly, who in the US, wants to end up on the wrong side of another Apartheid argument).

In US politics, you get the notion of constant warfare, I dislike the polemic of Chomsky on this point but do find that there is a very strong element of don't ask whether it's in the interests of the United States, but rather ask whether it is in the interests of these ideologues and then push hard for whatever it is.

This operates in concert with the overall feeling of some in the US oriented political class that military might is the signature element of US power, rather than taking the traditional / historical view (Paul Kennedy makes this case in his excellent book "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" , that military power is a direct consequence of economic power, and that confusing the two / or failure to reconcile the relation has repeatedly lead to the self-destruction of more than one economic power in the past.

So it is for that reason , pretty much alone, that the United States, does very well for itself by constraining it's military expeditions to those which are strictly necessary and similarly keeping military and other social support expenditures well below our means if we mean to persist as a functional nation-state.

Zbigniew Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard" makes a grand statement about US presence and influence in the US, but does so in a surprisingly insightful way, it's an excellent counterpoint to alot of the geopolitical views that hold sway today, covering many of the same problems, but with a more US centered focus.

In recent readings, I think one of my favorite books on the subject was a short and easy read by Donald Kagan "On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace", or , both of which basically lays out the notion (although he NEVER states as much for obvious reasons), that US military dominance implies a duty to preserve US interests in the Eurasian sphere of influence, limiting the ascent of China and dominance of Russia.

Most of these positions are entirely counter to the positions taken historically in the US, and more disturbingly they are directly counter to the actions and policies of all of the major developed nations (Japan, Germany, England, France) which 40 years ago, made coherent energy ,infrastructure and industrial policies that slowly moved their nation-states away from oil, and the geopolitical instability of the Middle East.

More damningly I think this political worldview, rather abruptly disrupted, our educational system, both at the liberal arts and especially the scientific level;

There is a peculiar animus towards scientists who can counter the political views of absolutism, one of the best examples of this was very early on when Richard Perle got shut-down, from his hard-line and openly discredited idea that the Soviet Union was "breaking" US / USSR arms treaty conditions, here a knowledgeable expert destroyed Perle in a public forum, especially as the 1980's continued.

It was possible to see the vast efficiencies of computers and later communications (ultimately leading to the internet in later years), but these innovations are the legacy of the R&D and generous funding of the late 1950's and 1960's, today rather than innovate and engineer around the economic & resource constraints in our economy, we shuffle money around and hope someone else clever comes up with ideas.

Ultimately, however the sad tale ends up in the actions that warranted the removal from office of most of the political operatives and strong ideological advocates of neoconservativsm in the United States military / civilian establishment, in 2003-4, when FBI (CIA and DIA conducted similar investigations internally) all started to determine independently, that US interests, were not just being poorly served, but in fact were undermined, forcing the Bush administration to remove or allow to retire almost all of the major players, although , the damage was done, the US had overthrown the Iraqi leadership by this time.

In the run-up to the war in Iraq, and less successfully against Iran by stove-piping questionable information to the US administration, and in some cases there was evidence of at the very least questionable and arguably treasonous actions undertaken by some elements of the political/military administration under the Bush administration.

Personally, I found the investigation and continued influence of these guys totally disheartening, and it has made me very apathetic to continued US involvement in the Middle East whatsoever.

It seems simply far more logical , and in concert with our longer term interests, to just load up on static energy production - solar, thermal, wind , "cleaner" coal, and just do whatever is possible to maintain a small footprint in the region, and re-establish our governmental educational/industrial/military trajectory from - what - a generation ago?

u/OleToothless · 2 pointsr/geopolitics

Sure, although it really depends on which geopolitical facets you enjoy the most.

Zbigniew Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard. Heavily influences US foreign policy. http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1462464442&sr=1-1&keywords=zbigniew+brzezinski

George Friedman's The Next 100 Years. This is the guy that started Stratfor and this book is a large part of why they started getting so much attention. I really like Friedman but I do find his actual prose can be pretty droll. http://www.amazon.com/Next-100-Years-Forecast-Century/dp/0767923057/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1462464571&sr=1-3&keywords=george+friedman

Charles Lister's The Syrian Jihad. Good read. http://www.amazon.com/Syrian-Jihad-Al-Qaeda-Evolution-Insurgency/dp/0190462477?ie=UTF8&keywords=charles%20lister&qid=1462464907&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1


Any of Kissinger's books would probably be worth reading. Even if you don't like the guy, he's not dumb by any stretch, and he's still pretty influential.

If I think of more I'll post 'em.

u/blash2190 · 2 pointsr/CredibleDefense

> I'll concede the point that the US is very concerned by Chinas's rise but Russia's?

Wolfowitz Doctrine, 1992

"Russian threat" segment, unedited (ie "before being leaked") version:

> We continue to recognize that collectively the conventional forces of the states formerly comprising the Soviet Union retain the most military potential in all of Eurasia; and we do not dismiss the risks to stability in Europe from a nationalist backlash in Russia or efforts to reincorporate into Russia the newly independent republics of Ukraine, Belarus, and possibly others....We must, however, be mindful that democratic change in Russia is not irreversible, and that despite its current travails, Russia will remain the strongest military power in Eurasia and the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States.

This translates well in what is now happening in Ukraine. Here is was mister Brzezinski has to say about Ukraine in his book:
> Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasion chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but it would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state, more likely to be drawn into debilitating conflicts with aroused Central Asians, who would then be resentful of the loss of their recent independence and would be supported by their fellow Islamic states to the South.

Furthermore,

> Indeed, the Ukraine’s relationship to Europe could be the turning point for Russia itself. But that also means that the defining moment for Russia’s relationship to Europe is still some time off – ‘defining’ in the sense that Ukraine’s choice in favor of Europe will bring to a head Russia’s decision regarding the next phase of its history: either to be a part of Europe as well or to become a Eurasian outcast, neither truly of Europe nor Asia and mired in its ‘near abroad’ conflicts.

I suggest you digging up the book. It contains quite a number of interesting thoughts regarding the relationship between Ukraine and Russia. Unfortunately, I can't provide the most interesting of them right now.

Edit: fixed the link

u/avengingturnip · 2 pointsr/EndlessWar

Do you want to know why we are in Afghanistan and are never planning on leaving? Here is the answer. Geopolitics.

http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261

u/G_Comstock · 2 pointsr/IWantToLearn

Chomsky is without doubt where I would suggest you begin.

Perhaps Hegemony or Survival

u/blackeneth · 2 pointsr/The_Donald

Well ....

Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, by Stepehn Coughlin

>After the events of September 11, 2001, Stephen Coughlin was mobilized from his private sector career to the Intelligence Directorate at the Joint Chiefs of Staff to work in Targeting. Thus began his education in terrorism. In the years that followed, Coughlin earned recognition as the Pentagon’s leading expert on the Islamic-based doctrines motivating jihadi groups that confront America. He came into demand as a trainer and lecturer at leading commands and senior service staff institutions, including the National Defense University, the Army and Navy War Colleges, the Marine Corps-Quantico, the State Department, and the FBI. So effective were his presentations that some in the special operations community dubbed them “Red Pill” briefings, a reference to an iconic scene in The Matrix. It’s an apt metaphor: Once the facts and doctrines are properly explained and understood, there is no going back. This was more than our enemies – and, it seems, our leaders – could tolerate. Beginning in 2011, the Muslim Brotherhood convinced the White House to ban Coughlin and put an end to his briefings. The move was in keeping with shariah concepts of slander that seek to blindfold America to certain realities that render us defenseless against a threat made existential by the very ignorance it gets our leaders to enforce. In times like this – when the White House’s former counter-terrorism strategist can declare it unconstitutional to allow national security analysts to look to Islam to understand jihad – there’s an urgent need to pull away the blindfold so we can see and confront the threat. Such is the goal of Catastrophic Failure. The book, drawn heavily from Coughlin’s “outlawed” briefings, is a comprehensive assessment of Islamic law and doctrine known to form the basis of hostile threat strategies directed against America and the West, the challenges they present, and the ideologically induced breakdown of fact-based decision making that is nothing short of professional malpractice by our national security elites.

Four-part podcast with the author:

Secure Freedom Radio - Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad

Also on YouTube:

Stephen Coughlin, Part 1: Lectures on National Security & Counterterror Analysis (Introduction)

u/Europe4ever · 2 pointsr/DebateAltRight

> Anyone who says: "But they aren't unified!" is repeating the exact same individualist arguments that the alt right spends all day refuting, but to nations instead of persons. It's the same thing, really.

They are unified, but they are good Mohammedans and keep us in the dark:
Organization of Islamic Cooperation(OIC). I believe(not 100% sure) it is the worlds 2. largest transnational body, only surpassed by the U.N.


I've read several books dealing with Islam & Jihad and the one I am currently reading is one I can recommend to everyone:
"Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad" by Stephen Coughlin.
He is a former intelligence analyst for the U.S. in the war on terror.
He has a series of lectures on youtube covering the same topic.

Here are some quotes from his book regarding OIC:
"We’ll examine the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation and see how their understanding of themselves as a kind of “Proto-Caliphate” may be accurate, even though our decisionmakers don’t even know they exist."


"Chapter X of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Charter declares the universal agreement within the OIC that “human rights” is shariah. From the 2008 OIC Charter:
The Independent Permanent Commission on Human Rights shall promote the civil, political, social and economic rights enshrined in the organisation’s covenants and declarations and in universally agreed human rights instruments, in conformity with Islamic values".

> Pro-white alt righters often cite muh technology or muh nukes as reason why the Islamic world can't be a threat to us.

Qaddafi said it best, they will out-breed us in our own lands if western leaders don't put an end to immigration.

Anyone who wants to read about how Islam is not hijacked by extremists and how Islamic law promotes and demands Jihad should read Stephens book. He lays it out very thoroughly. Most importantly he writes about how western cultural experts and moderate Muslims deny reality because of political correctness and sensitivity towards Muslims.

u/helpmycorgi · 2 pointsr/IWantToLearn

Kenneth Waltz writes a lot on international theory. He's a big name in IR scholastics.

Basically, there's realism, liberalism and constructivism... most of the additional theories are just updates or adjustments to those main theories. They all refer to how actors (states, individuals, groups) in the world interact.

https://www.amazon.com/Theory-International-Politics-Kenneth-Waltz/dp/1577666704/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1472840739&sr=8-3&keywords=International+Theory

u/AirGuitarVirtuoso · 2 pointsr/NeutralPolitics

Honestly, I haven't come across a ton of good textbooks explaining the basics of IR theory. The Wikipedia page is a pretty good starting point for the big theoretical schools.

Neorealism and Its Critics is also a modern classic on IR theory you'd read in most college or graduate level IR courses. Waltz's Theory of International Relations is also a seminal text. Sam Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" Article and Book were both extremely important to recent thinking on IR.

u/LorTolk · 2 pointsr/AskSocialScience

I would also recommend The Globalization of World Politics as an introductory text to the field. It's an absolutely phenomenal textbook, while summaries you've posted are indeed comprehensive and succinct.

To elaborate, with more comprehensive texts (should the OP choose to read them), IR is a broad field. But specifically regarding International Politics, I would recommend Nye's The Future of Power, as a current perspective on international power (and the fairly recent differentiation in power resources, eg. "hard" and "soft" power). Focusing specifically on International Politics (as opposed to other IR subfields like development), the seminal works for the current theories on international politics include:


Theory of International Politics by Kenneth N. Waltz (1979), which serves as the foundation for structural realist (or neorealist) school. Neorealists are generally split between offensive realists (like Mearsheimer) and defensive realists (Waltz and Walt) as general categorizations, and you can find related works from these scholars for a focused view from either on the issues they disagree upon.

After Hegemony (1984) by Robert Keohane is the neoliberal institutionalist response to Waltz (Power and Interdependence by Keohane & Nye (1977) is probably its founding text), and one of the leading works of the theoretical field itself.

Finally, Social Theory of International Politics by Alexander Wendt (1999) is the comprehensive overview of the social constructivist school.

These largely cover all the major theoretical branches of current International Political theory (without diverging too heavily into IR subfields), though I do emphasize that these classifications are fairly fluid, given the readiness of offensive realists like Mearsheimer to look into the "black box" of domestic politics in the (highly controversial) piece, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. Again, these are the main theoretical works in these respective schools, and it is not necessary for you (the OP) to read through all of them to understand the subject.

While not exclusively International Politics focused, World Systems Theory is highly influential critical theory for IR studies, and understanding it (and Marxist-influenced dependency theory) as well as game theory (Nash Equilibrium etc) are both integral to modern IR methodologies and theories. By in large, Hobbes and the Leviathan (and a bit of Rousseau) is the only political theory that you need to start delving into IR theory, so you should be good on that front.

There are also specialized and diversified IR fields such as Development, Peace and Conflict Resolution, and Human Rights, but those are most likely not necessary given the scope of your conference (by the sounds of it, predominantly focused on state-centric International Politics).

u/RAndrewOhge · 1 pointr/HillaryForPrison

“Crooked Hillary” is not just a nickname; it is a way of life.

For the latest generation of indoctrinated millennials, who were educated in the black hole of Clinton’s actual political conduct for decades, the notion of selling out real national security for funding her family slush fund may be hard to swallow.

For hard core Clintonistas, the practice of trading favors for money is politics 101, taught in the book from “Chinagate”.

[https://www.independentsentinel.com/lest-we-forget-hillarys-china-gate-scandal/]

Lest you forget, “the transfer of America’s most sensitive technology, including but not limited to nuclear missile and satellite technology, apparently in exchange for millions of dollars in contributions to the 1996 Clinton-Gore re-election effort and the Democratic National Committee”, is a family tradition.

You can always depend upon the Clinton apologists to ignore, divert or circumvent the linkage that demonstrates the corrupt nature of the Clinton cabal, pay to play culture.

But how much is enough before some of the most left wing ideologues begin to admit that the stench can no longer be avoided?


Last year Mother Jones published a stunning comparison chart that shows Clinton Foundation Donors Get Big Weapons Deals. “17 out of 20 countries that have donated to the Clinton Foundation saw increases in arms exports authorized by Hillary Clinton’s State Department”.

Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors is most revealing and cites from an IBT investigation:

[http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals]

“As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton also accused some of these countries of failing to marshal a serious and sustained campaign to confront terrorism.

In a December 2009 State Department cable published by Wikileaks, Clinton complained of “an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority.”

She declared that “Qatar’s overall level of CT cooperation with the U.S. is considered the worst in the region.”

She said the Kuwaiti government was “less inclined to take action against Kuwait-based financiers and facilitators plotting attacks.”

She noted that “UAE-based donors have provided financial support to a variety of terrorist groups.”

All of these countries donated to the Clinton Foundation and received increased weapons export authorizations from the Clinton-run State Department…

In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records.”

The Hill confirms these numbers. Hillary scrutinized for arms sales at State and cites a new book by Peter Schweizer, Clinton Cash.

[http://thehill.com/regulation/international/243089-hillary-clinton-facing-criticism-over-international-weapons-deals][Clinton Cash: http://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369288]

The essential question raised, whether foreign governments sought to curry influence with the Clintons by making donations to the foundation, should be easily answered.

When the conflicts of the Clinton Foundation become too much for even MSNBC, the outrage no longer can be said to be part of a “right-wing conspiracy” against the wicked witch.

“MSNBC host Rachel Maddow asked Clinton in March if she should shut down the Clinton Foundation.

“Is there a case to be made, an ethical case to be made that the Clinton Foundation and the global initiative should essentially be wound down as a family foundation while you run for president,” she asked the Democratic candidate.

“I think it is not unreasonable to suspect that people may give donations to The Clinton Foundation hoping that they will favorably influence your opinion toward them, as a presidential candidate, or eventually as president if you’re elected.”

Clinton sidestepped the question.”

Still, the most reliable and recent information is published in The Daily Caller article, Persian Gulf Sheikhs Gave Bill & Hillary $100 Million, which provides a much needed narrative that deserves wide exposure.

[http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/11/exclusive-persian-gulf-sheikhs-gave-bill-hillary-100-million/]

“The FBI has reportedly launched a second investigation of the former secretary in addition to its probe of her private email server.

This investigation is looking into “political corruption” and is seeking evidence where former Secretary Clinton may have offered official government favors to foundation donors.

Most troubling for Hillary, however, could be Bill’s personal, five-year business partnership with Dubai’s authoritarian ruler, Sheikh Mohammed bin-Rashid al-Maktoum and his overall friendship with the rulers of the United Arab Emirates — a confederation of states that includes Dubai.”

Under her tenure, the Hillary Clinton’s State Department Armed Saudi Arabia to the Teeth, but this only scratches the surface.

[http://fpif.org/hillary-clintons-state-department-armed-saudi-arabia-teeth/]

However, the irony of her War Party devotion is at the heart of Why Hillary Clinton’s “Strongest Issue” Is Actually Her Biggest Farce.

[http://usuncut.com/politics/clinton-arms-deals-gun-control/]

“Hillary Clinton just might be the top salesperson for the military-industrial complex in US history, yet she is claiming to be the undisputed champion of gun control in the 2016 race.

The fact that Clinton has sold more weapons than George W. Bush in his second term isn’t mentioned much by the major cable news networks, who have allowed her to get away with the narrative that she wants to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of killers.

But much of the unrest in the Middle East can be traced back to US-supplied weapons during Clinton’s years as Secretary of State, particularly to countries with deplorable human rights records.”

For continuous updates on the Clinton Foundation Corruption News, Judicial Watch discloses some astounding details that few other publications would touch.

[http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/clinton-foundation-corruption-news/]

“The illicit partnership between Hillary Clinton’s State Department and her family foundation extended even to fundraising.

An August 2009 email chain including Hillary Clinton’s then-Chief of Staff Huma Abedin, Mills, and then-Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Jake Sullivan shows that the State Department coordinated with Clinton Foundation staff on how Mrs. Clinton was to thank Foundation supporters/partners for their “commitments.”

[http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-clinton-conflicts-00772-pg-4-6/]

Caitlin Klevorick, senior advisor to the counselor and chief of staff to the secretary of state who previously worked at the Foundation, notes:

[http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-clinton-conflicts-00772-pg-4-6/]

“One question is if we want to see if there is a decent mass of fs [funds] related commitments to announce together at closing as a ‘mega’ commitment.”

The State Department material includes background information about Clinton Foundation partners, which include Foundation donors Nduna Foundation, Grupo ABCA, and Britannia Industries.

Other CGI partners noted in the State Department documents include a federal agency (the Centers for Disease Control) and various United Nations entities, which also receive U.S. taxpayer funds.

The transcript of Hillary Clinton’s speech on the State Department Internet site confirms that the then-secretary of state did thank those making “exceptional commitments” to her husband’s foundation:”

[http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2009a/09/129644.htm]

So what can be concluded from looking into the relationships that link the money trail to arms shipments?

Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton’s State Department gives a clear viewpoint.

[http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187]

“Stephen Walt, a Harvard University professor of international affairs, told IBTimes that the intertwining financial relationships between the Clintons, defense contractors and foreign governments seeking weapons approvals is “a vivid example of a very big problem — the degree to which conflicts of interest have become endemic.”

“It has troubled me all along that the Clinton Foundation was not being more scrupulous about who it would take money from and who it wouldn’t,” he said.

“American foreign policy is better served if people responsible for it are not even remotely suspected of having these conflicts of interest.

When George Marshall was secretary of state, nobody was worried about whether or not he would be distracted by donations to a foundation or to himself.

This wasn’t an issue.

And that was probably better.”

Operating above the law, reporting requirements and transparent disclosures is a pattern that the Clinton crime syndicate has long practiced...

More: http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/clinton-foundation-bribes-weapon-deals/

u/Orlyborly · 1 pointr/politics

It's from a book. A very meticulous and well sourced book

https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369288

u/azural · 1 pointr/politics

What they did is pretty extensive and very shady, this details it well: https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369288

u/cozye · 1 pointr/politics

> Except for the fact that those questions were specifically fact-checking trump's outright false statements, like the fact that stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional.

Here, this is a quote from the article that you posted:

> "Stop and frisk as a tactic is constitutional. But the way the tactic was applied in New York City has been found unconstitutional. This is an important distinction."

Lester Holt lied. Hillary Clinton lied. You've been duped. They use projection as a tactic. Here we are talking about how Trump lied about stop and frisk yet he was the only one on that stage attempting to tell the truth. The notion must be absurd to you. Stop and frisk, as a law enforcement tactic, is still constitutional in New York city and everywhere else, via the supreme court ruling of Terry v. Ohio in 1968.

Hillary Clinton basically invented birtherism. It all stemmed from an e-mail within her campaign, her supporters picked up on the idea, and Hillary incubated the idea during her run for president in 2008.

> "She'll say anything and change nothing" - Barry O

These people are the proprietors of institutional corruption within this country. It's not bullshit. Dig into it if you feel inclined. I recommend the book Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer, and Crisis of Character by Gary J. Byrne as a jumping off point. The Clintons are scumbags, and I want to see them stop controlling the lives of average Americans.

u/InsideItAllFeelsSame · 1 pointr/The_Donald

Just watch the video I linked from the 10 second mark and you will see the book there.

http://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369288

In 2000, Bill and Hillary Clinton owed millions of dollars in legal debt. Since then, they’ve earned over $130 million. Where did the money come from? Most people assume that the Clintons amassed their wealth through lucrative book deals and high-six figure fees for speaking gigs. Now, Peter Schweizer shows who is really behind those enormous payments.

In his New York Times bestselling books Extortion and Throw Them All Out, Schweizer detailed patterns of official corruption in Washington that led to congressional resignations and new ethics laws. In Clinton Cash, he follows the Clinton money trail, revealing the connection between their personal fortune, their “close personal friends,” the Clinton Foundation, foreign nations, and some of the highest ranks of government.

Schweizer reveals the Clinton’s troubling dealings in Kazakhstan, Colombia, Haiti, and other places at the “wild west” fringe of the global economy. In this blockbuster exposé, Schweizer merely presents the troubling facts he’s uncovered. Meticulously researched and scrupulously sourced, filled with headline-making revelations, Clinton Cash raises serious questions of judgment, of possible indebtedness to an array of foreign interests, and ultimately, of fitness for high public office.

u/Numero34 · 1 pointr/canada

Well she's a pathological liar, I don't think that's up for dispute.

There's entire books on the corruption and the Clintons.

Clinton Cash

No one left to lie to by Christopher Hitchens, who was admittedly more left-wing than not

The Uranium deal with the Russians where Clinton was given half a million dollars for a speech

Hillary lying about Benghazi to hide her incompetence, she wasn't even capable of protecting an embassy and people want her in charge of the country lol

The pardon of Marc Rich where the Clintons continued to be given money err donations

>What bothered so many was that Clinton’s clemency to Rich reeked of payoff. In the run-up to the presidential pardon, the financier’s ex-wife Denise had donated $450,000 to the fledgling Clinton Library and “over $1 million to Democratic campaigns in the Clinton era.”

It never ends with them

Basically, people can say what they want about candidates, GOP or democrat, but Hillary is by far the worst of the bunch, well below Trump.

What I have trouble comprehending is how democratic voters just outright ignore these instances, and there's literally dozens and dozens or them, and will march in lock-step with the Clintons.

u/ThrowingTTK · 1 pointr/Turkey

https://www.amazon.ca/Why-Leaders-Lie-International-Politics/dp/0199975450

copy paste reply:

Read this book because my argument is pretty much straight out of it. You're calling me delusion when I'm just repeating the information I gained from reading this book written by an expert. You may disagree with what I say, but calling me delusion is just proving me right when I said that you guys throw a temper tantrum and start name calling whenever somebody doesn't agree with you.

u/velocet2 · 1 pointr/london

His headline is the same as the one he's posting, he's not really fear mongering, just repeating but that does encourage fear mongering by others.

Fear mongering is when a potential threat is exaggerated without the audiences awareness. Pretty good book that explores fearmongering, quite brief as well,

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Leaders-Lie-International-Politics/dp/0199975450/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1381811616&sr=8-3&keywords=mearsheimer

u/tomatotomatotomato · 1 pointr/Romania

> Omul asta e unul dintre cei mai capabili din lume sa faca predictii. A scris si o carte foarte interesanta

Cum ar fi predictia asta. Stratfor mi se pare o sursa de propaganda cu o agenda proprie foarte pro-americana, asa ca incerc sa-i evit pe cat posibil sau sa fiu foarte sceptic la orice debiteaza.

u/tandala_ss · 1 pointr/romania_ss

Cum ar fi predictia asta. Stratfor mi se pare mie sau cele mai multe ori, e ultima soluție.

u/Cawendaw · 1 pointr/100yearsago

And almost as good as this guy.

u/chjones994 · 1 pointr/IRstudies

>Make note, I'm just a high schooler. I don't have any significant experience in academic IR studies, and I get most of my information from books, magazines, and journals. To be honest, I'm a little fuzzy on theory


I was the same in high school, trying to self-teach. If you have the opportunity to take a college intro-IR course it clears up sooo much. If you did it like me, you are teaching yourself out of order and context, and in a way that biases strongly towards some things and not others. Anyway, if you can't take an organized class, try to pick up a book on theory and that starts at the basics. I haven't read it yet, but if you like Realism then The Tragedy of Great Power Politics is supposedly excellent. Likewise, The End of History is the go-to Liberal book. Haven't read that either yet, so someone correct me if I'm way off-base with these recommendations. There's also Constructivism as the new thing, but I'm not really familiar with it. Anyways, getting theories down more helps a ton, it definitely changed my views on whether or not certain wars were good/bad ideas. But from your post you seem to have a good grasp on things, so IDK if this advice will help that much.


(^ this isn't related to your question, I just thought it might be helpful)


Anyways your question is basically Liberal Vs Realist it seems. A liberal of the Neoconservative (Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, ect.) branch would say Saddam violated the liberal order first, and now the newly democratic Iraq has removed the threat. Iraq will join the other democracies and only attack dictators til there are none left and we have world peace. (this is really dumbed down, but you get the point)



Other less militaristic liberals (the Clintons, Woodrow Wilson especially) would say that that was an expected occasional break-down in the liberal order, and that liberal institutions for the most part prevent this sort of thing from happening more often, as it would if there was no UN or WTO ect. In their eyes, if Bush were ever put to international court and tried then it would be proof of the liberal order's success. The liberal order includes international free trade, which liberals say makes war unprofitable, and so they say, unlikely.


Realists (George HW Bush, Nixon, Kissinger) would agree with your middle paragraph, that the 'global order' is a manifestation of American hegemony, and that liberal institutions are set up to maximally benefit the USA, which is why other powers become revisionists; Iran/China/Russia does not feel it benefits from a US-led order (the WTO, World Bank, ect), and wants to set up an new order that maximizes their own power instead.


So its depends on who you ask, there is no real consensus here. For what its worth, I think you are dead on about the 'liberal order' really being the 'American order', and like you said, its mostly been a good thing.

u/bluepious · 1 pointr/AskThe_Donald

As you said you saw the usual classics I'll skip over Hayek, Hazlett, Milton Freedman, Orwell, ect

1.A very interesting read on America's Economic History. Not econ theory, this is the history of our economy crushing it for over 200 years. Will give you the faith that America's best days are always ahead of us as long as we remain capitalist :

https://www.amazon.com/Empire-Wealth-History-American-Economic/dp/0060505125

2.The best book on Foreign Policy I've ever read. It's a realist take on internation affairs which is what we are finally back to under this admin.

Nation's will work in thier own self interest, armies need to take territory to win wars, you need a great economy to have a great military, China must be confronted, ect:

https://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Great-Power-Politics-Updated/dp/0393349276

u/PlumbTheDerps · 1 pointr/howto

Seconded on Elements of Style. Also, try reading authors who are known for straightforward and concise prose. It's only coming to mind because I was a political science major, but John Mearsheimer is great for this- his chapters precisely follow the "tell you what I'm going to say; say it; summarize what I just said" mantra.

u/orbitaldecayed · 1 pointr/MensRights

what would you like America to do?

​

This is like an incompetent heart surgeon "hey what do you want me to do" after they've botched the operation. Well with that attitude?

For a start, join the International Criminal Court and allow Cheney, Bush and co to stand trial for their warcrimes, including widespread use of torture and kidnapping EU citizens. That might make your actual allies take you more seriously, next time you see a wolf.

For another, end all financial and military support for Israel until such a time as they treat their captive Palestinian population like human beings and abide by International law and the Geneva conventions. That will get the moderate Arabs off your back, and who will in turn help tamp down the crazies.

Third, close a good few of the military bases around the world. It will net your taxpayers a lot of badly needed dollars and signal that America is not interested in being the world's dictator. That will get even more of the crazies off your back and force projection will hardly be affected, given the awesome current abilities of conventional forces.

Lastly, uh, The Taliban were not responsible for 911. You're confusing them with Al Qaeda. I put them in brackets, not because they were terrible for THE WORLD, but because they are awful to their own people, within Afghanistan... But it would have been a lot better for everyone involved to put diplomatic pressure on them via Pakistan and not bomb the bejesus out of wedding parties, school assemblies and untold numbers of other civilians creating more resistance than you stopped and looking worse than the Taliban in the process.

To sum up, basically stop siding with the wrong folks, and stop bombing people. Oh and beef up the diplomatic corps. It's been badly hollowed out. In fact just do that, and everything else will probably take care of itself.

u/dieyoufool3 · 1 pointr/geopolitics

It's one of their biases, though it's not anti-china as much as its not pushing to legitimize China's claims on the East Asian Sea/South China Sea. But save that comment for later this week, as I'll post a (hopefully on monthly or bi-monthly basis) discussion Friday regarding critical analysis of a certain publication/source's short-sight and biases. From there we would cycle through the most common publications posted, offering great opportunities to pool our communal perspectives (Fact-check, etc).

On on a more abstract level publication like "the Diplomat" do provide is an interesting case study of soft power projection from the broader American-lead consensus relating to foreign policy (aka current alliance orientations). Though using words like alliance may sound like 19th anachronism, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote the highly influencial book The Grand Chessboard. Terminology he puts forth is often used, particularly as a lens of analysis in the recent Crimean Crisis. Anyways, he describes Japan's role in the US grand strategy as a "vassal". So that might be a rough and ready reason for the publication's particular thematic choices.

u/fish60 · 1 pointr/news

>The U.S. decided to fight the Taliban because they, as an entity, supported Al Qaeda with money and equipment, and provided them safe havens to train in. Plus, as a bonus, they're huge pieces of shit who treat women like dirt and have turned child abuse into a national pastime.

You can level the same criticisms at Saudi Arabia, but we're best buds with them.

>Whatever pipeline might cross Afghanistan didn't remotely enter into it

If you seriously believe that geopolitical concerns related to projecting America's hegemony into resource rich regions of the world, and maintaining America's role as the only true world super-power, played no part in the Afghanistan war, then I suggest you read 'The Grand Chessboard' and learn about PNAC.


> if you believe otherwise, you're an idiot.

Ad hominem attacks on my mental faculties show that you don't believe that your arguments have sufficient merits on their own, and, so, you must resort to cheap insults without providing further content to the discussion.

u/callmebaiken · 1 pointr/politics

Right, but the principle is the same. Flynn visited Russia as a private citizen who was a fan of Putin. He consulted with Trump because they both see America's role in the world similarly. Manafort never worked for Putin but for a Putin-backed leader in Ukraine. He got the gig with Trump through mutual friend Roger Stone. Trump, Flynn, and Manafort probably all share a similar view on Russia, and had Trump never run for office and you asked all three in 2017 they probably all would share the same view, and it's the view I have as well. Putin is a strong man, he's a killer no doubt, but that's none of our business really in an "America First" oriented foreign policy. The opposite of this kind of non-interference is quite clearly seen in the meddling our country was involved in in Ukraine in 2014. Before that our relations with Russia were good publicly. We played games behind the scenes as part of a Grand Chessboard
Eurasian strategy and of course Putin fought back. He's not dumb, he knows what's going on just like we do. He knows we tried the same shenanigans in Syria after the Arab Spring (which likely was real). When he saw Obama wasn't going to go beyond proxy war there he stepped in and mopped up our little operation and that's when he became "a thug, a killer, a dictator" according to McCain and Rubio and Rachel Maddow and all the rest, when he never changed for 16 years and they couldn't care less the first 15 years.

So for whatever reason Flynn and Manafort are former Establishment types who left or were ousted from the inner circles but they know all the games going on against Russia. They let Putin know, look if Trump gets in office we're ending these spy games and proxy wars. We're going to stop pushing NATO into aggressive postures on your doorstep. We're going to take off sanctions. Rather than good vs bad, a more realistic view of foreign policy is to see different power groups vying for position. The sitiuation we have now is men in the white house who understand the real situation and the players and the games, but who are free agents. That's why the establishment has been so freaked out ever since it was clear Trump could win through to today. Because Flynn, Bannon, Trump, et al are really free agents who've somehow gained the controls of state and aren't interested in using America as a battering ram against the few rogue states still holding out from Anglo American domination, or using our military as a mercenary force on behalf of banks and multinationals, or completing a project of global domination. They want to discontinue all that and instead direct that energy towards making America Great Again for its own citizens. That is their great crime.

u/MegasBasilius · 1 pointr/neoliberal

> No I got the grammar, I think they're not logical conclusions. Why is "preventing any other country from dominating Western Europe or East Asia" a necessary condition for deterring invasion?

Your question displays profound ignorance of America's security interests. Preventing a single hegemonic power from controlling Eurasia is one of the core tenants of American foreign policy.

Check out Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard for a good primer on post-Cold War American grand strategy.

u/El_Gran_Fantasma · 1 pointr/craftofintelligence

So everything, in your mind, ties back to oil? Not the hotbed of terrorism? You haven't mentioned precious metal mines in Afghanistan? The Chinese? The belt?

Have you ever read The Grand Chessboard? There's a section in it talking about the plan involving the ME and China.

I remember Bin Laden's piece.

You sound a little supportive of Jihadis. That's worrisome.

u/OldLifeForm · 1 pointr/reddit.com

Also try - Grand Chessboard. He uses it as a textbook to his classes. I've seen it making rounds on p2p networks. Take the latest edition.

http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261

u/Casus125 · 1 pointr/AskMen

The Grand Chessboard.

Non-fiction about Geopolitics and Geopolitical Strategy. Originally published in 1998, the book has proved to be quite prescient and insightful.

u/conspirobot · 1 pointr/conspiro

go_fly_a_kite: ^^original ^^reddit ^^link

>is this a proxy confict with Russia?

yes

  • balkanization

  • detente

  • realpolitik

    "How America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources."

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Grand-Chessboard-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261
u/kleopatra6tilde9 · 1 pointr/RedditDayOf

>You might be interested in the book Tears of My Soul by Hyun Hee Kim. She was the North Korean spy who helped blow up a Korean Airlines flight 585 in 1987. She was caught and sentenced to death in South Korea and then pardoned. She wrote Tears of My Soul after that, in it she talks about her life in N.K, training as a spy, and her impressions of the Western world and South Korea when being confronted with it. Well worth reading. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Tears-Soul-Hyun-Hee-Kim/dp/0688128335/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264467525&sr=1-1

>Wiki on her: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Hyon_Hui

Source: Are there any video's of people from North Korea visiting the western world showing their first reaction?

u/shadowsweep · 1 pointr/aznidentity

Part 2


Propaganda:


Books:


● The Tears of My Soul: Hyun Hee Kim: 9780688128333: Amazon.com: Books
http://www.amazon.com/Tears-Soul-Hyun-Hee-Kim/dp/0688128335/

● The Korean War (9780671668341): Max Hastings
http://www.amazon.com/The-Korean-War-Max-Hastings/dp/067166834X
"Max Hastings, preeminent military historian takes us back to the bloody bitter struggle to restore South Korean independence after the Communist invasion". It's the SAME LIE about a "North Korean invasion".

● MacArthur's War: Korea and the Undoing of an American Hero: Stanley Weintraub
http://www.amazon.com/MacArthurs-War-Korea-Undoing-American/dp/1439152942

"Acclaimed historian Stanley Weintraub offers a thrilling blow-by-blow account of the key actions of the Korean War during the months of MacArthur's command. Our lack of preparedness for the invasion." It's the SAME LIE about a "North Korean invasion".

● This Kind of War: The Classic Korean War History - Fiftieth Anniversary Edition: T.R. Fehrenbach: 9781574883343
http://www.amazon.com/This-Kind-War-Fiftieth-Anniversary/dp/1574883348

"Unlike any other work on the Korean War, it provides both a clear panoramic overview and a sharply drawn "you were there" account of American troops in fierce combat against the North Korean and Chinese communist invaders". It's the SAME LIE about a "North Korean invasion".

● Conflict: The History Of The Korean War, 1950-1953: Robert Leckie: 9780306807169: Amazon.com: Books

http://www.amazon.com/Conflict-The-History-Korean-1950-1953/dp/0306807165

"In June 1950 Communist forces poured across the 38th Parallel ". It's the SAME LIE about a "North Korean invasion".

 

Films/Shows:


● Mash (tv series 1972-1983) based on the film, Mash (1970), which is based on the book, MASH: A Novel About Three Army Doctors (1968)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068098/
To pay respects to the 3,000,000+ Korean who were EXTERMINATED by American bombs, this situation comedy is made. It's based on the exploits of military doctors and nurses at a Mobile Army Surgical Hospital in the Korean War. Yes, let's ignore the fact that millions of innocent Koreans died for no reason and instead of learning to stop committing genocide, let's sympathize with the white people who murdered them.

 

● Korea Patrol (1951)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0234052/
Plot: North Korea invades South Korea and a white American "hero" saves the day. As I explained earlier, this is a LIE. This is how they brainwash generations of people to think oif North Koreans as "evil invaders" and Americans as the "defenders of truth and justice".

 

● Battle Hymm (1957)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050171/
A white American saves Korean orphans. No word about the 3,000,000 Koreans that were MURDERED by Ameican bombers.

 

Even, inside South Korea, there is propaganda against North Korea
● Taegukgi: The Brotherhood of War (2004)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386064/
North Korea invades South Korea. Both brothers are forcibly conscripted. Again, this is a LIE as I have proven.

 

● 71: Into the Fire (2010)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1587729/
A group of 71 inexperienced South Korean student-soldiers defended a local middle school from "evil North Korean" forces. Once again, no word on the genocide committed by white Americans along with their white allies.

There's a lot more but you get the point. More of dispicable lies that white people use to cover up their crimes and blame others for their GENOCIDES can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_about_the_Korean_War

 


Sources:

● The best source by Stone, who was the pre-eminent investigative reporter of that era. His research is impeccable.
The Hidden History of the Korean War, 1950-1951: A Nonconformist History of Our Times: I. F. Stone: 9780316817707: Amazon.com: Books
http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-History-Korean-1950-1951-Nonconformist/dp/0316817708

● The Korean Atrocity: Forgotten US War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity | Global Research
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-korean-atrocity-forgotten-us-war-crimes-and-crimes-against-humanity/5335525

● The imperialistic intervention in Korea
https://redkorea.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/the-imperialistic-intervention-in-korea1.pdf

● Who Really Started the Korean War? by Justin Raimondo -- Antiwar.com
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/07/28/who-really-started-the-korean-war/

● The Destruction and Reconstruction of North Korea, 1950 - 1960 北朝鮮の破壊と再建’、1950-1960年 | The Asia-Pacific Journal
http://www.japanfocus.org/-charles_k_-armstrong/3460/article.html

u/mr_gelatinous_blob · 1 pointr/worldnews

You can get this book off Amazon used for a couple bucks. I did, and its a really interesting read. It's about a North Korean agent who got caught after the Korean Air bombing in the 80s, she goes on to tell her whole story about her life before and her life after she became a NK Spy/Agent.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0688128335/ref=tmm_hrd_used_olp_sr?ie=UTF8&condition=used&qid=&sr=

u/n10w4 · 1 pointr/booksuggestions

Does sound good, will check it out. I'm partial to Chomsky, but not sure if it's only about the 20th century.

u/EthicalReasoning · 1 pointr/AskReddit

start watching current and old episodes of PBS's FRONTLINE and FRONTLINE: WORLD

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/

Frontline is truly the best program that the US is exposed to for current affairs and global politics. you can watch online or torrent past episodes.

read a few noam chomsky books on US foreign policy, US media, and US agenda, so you'll understand why everyone hates us

http://www.amazon.com/Hegemony-Survival-Americas-Dominance-American/dp/0805074007

http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/ref=pd_sim_b_3


watch AL JAZEERA, ignore the US propaganda against it, it's a very informative news channel that is unimaginable to most US citizens

finally, read the news paper, read the local english paper in whatever country you're in and read a respectable international paper (NYT or something) or at least look at world news headlines on news.google.com

u/timothyjc · 1 pointr/worldnews

Chomsky talks about it in detail here:

http://www.amazon.com/Hegemony-Survival-Americas-Dominance-American/dp/0805074007

The blurb summarizes my position on US aggression.

And I agree that the US are not the only ones blocking climate talks, but the US has the ability to push things on the world if it chooses, especially if it used some of the trillions that it is currently spending on wars and bailouts.

u/cometparty · 1 pointr/socialism

> The phrase I was looking for is "rapid response team", composed of EMTs and the soldiers who cover them: they respond to dangerous situations when people have been injured.

And in what way (specifically) did WikiLeaks jeopardize or endanger them or their efforts?

> Extranational infrastructure is the kind of thing which allows modern society to continue functioning ("infrastructure") outside of the country ("extra"-- meaning outside, "national"-- meaning country).

I know what the words 'extra-national' and 'infrastructure' mean. I just don't know what you meant by that, because it's so vague it could apply to anything. The highway system of North Korea could be extra-national infrastructure. The Swiss banking system could be extra-national infrastructure. The Panama canal could be extra-national infrastructure. What exactly do you mean!? I assume nothing, because you're just bullshitting, if you'll pardon my American.

> They, which I assume you use to denote US diplomats, did not spy on the UN.

Nope, wrong. They did spy on the UN. (Source) Now you're showing how uninformed you are. I'm going to guess you're not subscribed to /r/politics, otherwise you could not have missed this story, which leads me to believe you're hardly paying attention enough to be forming any credible opinions on the topic. You're just a wounded nationalist misguidedly acting on your gut.

> On the other hand, I challenge you to find a single nation on the planet which does not have political and economic adversaries.

Many nations do not have the problem of having so many enemies as the US does, and it's due to our aggressive foreign policy. Latin American countries, for one. Many European countries, as well. My step-mother is from Mexico and she is utterly disturbed by our blatant militarism. People in Mexico are much more peaceful and laid back than we are. Many places in the world are like this.

> Furthermore, I have a very large problem with nation building and proxy wars-- I think this is what you mean by "making enemies

I think you're confused about what we're doing. We're waging wars of aggression for the benefit of non-national corporations, not nation-building out of any sense of altruism. Noam Chomsky debunked that a long time ago. It's all about money. Not terrorism. BP and Shell now own the rights to some of Iraq's oil reserves. Prior to our invasion, they were nationalized. This isn't some accident or coincidental consequence. This was the intent. To believe otherwise would be stunningly naive. But I doubt you have a problem with this. You don't mind killing for another nations' riches, do you? Because you don't think they should be nationalized. Because you're a Reagan-Era anti-communist and this justifies it in your mind. I mean, am I wrong?

> As for national security, no; this is not your place to decide despite your status as a US citizen with full constitutional protections. Not at all. The republican aspects of our Constitution were added specifically to keep people like you from doing just that.

The republican aspects of our constitution are those that denote that we are not a monarchy. It is very much my right to decide for myself what is a threat to national security. If releasing the cables and outing (and potentially ousting) the corrupt agents in our government will earn us less enemies, then I think it is in our national interest to do so. It is in the interest of national security for WikiLeaks to release these documents and cables.

> You might find you have a lot in common with those people.

Bullshit, those people are capitalists and conservatives, just like you are. They don't know what liberty is. They don't stand for liberty. They're confused. Just like you are.

u/CertifiedRabbi · 1 pointr/DebateAltRight

Mmm. Maybe The Israel Lobby or Big Israel. Those books are very normie friendly.

u/Clayer55 · 1 pointr/de

Natürlich ist AIPAC bloß die Spitze des Eisberges, selbstverständlich fließt kein Geld direkt an die Politiker, das wäre ansonsten ja ein riesen Skandal. Eher werden viele kleine Unterorganisationen gegründet, die dann organisatorisch geleitet werden und die Aufgabe haben, die Politiker mit den Parteispendern in Verbindung zu setzen.

Kann dir das [Buch] (https://www.amazon.de/Big-Israel-Israels-Lobby-America/dp/0982775717) hier empfehlen, in dem die ganze undurchsichtige Systematik beleuchtet wird.

Ansonsten hier noch ein paar Artikel dazu [1] (https://qz.com/1547435/the-numbers-behind-ilhan-omars-aipac-tweet/), [2] (https://theintercept.com/2019/02/11/ilhan-omar-israel-lobby-documentary/)

u/CaravanOfDeath · 1 pointr/ukpolitics

I should have recommended The Absent Superpower
The Shale Revolution and a World Without America,
which after 4 minutes of watching this is inline with the video.

u/Uraveragefanboi77 · 1 pointr/Ask_Politics

Yes, but your reasons are completely wrong.

Just read “The Absent Superpower” by Peter Zeihan. It gives a much more in depth response than any comment here, by someone who has worked with many government officials.

https://www.amazon.com/Absent-Superpower-Revolution-Without-America/dp/099850520X/ref=pd_aw_fbt_14_img_2/136-7994388-8928145?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=099850520X&pd_rd_r=37ef741a-37a2-11e9-a692-13b9b4e07a01&pd_rd_w=iYmPw&pd_rd_wg=ex0PX&pf_rd_p=b98fa1a4-6e6e-4981-835c-7fb29e0f4dd2&pf_rd_r=6X1PVFDBWDN35BCXAA20&psc=1&refRID=6X1PVFDBWDN35BCXAA20

There is the absent superpower, but I also recommend the one that came before it:

https://www.amazon.com/Accidental-Superpower-Generation-American-Preeminence/dp/1455583685

Edit: No idea why the first one has such a longer link address

u/boncros · 1 pointr/The_Donald

If you'd like to know more about the muslim brotherhood, read this - [Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad] (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1511617500/ref=cm_sw_r_taa_FykJxb6C9B5BK)

u/vortexcubed · 1 pointr/pcgaming

> Yeah, it's counter-intuitive. Why would you go against consumers this way?

You're not seeing the larger picture.... this isn't about consumers, this is about control of world markets. You're missing the larger historical context, the NSA is all about control and management of information for corporate profits.

Most have no clue what's really going on in the world... the elites are afraid of political awakening.

This (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttv6n7PFniY

Science on reasoning, reason doesn't work the way we thought it did:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

Brezinski at a press conference

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kmUS--QCYY

The real news:

http://therealnews.com/t2/

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/

http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Government-Surveillance-Security-Single-Superpower/dp/1608463656/r

http://www.amazon.com/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190206446/

Look at the following graphs:

IMGUR link - http://imgur.com/a/FShfb

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

And then...

WIKILEAKS: U.S. Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti So Hanes And Levis Would Stay Cheap

http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-haiti-minimum-wage-the-nation-2011-6

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnkNKipiiiM

Free markets?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349

http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Illusion-Literacy-Triumph-Spectacle/dp/1568586132/

"We now live in two Americas. One—now the minority—functions in a print-based, literate world that can cope with complexity and can separate illusion from truth. The other—the majority—is retreating from a reality-based world into one of false certainty and magic. To this majority—which crosses social class lines, though the poor are overwhelmingly affected—presidential debate and political rhetoric is pitched at a sixth-grade reading level. In this “other America,” serious film and theater, as well as newspapers and books, are being pushed to the margins of society.

In the tradition of Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism and Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death, Pulitzer Prize-winner Chris Hedges navigates this culture—attending WWF contests, the Adult Video News Awards in Las Vegas, and Ivy League graduation ceremonies—to expose an age of terrifying decline and heightened self-delusion."

Important history:

http://williamblum.org/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcA1v2n7WW4

u/redwoodser · 1 pointr/philadelphia

Maybe the reason you spread lies about the CIA is because you believe them when you read them. You therefore have no right to consider yourself an intelligent person or even well informed. You’re a consumer of psywar bullshit and it fertilizes the stupidity within.

Check out the book I’ve recommended perchance. Baby steps.


Reading what is essentially an absolute cover up by Republicans in the government is a complete fucking waste of my time. The 2 paragraphs below about the report are typical and are riddled with lies. As is the entire “report."


WASHINGTON — “A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.”

u/IAmNotAPerson6 · 1 pointr/chomsky

He actually has a book called "Tomorrow's Battlefield: U.S. Proxy Wars and Secret Ops in Africa," which is more in line with the covert ops you were originally interested in, though obviously is a part of neo-imperialism as well.

u/bike_trail · 1 pointr/canada

> Seems like there’s a western agenda going on here.

...as if the Communist Party of China doesn't have its own agenda vis-a-vis "the west"..??

Just watched this insightful interview with foreign correspondent and author Jonathan Manthorpe, who authored “Claws of the Panda”.

Amazon review:
> Claws of the Panda tells the story of Canada’s failure to construct a workable policy towards the People’s Republic of China. In particular the book tells of Ottawa’s failure to recognize and confront the efforts by the Chinese Communist Party to infiltrate and influence Canadian politics, academia, and media, and to exert control over Canadians of Chinese heritage.

> Claws of the Panda gives a detailed description of the CCP’s campaign to embed agents of influence in Canadian business, politics, media and academia. The party’s aims are to be able to turn Canadian public policy to China’s advantage, to acquire useful technology and intellectual property, to influence Canada’s international diplomacy, and, most important, to be able to monitor and intimidate Chinese Canadians and others it considers dissidents. The book traces the evolution of the Canada-China relationship over nearly 150 years.

> It shows how Canadian leaders have constantly misjudged the reality and potential of the relationship while the CCP and its agents have benefited from Canadian naivete.

u/gustavelund · 0 pointsr/geopolitics

Nich Turse's "Tomorrow's Battlefield: U.S. Proxy Wars and Secret Ops in Africa" might then be interesting! (he wrote the vice piece above)
https://www.amazon.com/Tomorrows-Battlefield-Proxy-Secret-Africa/dp/1608464636

u/Perrette · 0 pointsr/worldnews

Rubbish

>The Russians are not, I think, trying to recreate the Russian empire. They want a sphere of influence, which is a very different thing.

Ah yes, they don't want to conquer, but they do want to tell Ukraine when and with whom it can do trade with and have alliances with lol. "She is not my girlfriend, but she is also not allowed to date any one else"

>For Russia, Ukraine is a matter of fundamental national security. For a Western power, Ukraine is of value only if that power is planning to engage and defeat Russia

Ridiculous.

Why is it that Sweden and Norway would never attack each other? They have no reason to, they both share the same values. Democracies have never attacked each other. Expansion of democracy and free trade will only make both sides safer and more wealthy.

Meanwhile Russia is run by a defacto dictator KGB crook who is dead set on having a pet state to bring under his wing for Russia.

>For a Western power, Ukraine is of value only if that power is planning to engage and defeat Russia

Just obscene, this is blatant propaganda, you should be ashamed of yourself, this is the most vulgar thing I've ever seen on Reddit.

Also, the author of that article was also the clown that predicted a war between the United States and Japan in the mid 1990s

http://www.amazon.com/The-Coming-War-With-Japan/dp/0312058365

u/DavlosEve · 0 pointsr/singapore

<== has a BA in International Relations

If you really want to get into International Relations, the LKY School of Public Policy isn't very highly-regarded in the field. NTU's RSIS is far more respectable. Main reason is: Kishore Mahbubani of LKYSPP is a prolific huckster who spouts a lot of BS in order to drive sales of his own books.

And then there's the issue of your reason for wanting to pursue this Masters. You need to ask yourself on what you really want to get out of it, because admissions committees are going to pay a lot of attention to your reason for making them bother to read your application in the first place.

There's also the problem where you don't seem to know a lot about IR. If you don't, this beginner's guide is very effective at covering what undergrads usually go through in a semester-long Intro to IR course.

For more detailed reading, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics presents one of the dominant theories of International Relations and according to my very biased opinion, the one which represents what our global order moving towards in the next couple years.

Read those two at the very bare minimum, then you should have a fair idea if you're keen on this path. If reading those two makes you bored, then forget it, because you'll be reading a lot of this kind of material.

u/TelevisionAntichrist · 0 pointsr/europe

Yeah, but there would be different issues at play, as well. There would be the whole issue, of European states looking at one another, or one European state looking at a non-European state, (i.e. Greece and Turkey) and possibly suddenly saying to themselves "I'm actually not 100% sure about that state's future intentions. I'd better make sure I'm not a paper tiger."

Slippery slope may ensue.

And it is that - in Mearsheimer's theory, that is The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (1992). (updated edition published 2014)

u/minuscatenary · 0 pointsr/politics
u/Criminoboy · 0 pointsr/reddit.com

Send him a copy of Noam Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival ... and prayers for his safety, as well as that of everybody else caught up in this BS.

u/puffykilled2pac · -1 pointsr/politics

Look, even if I did list them out you would never change your mind. If for some reason you are serious and looking to see all perspectives I would really recommend this book. Also Christopher Hitchen's No One Left to Lie To is a great read if you'd like to know how Hillary treated Bill's victims.

u/richardtheassassin · -1 pointsr/taiwan

Oh no, some fifteenth-order effects might cost him ten cents! Obviously he will suck China's cock!

Dude, the Clintons have been taking in a fortune in donations from China. Go read the book "Clinton Cash" regarding the Clinton Foundation's hard work to make Bill and Hillary as rich as Hugo Chavez's daughter. Then go read the book "The Year of the Rat" about Bill's various sellouts to the Chinese military back when he was president.

Then come back and tell me with a straight face that Hillary will lift a single pubic hair to help Taiwan.

Helpful Amazon links:

http://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369288

http://www.amazon.com/Year-Rat-Clinton-Compromised-Security/dp/0895263335

u/MrGreggle · -1 pointsr/politics

Learn more here: https://www.amazon.com/Absent-Superpower-Revolution-Without-America/dp/099850520X

That's exactly the plan. The US no longer has any incentive to play world police since shale is making it energy independent.

u/Eleftourasa · -1 pointsr/canada

Saudi is an ally of the western nations. They took a hit to their economy in order to help the US in cutting funding to terrorists.

Read a book. Specifically this one.

u/prx124 · -2 pointsr/russia

In 1999? Where have I heard this before... oh, yeah! I think Brzezinski had something to say about that in 1997.

Here is a kicker. Putin is ex-KGB, everybody hide! Brzezinski is ex-NSA adviser to the president of the US. Pfft... don't worry, it's just a book. They would never pursue such policy, stop with your conspiracies Russia, gosh!

u/arguelogically · -3 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

i'm not blindly accepting it. you only believe that because you believe what america is doing is wrong. thats how self centered you are. because you believe anyone who supports the afghan/iraq war must be ignorant.

you want to know why we're truly in iraq and afghanistan then pick up a book.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Grand-Chessboard-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261

then you can stop pretending like you're so high and mighty and the rest of us are ignorant. when in reality you're the fucking one that is ignorant.

edit**

please leave America

u/claymcdab · -4 pointsr/worldnews

You should read The Grand Chessboard. You would enjoy it very much and then understand everything that is happening has been orchestrated for decades.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Grand-Chessboard-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261

u/grandpagotstitches · -7 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

Not at all. Haven't you guys seen how much Trump celebrates his endorsements from football's coaches and players? The fact is that football, NFL and college, plays a significant role in the lives of the people Trump is courting. Scheduling a debate around the time of a major NFL game which can lure away some of his audience could actually be a real disadvantage. It does make sense to complain about this. It also raises awareness of the debates for his Twitter followers. Given the state of things, they'll probably skip the debate whoops I meant the game.

At some point, there will be an autopsy done, not just by Democrats and Republicans, but by something like the Trilateral Commission, about the erosion of trust in the government's authority. Lots of pretty words, plenty of serious analysis. Once upon a time, major newspapers and the nightly news were accused of not having enough allegiance to the federal government and spreading cynicism. And now, social media's supposed "Choose your own adventure" style of journalism will likely be accused of creating a brand new challenge for the federal government. The filter bubble, the 'post-fact' era, etc, these ideas have been picked up and spread around by the major papers since about November already.

Nothing will be said about the government's abandonment of the people for the interests of the rich. Nothing about lost jobs, prisons, constant war. Nothing about the entire world tired of being told to wait. And nothing about a public tired of the human sacrifices in Orlando, San Bernadino, Paris, Baghdad, Istanbul the global elites offered up to the heavens so that they could maintain their dirty profits and hegemony. Dead innocents were weighed against the plan to circle the underbelly of Eurasia so that we could make the fat cats and their leeches fatter. And the dead, no matter their citizenship, were found wanting.

If there is any mention of it, it'll just be called a perception, a feeling deep down in the lizard brain. The only thing they'll end up recommending to battle that sort of thing will be lies, slogans, rhetoric. Maybe a new Ministry of Information. Some way to turn the protesting public back towards apathy. "Effective democratic political systems requires some measure of apathy and non involvement on the part of some individuals and groups" (p. 124), they'll say. But it'll never be policy.