Best politics & social sciences books according to redditors

We found 13,880 Reddit comments discussing the best politics & social sciences books. We ranked the 5,963 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page


Philosophy books
Social sciences books
Anthropology books
Archaeology books
Sociology books
Women studies
Political & governmental books

Top Reddit comments about Politics & Social Sciences:

u/zyxq · 416 pointsr/EnoughTrumpSpam

He's the guy that wrote This (warning: amazon link, open in private browsing so it doesn't effect recommendations) book about how democrats are the real nazis. So you know this guy is grounded in reality.

u/dmix · 270 pointsr/polandball

There was a book written by a black american economist about how African-American culture is actually a hold over from 18-19th century southern US redneck culture which was itself a hold over from some poor Scottish and some northern English farmer towns who emigrated en masse to the south.

These people became wealthy enough to buy slaves and black people grew up living among their culture, eventually adopting it, with their own adaptations of course, that persisted. Once they became free they eventually brought it with them as they moved into northern inner cities where it became a symbol of "blackness". It has survived longer in it's original form thanks to US social stratification that still exists today in many forms - while the middle/upper southern white culture has more generally merged with the north/west.

So we can still thank Europe for at least a part of black culture.

u/vitrael2 · 215 pointsr/The_Donald

SJW Rule #1. SJWs always lie,

SJW Rule #2. SJWs always project

u/SatoshiKamasutra · 213 pointsr/KotakuInAction

Sounds like someone needs to read Black Rednecks and White Liberals

TL;DR: Thomas Sowell (who is black) explains how language and behavior that liberals describe as "authentically black" is actually derived from the culture of poor white "rednecks" who brought it with them from the Scottish Highlands.

u/Thorium233 · 188 pointsr/politics

"Military spending doesn’t redistribute wealth, it’s not democratizing, it doesn’t create popular constituencies or encourage people to get involved in decision-making. It’s just a straight gift to the corporate manager, period."


"They understood that social spending could play the same stimulative role, but it is not a direct subsidy to the corporate sector, it has democratizing effects, and it is redistributive. Military spending has none of these defects."

u/WestboundPachyderm · 169 pointsr/BlueMidterm2018

Same way they made the word “Liberal” a pejorative term.

This book by George Lakoff outlines just how Republicans have hijacked the political discourse in this country and explains how to undo the bunk framing and take it back to reality. Quick and fascinating read. Check it out.

u/Gizortnik · 105 pointsr/kotakuinaction2

>Who is deeming it unacceptable?

The Anointed Ones. Your personal betters. Your minders. Your racial superiors. The elites. The morally sound. The pure. The pious. The Intellectuals. Every single person that deems to be better than you in some way, and has the ability to use enough force to do it. The narcissists. The sociopaths.

u/THOT-AUDITOR · 57 pointsr/Drama

Someone's basically already done that.

He sold a book entitled "why socialism works" and every page just reads "it doesn't". Check out the triggered customer reviews.

u/blne · 52 pointsr/KotakuInAction

Don't get me wrong, I don't support any "hate crime" or "hate speech" legislation, hence why I said it would almost be worth it. I just think it would be hilarious to see people like Jessica Valenti and Jess Philips and The Guardian charged with hate crimes. Trolls in the UK could have a field day (actually they already could, given current hate speech statutes; what are they waiting for?).

Ironically the epidemic of "misogyny" is mostly imaginary (at least in mainstream British culture), while the epidemic of misandry is mostly real. So who are the real trolls? You can read explicit anti-male "hate speech" on any given day in mainstream news publications, but feminists have to search far and wide (cat-calling, fat-shaming, attractive women in video games etc.) to find their misogyny boogeyman. Indeed according to some academics in Canada, misandry has now become institutionalized in the western world.

There is an argument to be made that making misandry illegal could force feminists to realize their own stupidity/solipsism/irrationality, and therefore put an end to hate think laws, but unfortunately I wouldn't bet on that. Due to aforementioned stupidity/solipsism/irrationality.

u/AbandoningAll · 49 pointsr/MensLib

I've seen a handful of people say that this sort of academic content is only produced (or acceptable to produce) about white men. I'd like to note that cultural, anthropological and historical studies of specific demographics, especially groups of alienated men, are actually pretty common. Take this classic study about Kashmiri Jihadists, or this one about drug dealers in East Harlem or hell, this study of the changing mores and social expectations in samurai culture. In other words, studying the identity of a group of men who are finding their social status threatened, uncertain or rapidly changing is actually quite a common academic pursuit.

In academic contexts like this there are clear epistemological and ethical considerations to keep in mind. The first is that any study of a group of people, whoever they are, needs to engage with the voices, experiences and worldviews of those people in good faith. This doesn't mean agree with, or even have an overall positive view of them or their beliefs - see the studies about Kashmiri Jihadists or drug dealers above - but it does mean that the purpose should be to reach a kind of understanding of the way these people think and feel about their world. A course that talks about the experiences of white men, with an aim at looking at processes of anger or radicalisation, would almost certainly be approaching the issue from this angle. I don't see anything to indicate that this won't be the case.

From the responses I've seen, a lot of people imagine this course to basically be a semester long dunk-session on white dudes without any nuance. From where I stand it seems pretty clear this course is intended to deconstruct, understand and talk about the experiences and alienation of certain white men in the US and UK in the last 70 years.

I think, in 2019, most Westerners with eyeballs have realised that young white men are a demographic that is noticeably prone to radicalisation, extremism and alienation. I think it's inevitable that this will be a phenomenon that is increasingly discussed and researched in academic and public circles.

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/Muskaos · 45 pointsr/KotakuInAction

TheQuartering has a good list, but Vox Day literally wrote the books on this. SJWs Always Lie, and SJWs Always Double Down. The latter has a chapter expressly on corporate infiltration.

The key way you stop infiltration is ruthless kick/ban/fire anyone who shows SJW tendencies. It must be rule #1 for any organization. No appeal, no warning, just boom, you're banned/fired.

u/Keln78 · 44 pointsr/The_Donald

Here's the link to the book if anyone is interested.

u/mirroredfate · 41 pointsr/NeutralPolitics

From an economics perspective:

u/User-31f64a4e · 38 pointsr/MGTOW

Of course. This is exactly as described by Vox Day in his book

  • Social Justice Warriors always lie
  • Social Justice Warriors always project
  • Social Justice Warriors always double down
u/randomfemale · 37 pointsr/ProtectAndServe

A reply to the down-votes you are getting for stating a fact:

It is distressing in particular that many people refuse to acknowledge that over 50% of murders in the US are committed by the black minority (around 13%), as if it were some kind of embarrassing chronic racial failing instead of a consequence of lack of education and the breakdown of the family dynamic - and other issues. On a related note, how ironic is it that black Americans were growing richer as a group from the 1930's until momentum slowed dramatically in the 1960's - after the civil rights era? (Am reading black scholar Thomas Sowell's book "Black Rednecks and White Liberals")

We cannot fix the problem by pretending that our reality is only racist hate-speak. This willful ignorance I find rather terrifying because it is being manifested with such vehement, unreasoning anger.

I spent this last January in the Dominican Republic which is largely black and mixed race. Was great to be around black people who felt free to just be people and without all the silent undercurrents of fear, resentment and blame that we have in the states. The Dominicans I met live in the now, take you at face value, and were just wonderful people: cheerful, kind, hugely family oriented and as a group, amazingly good looking. But they are incredibly poor. I really don't know how they do it; they were inspiring.

Edit: Excellent series of essays on origins and ramifications of southern and northern, black and white cultures, plus more:Black Rednecks and White Liberals.

u/JusticeForScalia · 37 pointsr/The_Donald

We need to get the Marxist propaganda pushers out of our media and education system.

Free speech is good, propaganda of murderous ideology is not ok.

u/HAMMER_BT · 36 pointsr/KotakuInAction

> Japan watchers have made a perennial sport out of opining on the causes of Japan’s low marriage and birth rates, even though they’re common to most advanced economies. ...

>... Though feminist ideals are widespread and women’s career opportunities are expanding, Japanese women who marry are still expected to end their careers and take on a traditional role in the household, making the prospect less attractive.

I really love how the article you quote seems to make the amazingly counterfactual link that, somehow, an increase in feminists ideals will solve Japan's demographic crisis.

To be fair this notion seems to be widespread. There seems to be a cottage industry devoted to churning out books that claim if only men would just man-up and stop thinking of enjoying their own lives... thinks would somehow work out. Because, as we all know, what all women really want is a cuckold in the kitchen and Pablo in the bedroom.

On the Left and Right, there seems to be no evidence that can convince some people that feminism is the problem. One of the rare exceptions I know of is Helen Smith's Men on Strike.

u/liatris · 34 pointsr/news

You might enjoy this book; Black Rednecks and White Liberals by Dr. Thomas Sowell it's written by a black, Harvard educated economist. He makes the argument that ghetto culture in the black community is actually white cracker culture from the antebellum South. He traces it's roots back to the Celtic fringe culture of pre-Anglicisation Scotland, Wales etc. He compares the black cultures that formed in the North under the influence of New Englanders who immigrated from the South of England (an area that was more cultured) to the black culture that formed in the Southern US under the influence of the Celtic fringe immigrants from the borderlands of England who immigrated before Anglicisation took hold in the region and led to a more educated population.

Here is the book on tape from YouTube, it's about 11 hours long.


This explosive new book challenges many of the long-prevailing assumptions about blacks, about Jews, about Germans, about slavery, and about education. Plainly written, powerfully reasoned, and backed with a startling array of documented facts, Black Rednecks and White Liberals takes on not only the trendy intellectuals of our times but also such historic interpreters of American life as Alexis de Tocqueville and Frederick Law Olmsted. In a series of long essays, this book presents an in-depth look at key beliefs behind many mistaken and dangerous actions, policies, and trends. It presents eye-opening insights into the historical development of the ghetto culture that is today wrongly seen as a unique black identity--a culture cheered on toward self-destruction by white liberals who consider themselves "friends" of blacks. An essay titled "The Real History of Slavery" presents a jolting re-examination of that tragic institution and the narrow and distorted way it is too often seen today. The reasons for the venomous hatred of Jews, and of other groups like them in countries around the world, are explored in an essay that asks, "Are Jews Generic?" Misconceptions of German history in general, and of the Nazi era in particular, are also re-examined. So too are the inspiring achievements and painful tragedies of black education in the United States. "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" is the capstone of decades of outstanding research and writing on racial and cultural issues by Thomas Sowell.

u/redrick_schuhart · 31 pointsr/The_Donald

Because it's essentially true. Gamers were the first community to push back against the media and the SJWs calling them racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynist and so on. They demanded proof of everything, showed that claims of harassment were bogus and embarked on a campaign against advertisers that cost Gawker seven figures. People like Milo got involved early and did solid work showing that the anti-Gamergate crowd were a rats nest of pedos and harassers themselves.

Thus when Trump found himself in the media crosshairs, millions of gamers said to themselves "oh, I know this playbook" and knew how to combat it. Vox's Day's book SJWs Always Lie has a chapter devoted to Gamergate which gives a more detailed summary.

u/SuperNinKenDo · 27 pointsr/DebateFascism

Further Reading

Michael Huermer - 'The Problem of Political Authority':

[Hard Copy]

Henry Hazlitt - 'Economics in One Lesson':

[Audiobook]:[PDF]:[Hard Copy]

David Friedman - 'The Machinery of Freedom'"

[Illustrated Summary]:[Audiobook]:[PDF]:[Hard Copy]

Ludwig von Mises - 'Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth':


MisesWiki - Economic Calculation Problem:


Murray N. Rothbard - 'For a New Liberty':

[Audiobook]:[HTML]:[PDF]:[Hard Copy]

Murray N. Rothbard - 'The Ethics of Liberty':

[Audiobook]:[HTML]:[PDF]:[Hard Copy]

Frédéric Bastiat - 'The Law':

[Audiobook]:[HTML]:[PDF]:[Hard Copy]

Ludwig von Mises - 'Human Action':

[Audiobook]:[HTML]:[PDF:[ePub]:[Hard Copy]

Murray N. Rothbard - 'Man Economy and State, with Power, and Markets':

[Audiobook][HTML]:[PDF]:[ePub]:[Hard Copy]

u/SomeGuy58439 · 26 pointsr/slatestarcodex

Betsy Stevenson tweeted this with an accompanying figure:

> Women's participation climbs while men's stagnates. Our greatest challenge: men on strike from life: Not marrying, raising kids, or working.

Made me think back to Helen Smith's book titled Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why It Matters, but with Stevenson being from what I'd consider largely the opposite side of the political spectrum (and with Stevenson having a much higher public profile - i.e. on Obama's Council of Economic Advisors / previous Chief Economist at the US Department of Labor).

u/Jugglnaught · 25 pointsr/Anarchism

Ex-army here. I did six years in the Army Reserve and a one year deployment to Iraq in 09.

The military is the most extreme example of hierarchy I can think of. There are literally dozens of layers of it, in the rank system and the chain of command, and you wear it on your chest in the form of your personal rank.

The purpose of the military is to destroy and conquer human beings, so it isn't surprising that those in the military experience what we dish out. It's why we have higher rates of suicide, mental illness, crime, etc. Everybody's experience is different of course, but I would call mine a "socially acceptable abusive relationship". Those on the top would engage in verbal abuse and physical abuse (in the form of corrective action through physical exercise, as well as sending us on pointless mission that put our lives at risk).

The military is about power, just as corporations and other big businesses are about power. Power is how you take more than you create. It's how a CEO can pay himself a million bucks a year but give his employees minimum wage. The military is how capitalists and states maintain their power at home and overseas. When foreign nations refuse to part with their natural resources or labor for a pittance, that's when those in power have to take action. I'd suggest reading Understanding Power to get the specifics here.

I could always feel there was something wrong with this system, but it took experimenting with a number of different philosophies before I came to anarchism. Abolishing all hierarchies and tools of oppressions...that's what really got me.

u/Mswizzle23 · 24 pointsr/changemyview

Thomas Sowell and a number of others have argued African American hip hop culture is basically white redneck behavior, Sowell in "Black Rednecks And White Liberals" which I'm about to begin. Colin Woodward's "American Nation's" touches on this as well, as do other authors who've penned books on the topic, although his book is more about all of the regional cultures that make up our country dating back to the groups that founded those regions and how their beliefs are still resoundingly alive and well and how politicians actively exploit these differences we have between one another. There are other academics I've heard doing research like this but I'm having trouble recall their names, I heard about them in some podcasts. But, there's definitely more reading you can do to explore this idea more.

Amazon links to check out both titles I mentioned:

u/AncileBanish · 24 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

If you're willing to devote some serious time, Man, Economy and State is the most complete explanation that exists of the economics behind ancap ideas. It's also like 1100 pages or something so it might be more of a commitment than you're willing to make just for opposition research.

If you want to get into the philosophy behind the ideas, The Ethics of Liberty is probably the best thing you'll find. It attempts to give a step-by-step logical "proof" of libertarian philosophy.

The Problem of Political Authority is also an excellent book that takes nearly universally accepted moral premises and uses them to come to ancap conclusions in a thoroughly logical manner. I'd say if you're actually at all open to having your mind changed, it's the one most likely to do it.

If you just want a brief taste, The Law is extremely short (you can read it in an hour or two) and contains many of the important fundamental ideas. It was written like 200 years ago so doesn't really qualify as ancap, but it has the advantage of being easily digestible and also being (and I can't stress this enough) beautifully written. It's an absolute joy to read. You can also easily find it online with a simple Google search.

I know you asked for one book and I gave you four, but the four serve different purposes so pick one according to what it is you're specifically looking for.

u/Chisesi · 23 pointsr/JordanPeterson

First off, I don't think it's helpful to take the hard position of "there is a war on boys/men" unless you can thoroughly argue that position. A "War" implies aggressors and defenders which puts people you're trying to convince on the defensive. Even if you believe it's true, taking such a hard position without having your arguments air tight just defeats your purpose. Even if you do have your arguments on point, it's easy for people to use a strawman to say you think women are oppressing men. Even worse they will take you as saying women seeking equality oppresses men, or that you're saying men are powerless, then dismiss your claims based on that misunderstanding.

I would recommend making a softer assertion along the lines of "the well being of men has been declining in the Western world." That softer claim is much easier to defend, just look at suicide rates, incarceration rates, education stats, life expectancy rates etc. Take an approach that is closer to "we are all int his together so we should all want both men and women to do well and right now men need help." That triggers the leftist desire for collectivism and cooperation.

Tucker Carlson is running a Men in America segment every Wednesday this month about how men are in trouble these days. He provides a ton of stats and statistics on the topic. I'll edit this if I can find links to the segments.

March 7 Tucker: Something ominous is happening to men in America

March 14 Tucker: Washington not worried about male wage crisis

With any of these books, I highly recommend looking up video interviews with the authors to get more information and to see how they condense their arguments.

The war against boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men by Christina Hoff Sommers.

Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why It Matters Paperback –
by Helen Smith PhD

Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 Paperback – January 29, 2013
by Charles Murray

The gender gap stuff has been going on since the 1970s. Economist Thomas Sowell, student of Milton Friedman, has been explaining how asinine the claim is for decades. Here he is dismantaling it back in the 1970s.

[Here is another take down from more recently.](
) This interview covers his book Economic
Facts and Fallacies, the chapter Male-Female Facts and Fallacies would be a good resource for you to read and take notes on concerning the pay gap myth. Here are some good quotes from that chapter.

>“History shows that the career paths of women over the course of the twentieth century bore little resemblance to a scenario in which variations in employer discrimination explain variations in women’s career progress.”

> “The proportion of women in professions and other high-level positions was greater during the first decades of the twentieth century than in the middle, all before anti-discrimination laws or the rise of the feminist movement.” Further, “There is no pay gap for full-time workers 21-35 living alone,” and, “As far back as 1969, academic women who never married earned more than academic men who never married.”

>In another study, from 2005, “Among college-educated never married individuals with no children who worked full time and were from 40 to 64 years old, men averaged $40,000 a year and women $47,000.” What, then, explains cases when the numbers tilt the other way?

Here is a transcript of the above interview. Here is a good one...

>Interviewer: Well, you're right. I'm gonna quote you again. "Among the many factors which influence male-female economic differences, the most elusive is employer discrimination."

>Dr. Sowell: Yes, that when you correct for all the various factors such as the number of hours worked, the continuous employment versus taking a few years out to have children and so on, you take all that into account, the differences between men and women become quite trivial. If you look at the academic world or as far back in 1969, women who were
never married and earn higher incomes than men would never marry. They became
tenure professor at a higher rate than men who would never marry. And then later on if
you look at the general population, if you take the women who are past the childbearing
years and they work continuously, their incomes were higher than men who would work
continuously and so on. So the difference is that not that the employer is paying them
differently, but that they have different characteristics.

>Interviewer: So, the central variable and explaining economic differences between men and
women is not employer discrimination, not the rise of feminism, it's that women--it's
child rearing, marriage and child rearing, that's the variable.

>Sowell: Yes.

>Interviewer: As that varies, a woman's arrival or participation rate in higher level occupations
varies with that, that's—


>Interviewer: Okay. Now in principle, you note, family responsibilities could be perfectly evenly divided between fathers and mothers. But that isn't the way it has worked in practice.
Quote, I'm quoting you again. "Since economic consequences follow from practices
rather than principles, the asymmetrical division of domestic responsibilities produces
male-female difference in income." Question, what are the policy implications of that?
If we become fixed on eliminating male-female income differences, is it the case that the
only choice, the only route for doing that is to involve the government in redesigning the
very nature of the family?

The Pay Gap Myth and Other Lies That Won’t Die

Thomas Sowell takes down the gender 'wage' gap


Milton Friedman - Case Against Equal Pay for Equal Work - Professor Friedman explains how support for "equal pay for equal work" helps promote sexism.

This is an interesting argument but to fully understand what he is referring to you need to understand that minimum wage laws have traditionally been used as a way to oppress weaker social groups.
If there is any work where being a man or being a woman makes an individual more qualified for a job or better suited to the job, then the only power the unsuited party has is to offer to work for less money. If you insist on equal pay though you remove that one economic incentive the less desired group has to convince someone to hire them, they cost less.

This is captured well in the generally true claim "No man hates another more than he loves himself." You can be the biggest racist or sexist in the world but it's very rare for that prejudice to be motivating enough that you would see your business where you derive your livelihood and the security of your children fail just to spite someone. There are so many examples of very racist people putting their prejudices aside in order to hire minorities simply because it's cheaper to do so. Establishing equal pay or minimum wage laws completely removes the economic incentive to put your own prejudices aside. They remove greed as a motivating factor for giving people opportunity.

Economist Walter E Williams has written a book on this called South Africa's War Against Capitalism based on his study of the country during apartheid. Milton is making a similar argument against equal pay as Williams did concerning minimum wage. Williams point was that if you have racism in a society where people are irrationality predisposed not to hire a certain group, then the only power that group has to get a job is to offer to work for less. That's why white, racist labor unions have always been the ones to push minimum wage laws when confronted by a minority population competing for jobs. You saw the same thing happen in the US when black men moved North and competed with white laborers for railroad jobs. The white unions pushed for our first minimum wage laws which removed the economic incentive from employers to hire minorities.

If you take the feminist argument seriously, that there is rampant sexism in certain industries, then it makes no sense to force those industries to pay women an equal amount. Rather than hiring them despite their sexism because they can pay them less, those employers will simply stop hiring women altogether because they hate women. To me this shows the irrationality of the claims that feminist make about sexism being the cause of a lack of representation in certain fields. It's not because of sexism but because of self-selection. In countries with higher levels of gender equality you see even higher rather of self-selection in jobs. There are far more women in tech in countries that rate low on women's rights. Russia for example.

Economist Walter E Williams - Minimum Wage as a Racist Tool 2:20

u/nightstryke · 23 pointsr/Firearms

For all those on the left I have the "Perfect" book for you, it's #1 in the Political Ideologies section of Amazon! Why Socialism Works

u/actingverystrangely · 21 pointsr/OneY

I down voted you because the content of your post is so poor. Erasing male experience of domestic violence and portraying men as sole perpetrators is the purpose of the Duluth model. This is not "try(ing) to make the world a better, safer place", this is part of a structured program of communication and actions to discriminate against men.

Think I'm exaggerating? Read this

>"...doesn't do it exactly right"

In the same way that Jackie at UVA was trying to win back her crush, but didn't exactly do it right?

u/rake16 · 21 pointsr/The_Donald

From now on, we should sticky this at the top of all these threads.

u/WastedFrustration · 20 pointsr/The_Donald

Nearly finished with Clinton Cash, 10/10 should indict

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/LucifersHammerr · 20 pointsr/MensRights

A Reference book of men's issues is probably your best bet for finding relevant studies.

[MRRef] ( is more extensive but will require more digging.


The Red Pill (NYA)

Everything by Karen Straughan

Everything by Janice Fiamengo


[Is There Anything Good About Men?] ( (full book online) by Roy Baumeister

The Myth of Male Power: Why Men are the Disposable Sex by Warren Farrell

The Privileged Sex by Martin Van Creveld

The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys by David Benetar

The Fraud of Feminism (full book online) by Earnest Belford Bax

Who Stole Feminism? by Christina Hoff Sommers

The War Against Boys by Christina Hoff Sommers

Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

Replacing Misandry: A Revolutionary History of Men by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

No More Sex War by Neil Lyndon

A few works that I think deserve more attention. Some are directly related to Men's Rights, others tangentially.

Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior by Christopher Boehm

War, Peace, Human Nature: Converging Evolutionary & Cultural Views by Douglas Fry et. al

Female Forms of Power and the Myth of Male Dominance: A Model of Female/Male Interaction in Peasant Society (paper online) by Susan Carol Rogers

Favoured or oppressed? Married women, property and ‘coverture’ in England, 1660–1800 (paper online) by J. Bailey

The Mothers: A Study of the Origins of Sentiments and Institutions (full book online) by Robert Briffault

Gynocentrism: From Feudalism to the Modern Disney Princess by Peter Wright

Sex and Culture (full book online) by J.D. Unwin

The Manipulated Man (full book online) by Esther Villar

Unknown Misandry (website)

Real Sexism (website)

u/Vwar · 20 pointsr/MensRights

Misandry is not only normal it is institutionalized

u/nomadicwonder · 19 pointsr/WayOfTheBern

The person who wrote the story is Thomas Frank, but this is not the same Thomas Frank who wrote, What's the Matter with Kansas and Listen, Liberal. The latter wrote a harsh criticism of the Democratic establishment in his latest book, but the former is a corporate tool for CNN (or perhaps a former corporate tool since he has now resigned).

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/Mytecacc · 18 pointsr/MensRights

A lot of it is born out of feminisms covering up of abuse and using the false claim that abuse is mainly patriarchal to demonise and legislate against men.

The fathers rights movement is in response to feminist jurisprudence in family and divorce law discriminating against men.

The issue with education is feminism making false claims that girls were being held back in school back when boys and girls were doing equally well, and using the false claims as justification to slant the system in favour of girls.

The issue with patriarchy theory is that its a hatefully conspiracy theory.

The objections to the feminist abuse industry is that its discriminates against everyone bar heterosexual women.

u/arcterex117 · 18 pointsr/aznidentity

We've got a problem in our country. A deep-seated one and one that won't go away when Trump exits the public stage- whether that's 8 years, 4 years, or 2 months. Those people will still be here. Radicalized by a demagogue. And looking for "revenge" against the nonwhites who they've been propagandized to believe are the roots of all their problems. And deeply unhinged. They saw what power they had. I'm watching Trumped-a documentary that revisits the utter craziness of the 2016 presidential election- a stirring reminder of just how far Trump crossed the line in vulgarity, how comically inept he was at the debates, etc. and yet they willed him into office.

Sometimes it seems that a demagogue has gotten so into the heads of his followers, that they are so far gone in terms of what they're tolerate and what they'll believe (ie: conspiracy theories) that ordinary people are at a loss for how to even talk to such people. (let's not forget Voltaire's quote “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”)

Whites have always been a proud people and with the right agitation, history shows it doesn't take much before their violent instincts get the best of them. We shouldn't go to sleep on this tendency of theirs.

And it's not some mentality that is restricted to the low-class mouthbreathers; there are people like Michael Flynn (national security advisor to the White House) and Steve Bannon (chief strategist - White House) who are not 'garden-variety conservatives'. They are also believers in the creed of supremacy and have this notion that white self-restraint in the past has harmed America (which they say publicly) and has harmed "goodhearted American people" (white people) which they are more coy about but believe just as much. (these concepts of white 'self-restraint' and 'victimization' are largely fiction, but they are foundational to their worldview; it justifies their outlook which paints a dark picture of nonwhites- their being problems and threats). I strongly advise people read George Lakoff and how he talks about "framing"; his book "Don't Think of an Elephant" is a short read but a terrific primer on linguistics in politics; summarizing here: Once you use language that convinces your audience that Person X or Group Y is villainous, you can attack them with impunity; the crowd will be indifferent of even supportive. No one will object to your 'defending' them from an aggressor.).

What this re-emergent white supremacist movement's rank& file and leadership both share is a 'persecution complex'. People are very dangerous when they have this perception. They will do things in this mode that they wouldn't ordinarily do if they viewed things like geopolitics in an objective way. It's not a sober evaluation of cause and effect; they see it as Action or Death. Once they whip themselves into this frenzy, where they completely distort reality, flip it on its head, and in their newly constructed funhouse-mirror of the world- nonwhites are 'taking advantage' of whites who are now the Victim- seemingly nothing is off the table in terms of "self-defense". A victim sees himself as willing to use "whatever means are necessary" to stop the "abuse". Trump and Co. have used precisely this language with regards to Mexico and China. Trump has said China is "raping" the US. This is not the language of a statesman; it's the language of someone who wants to sway the people into giving him maximum flexibility to "retaliate". And when it happens, as is our practice, unilateral aggression will be packaged as "self-defense".

u/Underthepun · 17 pointsr/Catholicism

They have absolutely nothing to do with science so they could not even in principle be refuted by science. They are metaphysical demonstrations underlined by the Act/potency distinction, essentialism, principle of causality, deductive reason, ontology, and teleology.

The simplest way then to refute meaningless refutations is to ask if the person stating as such has taken the time to actually understand the arguments and the metaphysics and epistemology they are built on. If not, which in my experience is almost always the case, then their criticism of the five ways is meaningless. If they have, then you can debate epistemic principles, but that is much harder and you’ll probably need to do some additional reading to help work through that.

u/mwatwe01 · 16 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

This phenomenon is covered in the book Black Rednecks and White Liberals by Thomas Sowell. The basic premise is that one of the root causes for poverty is not race, but behavior.

Prior to the Civil War, there were free, moderately successful blacks living in the North. After the war, freed slaves gradually learned oafish behavior from their white trash neighbors. Then they moved north and brought their "culture" with them, slowly displacing the existing culture, which placed more of a value on marriage and education.

u/wordboyhere · 16 pointsr/philosophy

Huemer actually does an interesting examination of political authority in his latest book. You can watch a talk he does about it here

Essentially there are five principles implicit in political authority (page 17) 1. Generality 2. Particularity 3. Content-Independence 4. Comprehensiveness 5. Supremacy. Throughout the work he challenges the ideas of political legitimacy and political obligations.

He does a good job dissecting the social contract and in particular pointing out the failure of the assumptions present in its implicit variant: passive consent, consent through acceptance of benefits, consent through presence, and consent through participating, by examining similar moral situations that would lead us to reject such statements. He also shows how social contracts tend to violate the principles of a valid contract. There's difficulty in opting out, failure in recognizing explicit dissent, unconditional imposition, and absence of mutual obligation.

As you can see he does much more in the book(challenging hypothetical
social contracts, Rawl's veil of ignorance, consequentialism, etc.). I haven't finished reading it yet but I found the chapter on the psychology of authority to be the most interesting so far. He looks at some case studies(Milgram, Stanford Prison Experiment) and examines our cognitive biases(status quo biases, Stockholm Syndrome), as well as the aesthetics of governmental institutions to understand why so many people believe in political legitimacy and obligation.

If anything, it seems the reason so many people held odd assumptions about absence of political power, is that they worry about threats to their life(security, defense, law, safety, etc.) But given the number of threats present by political authority, as well as the general lack of obligation on the part of authorities to help their citizens(see Warren v. District of Columbia, there have been many other cases like this), and moral illegitimacy present in most laws, the alternative seems to be clearly better than the present. Anarchy seems to be much more favorable and it's not at all clear if states really are protecting us from chaos or some sort of danger, or if they are just increasing it themselves.

u/GrandmaCrickity · 16 pointsr/KotakuInAction

The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy by Thomas Sowell

>The Vision of the Anointed is a devastating critique of the mind-set behind the failed social policies of the past thirty years. Thomas Sowell sees what has happened not as a series of isolated mistakes but as a logical consequence of a vision whose defects have led to disasters in education, crime, family disintegration, and other social pathology. In this book, "politically correct" theory is repeatedly confronted with facts -- and sharp contradictions between the two are explained in terms of a whole set of self-congratulatory assumptions held by political and intellectual elites. These elites -- the anointed -- often consider themselves "thinking people," but much of what they call thinking turns out, on examination, to be rhetorical assertion, followed by evasions of mounting evidence against those assertions.

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/squeezebuttmagic · 15 pointsr/worldnews

That might be true for a small minority of black Republicans, but the reasons Black Republicans vote GOP are varied, and the vast majority of them are very well-educated people who feel that Democrats are very [subtly] racist, reinforcing dependence and victimhood in blacks and using them to feed their savior complexes.

In fact, if you look at the largest Black church congregations, the preachers heavily endorse Democratic candidates. Over 90% of blacks vote democrats, and most of them are religious.

There are books written on this issue, as well as talks with various members of the black community.

You might want to listen to what they have to say instead of making assumptions for them, which is pretty much what the left has always done.

There is a whole series of these talks.

There are books about this by John McWhorter, Thomas Sowell

Some minorities loathe the victim complexes within their communities and the removed intellectuals in their ivory towers who tell them what they need.

EDIT thank you, for proving exactly what I said by down voting me, and proving exactly what they all express during those talks.

Assuming that all black people are a hivemind who have to vote in the exact same way. The horrifying notion that highly educated black people might have a different opinion, must be religion. They simply can't think for themselves. /s

u/ludwigvonmises · 15 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Huemer's book on the subject - The Problem of Political Authority - is probably the best book on anarcho-capitalism in the last 15 years. Cannot be recommended enough.

u/Yesofcoursenaturally · 14 pointsr/KotakuInAction

>you could try treating them like human beings

That noble sounding sentiment is revealed for what it is the moment anyone looks at your comment history.

I'm asking for SJW deconversion stories, not looking for advice on how to generally interact with SJWs. There's already Books written about that.

u/VirginWizard69 · 14 pointsr/Conservative
u/JoshuaIAm · 14 pointsr/ChapoTrapHouse

The two books Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right by Jane Mayer and Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? by Thomas Frank pair extremely well and are required reading for anyone that wishes to understand how US politics has been shifted so far to the right these past decades. Dark Money, while extremely informative regarding the propaganda of billionaires, largely gives a pass to the Democratic party which Listen, Liberal reveals as being undeserved.

u/kekspernikai · 13 pointsr/TrueReddit

If you want a broad view of Chomsky, I suggest The Essential Chomsky. It's a collection of some of his most influential writings. If you want to skip the linguistic stuff and focus on political writing, Understanding Power has been suggested. I haven't read that one, though. The linguistic stuff, in my opinion, is interesting but very hard to follow if you're not into linguistics already. The opening piece from Essential Chomsky is a 50+ page essay which is a critical examination of a linguistics writing. It took a long time to read and I retained little.

Here is more info on the first book I recommended. Here is the second.

u/[deleted] · 13 pointsr/islam

> God without rational proof.

Take an intro philosophy class (just to get familiar with the basics), and then read this book:

Scholastic Metaphysics by Edward Feser. A very well-written book, explains how neo-atheists misconstrue Saint Thomas Aquinas' 5 ways, re-justifies them, and Mr. Feser, who is essentially a philosopher, came to being forced through philosophy to believe in God (he was formerly an atheist), expanding on Aquinas' 5 ways.

The Last Superstition is also a great book and very well-grounded through Aristotle's Cosmological Argument (different from Kalam's Cosmological Argument).

Here's a short intro to his book at this blog:

It's a really good book -- the first 50 pages are just him explaining metaphysical terms. After that, the actual book begins. As someone studying neuroscience & philosophy, I approve of his book.

>I consider myself a rational person.

Good, then do the above and get back to me. If you don't believe in God by the end of all of that, I expect you to justify your skepticism to me personally.

peace, bro

u/a-memorable-fancy · 13 pointsr/KotakuInAction

accuracy has nothing to do with is just one component of effective persuasion. quick rundown:

there are two modes of persuasion, dialectic and rhetoric. dialectic is based on facts, rhetoric on emotions. dialectic is concerned with accuracy, rhetoric with effect.

rhetoric is without any question the more effective mode of persuasion. somebody who disagrees with you on an emotional level isn't going to listen to your well-thought out and proven assertions that a given thing is wrong. they will definitely listen to effective ridicule or humiliation for their wrong beliefs.

the most effective rhetoric, however, is that backed up by facts. the reason why SJWs are reacting the way they are to the crisis actor meme isn't because of their high-handed moral supremacy regarding the victims of a tragedy, but because they CAN, HAVE, and WILL IN THE FUTURE use tragedies like this as planks to push idiotic social policy, and anything that threatens that stranglehold must needs be anathema. thus, the recent flailing.

you have a tactic at your disposal which is proved to be effective and which is in fact backed up by the truth. there is no more useful term than "crisis actor" because it causes such pain and suffering to the bunnies. use it and use it often.

further useful reading. it's on sale, grab it while it's hot.

u/Capt_Roger_Murdock · 12 pointsr/funny

Yes and no. They effectively have "special powers" because most people believe that they have special powers and act accordingly. And that's because most people still believe in the superstition called "authority."

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/TheseModsAreCray · 12 pointsr/news

Ridiculous? It's a ban based on sound science and statistics. Isaac Asimov died of HIV from a tainted blood transfusion—and now we're going to put more people at risk, just for the sake of being politically correct.

AIDS carriers have been a favored protected victim class of liberals since the 1980s when the courts found it to be a "handicap" entitling its carriers to special privileges and anonymity to the detriment of public health.

From Thomas Sowell's The Vision of the Anointed:

>As late as 1983, people were being reassured that their chances of catching AIDS from transfusions of untested blood were 'extremely remote.' Secretary of Health and Human Services Margaret Heckler went on nationwide television on July 3, 1983, to 'assure the American people that the blood supply is 100 per cent safe.'

>But just one year later, the Centers for Disease Control began reporting dozens of cases of people who caught AIDS from blood transfusions; just two years after that [1986], the AIDS deaths from blood transfusions were in the thousands."

>The problem was not simply with what medical authorities did not know at the time but with what they presumed to know and to proclaim to the benighted–to those who, in Secretary Heckler’s words, had ‘irrational fears’ and ‘unwarranted panic.’ [According to U.S. News and World Report, it turns out that whereas the Red Cross and others] ‘put the risk of getting AIDS from a transfusion at about 1 in a million. In fact, it was at least 1 in 660–and up to 1 in 25 in high-exposure cities like San Francisco.’]

>It was at one time triumphantly proclaimed that no health-care worker had ever contracted AIDS from patients, but by September 1985 there were the first of many cases of nurses, lab workers, and others who caught the disease from AIDS patients and by 1991 there were cases of patients who caught AIDS from a dentist . . . .

>Precautions to protect the public from AIDS carriers have repeatedly been backed into only after new revelations devastated previous reassurances . . . . Instead of erring on the side of caution in defense of the public, as with previous deadly and infectious diseases, ‘responsible’ officials approached the spread of AIDS by making the protection of the AIDS carrier from the public paramount.

>One political reason has been fear of offending the organized, zealous, single issue homosexual organizations and their allies in the media, in the American Civil Liberties Union, and in other liberal bastions. But this only raises the further question as to why the interest of carriers of a deadly, incurable, and contagious disease should be regarded in such circles as preemptive over the rights of hundreds of millions of other people . . . .

u/JackGetsIt · 12 pointsr/Libertarian

Sam Harris also defends and has conversations with Charles Murray; is Sam Harris a Nazi? Thaddeus Russell also agrees with the data and he's a lefty.

If a person puts on a lab coat and tests a thousand black people and white people and finds a variance in the data are they a Nazi?

You do know that Murrays IQ findings were one part of one chapter of a 800 page publication? You do know the co-author of The Bell Curve, Herrnstein, was one of the most respected social science researchers in the country?

Have you even read the Bell Curve? or unbiased summaries? Or any of the countless interviews where Murray systematically and repeatedly explains why he is not a supremacist in any way and tirelessly walks through what the data actually means. Should we start censoring academics because we don't like their data?

If a black researcher compiles data that shows a one percent 'average' advantage on jumping ability of black people is he a 'black supremacist? If a man compiles data that men have better spatial reasoning is he a misogynist? What if a women compiles the data?

If I put a level on the ground and it gives me a flat reading and I record that on a piece of paper does that make me a flat earther?

Nazism and White Supremacy are broad political ideologies with lots of made up data and cherry picked history to warp their followers to their toxic evil ideology. IQ data is not a political ideology and acknowledging that one particular IQ data set is true does not mean you subscribe to white supremacy.

Please recognize the insanity and lack of logic in what you are clumsily trying to suggest.

Edit. You do realize that this country ended slavery, ended Jim Crow, ended segregated schools and had a civil rights movement culminating in laws that enshrine protections for minorities? Why do you see racists around every corner? You realize that there are multiple black intellectuals that give strong arguments that systemic racism is gone in the US right?

Let go of identity politics, embrace MLK Jr., Not Malcolm X.

u/mrxulski · 12 pointsr/BestOfOutrageCulture

Wait, you accuse the left of calling everyone they don't like Nazis? Seriously? Conservative call liberals Nazis way more often. The biggest conservative movie last year was all about how the Nazis were left wing. It was written by Dinesh D'Souza and entitled "The Big Lie". If you're such a smarty pants truth teller, why didn't you know about this movie that tens of millions of conservatives watched? Why didn't you know about Dinesh and all the times Fox News has said the Nazis were liberals? Fox News was even going to recently run a special saying the Nazis were left wing. Because, you know, Hitler hated the white privilege and patriarchy.


u/castiglione_99 · 11 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

According to the author of this book:

The bulk of white southerners can trace their ancestry to a region of England where the people were: Very religious, sexually promiscuous, prone to violence and under-valued education.

He mainly discusses how this affected black culture in the US since black and southern cultures are closely aligned but he also mentions that until the big diaspora of black southerners to the rest of the US, black northerners routinely outscored not only black southerners on school tests but also white southerners.

u/gELSK · 11 pointsr/RedPillWomen

// , Men are no longer the keepers of commitment, either.

Rollo Tomassi has written about this, as well.

The situation has become far more intense than Helen Smith predicted:

Here's a link to Rollo's article on the subject, which surprised me a great deal:


>For obvious reasons, highly desirable women, women at the peak of their sexual market valuation, are always the least concerned with men’s capacity to commit. They largely have the luxury to be selective, but furthermore the time at which women are at their highest SMV is usually the point at which men are still building upon their own. Eventually, commitment only has an appreciable value to a woman when she is most in need of it; when her SMV is in decline.

>I should also point out that men, the majority being Blue Pill Betas, are the most necessitous of a woman’s commitment when she is at her highest, his is an unproven commodity, and he appreciates the value of a woman’s commitment. Thus, most men look for a stable monogamy in their early to mid 20s, while more mature men who’ve had time to build their SMV into their mid to late thirties tend to be less concerned with monogamy. This is why we hear the constant drone of women bemoaning that highly valuable, supposedly peer-equitable men’s unwillingness to commit and settle down with women aging out of the sexual marketplace. Women are far less concerned with the commitment-readiness of young, unproven men who themselves would commit to even a women in the mid-range of her SMV.

>At the end here, I think it’s time Red Pill men disabuse themselves of the idea that they are the ‘gatekeepers’ of commitment, and rather employ their internalized Red Pill awareness and Game to be the ‘key masters’ of women. While I have no doubt that commitment can be a carrot on the stick for some women, the problem really lies in how that commitment is in anyway valuable and balance that knowledge with the fact that commitment, once given, becomes valueless and taken for granted when it’s established. The fact that you’d commit to a woman isn’t something that carries a relationship, no matter how badly she wanted it from you before.

>There really is no quid pro quo when it comes to commitment or value in believing you’re a gatekeeper of it.

u/Chi_Rho88 · 11 pointsr/Catholicism

'The Gulag Archipelago' by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

u/uscmissinglink · 11 pointsr/changemyview

I'm not exactly sure what your view to change here is, but I'll take a stab at your causality by inserting a step before the "the sides don't understand each other so they fight against and demonize straw men," point.

This may CMV - it may not - but the problem isn't ignorance of the other side so much as each side is driving it's own narrative that is intentionally wrong. To borrow from Ronald Reagan, "The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." Reagan was talking about the left, of course, but you could just as easily levy the same attack against the right.

So... it's not ignorance of the other side that's the problem, it's rather a false understanding of the other side in the worst possible terms. It's not accidental; it's intentional.

And it's the inevitable consequence of the application of post-modernism to the political system. This is laid out wonderfully in "Don't Think of an Elephant" by George Lakoff. This book, which has been essential in shaping left-leaning politics for about 20 years now is all about framing and context. The central thesis is that Truth (with a capitol T) doesn't exist and that truth is whatever people think it is. Therefore, the left must re-frame the debate to it's own ends, developing it's own metrics of success and failure and (this is key) never accepting the right on it's own rhetorical ground. The right is also building on it's own framing paradigms, such that and the end of the day, the left and the right can talk about the same basic issues without actually talking about the same thing at all.

You see this in campaigns where each campaign seeks to "define their opponent" on their own ground rather than to let their opposition define themselves and meeting on that ground.

In summation, I think your point is correct, in as far as it accurately describes the situation, but I think what you describe is a symptom rather than a cause and that the cause is political sophistry designed to prevent the left and the right from finding common ground.

u/PeaceRequiresAnarchy · 11 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Hey, great comment. I'm an anarchist, but I think your replies to the OP are legitimate.

If you were to ask me what parallels I see between theists' beliefs and most people's (statists') political views I would point to peoples' belief in political authority--"the hypothesized moral property in virtue of which governments may coerce people in certain ways not permitted to anyone else, and in virtue of which citizens must obey governments in situations in which they would not be obligated to obey anyone else" (Section 1.2: The Concept of Authority: A First Pass).

Basically, nearly everyone believes that governments have a special moral status above everyone else. If they gave up this belief, most peoples' political views would immediately change, roughly to minarchist libertarianism. (Going to anarchist libertarianism usually requires changing peoples' economic beliefs as well, since most believe that life without the state would be nasty, brutish, and short.)

I believe that the belief in political authority is analogous to most religious peoples' belief in god or an afterlife.

As atheists it is clear to you and I that there is no rationality behind peoples' belief in god and heaven. You may have tried challenging their beliefs before, to see if they will give them up. If you have, you will know that some people are willing to respond to your arguments. The fallacies in their responses are clear to you, but somehow they remain blind to them, even if they are otherwise-intelligent people. My friend in high school was like this. He was top of our class and adamantly religious. When I asked him whether or not there were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark I could see his mind wriggle, but he never said, "Yeah, you're right; there is something wrong with my beliefs." It's a fascinating phenomenon. How can so many very smart people hold onto these superstitions?

We have answers. For example, in the lecture Why We Believe in Gods atheist Andy Thomson explains peoples' belief in gods by pointing to various psychological factors that affect us. The better one understands these factors, the clearer it becomes that even if there isn't a god it shouldn't be surprising if many people still believe one exists.

Anarchist libertarian philosophy professor Michael Huemer, who authored the definition of "political authority" I gave above, has given a lecture analogous to "Why We Believe in Gods." He called it "The Psychology of Authority," after the sixth chapter of his book on the same topic, but it could also be titled Why We Believe in Political Authority.

When I first watched the lecture I was amazed by the fact that he managed to explain how nearly everyone could believe that it's okay for governments to do a large range of things which no one thinks it's okay for anyone else to do even if (as I believe and as Huemer argues in his book) there aren't actually any good reasons to grant governments this special moral status.

To reiterate, the (alleged-from-your-perspective) fact that peoples' belief in political authority is mistaken seems as clear to me as the fact that peoples' belief in gods and heaven are unfounded seems to you. Many atheists are passionate about their atheism because it is obvious to them that they are correct and they can't get over the fact that so many other people are wrong. It's the same for me in regards to political authority.

One last thing: You may point out that morality is not a science. The existence of god is a factual matter, but morality is just subjective. I'd agree--I'm a moral nihilist technically. But, I also don't like it when people commit mass murder and I wouldn't want people to use nihilism as an excuse for committing it. The same is true for lesser crimes, such as kidnapping, assault, theft, etc. I also think there is a sense in which the shift in values in societies as they gave up slavery can be regarded as "progress" rather than an arbitrary change in opinion. If you agree, then you may agree that your political views may be "wrong" in a sense, and that if your view on political authority changed it would not necessarily be an arbitrary change, but would possibly be "progress". Your new attitudes towards the actions of governments may be "better" rather than merely different.

If you are interested in attempting to see the world from the perspective of a political atheist, I encourage you to watch Professor Michael Huemer's lecture to first open your mind to the possibility that despite your intelligence, your intuition that it okay for the government to engage in all of the activities that you currently support it engaging in (short of protection of property rights--so police, courts and national defense, limited to this function) may be the result of various psychological biases. This wouldn't show that governments lack political authority, but it would make it seem more reasonable to believe that you might be wrong that they possess it, and you may thus be more willing to take the time to read the necessarily-lengthy argument against it found in the first half of Prof. Huemer's book. The first chapter, which is available online, describes political authority more clearly and outlines the form of the argument against it found in the book. I recommend reading it to see if you think the The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey would have a chance of changing your view.

EDIT: Grammar.

u/Hailanathema · 11 pointsr/slatestarcodex

I'm unsure if this is necessarily a culture war topic but I'll put it here just to be safe.

So recently I've been reading a lot of anarchist literature, philosophical and regular and the positions invoked therein seem pretty compelling to me. In particular, the idea that there's some kind of ethical obligation to obey laws seems obviously false (this is philosophical anarchism). Whether the law forbids something that may be morally obligatory, requires something morally repugnant, or just forbids things that are morally permissible it seems like morality trumps the law every time. I don't expect this to be a groundbreaking insight to the community here. My impression is most people here are utilitarians and it seems like it'd be pretty easy to construct scenarios where violating the law is the right thing to do. I don't deny that people may have prudential reasons for wanting to obey the law, only that there are no compelling ethical reasons.

This seems like a weird place to be. We have this whole apparatus of the state issuing commands and injunctions to its citizenry, but no compelling reason why we ought obey these commands or injunctions, compared to doing what seems morally acceptable to us. A lot of the time the state's commands and what we think of as morally right coincide (ex, murder, theft, etc.) but the reason it's wrong to kill/steal/etc. is because of the ethical compulsion, not because of the state command.

From here it's a short jump (maybe a longer one for utilitarians) to anarchism more generally. I don't intend to go as far as Robert Paul Wolff does and insist justification of the state is a priori impossible, but rather all current attempts at justification are unconvincing (unless you're a utilitarian). On this topic I have Michael Huemer's The Problem of Political Authority which, to my understanding, is a very comprehensive summary of various theories of government justification and their problems. A less rigorous take, but perhaps a more topical one, is Lysander Spooner's No Treason which is extremely short and can be read for free at that link. No Treason was written in the context of the American Civil War where Spooner argues that, although slavery is awful and Spooner himself was an abolitionist, the Union was unjustified in forcing the south to remain in the Union. Neither of these will probably be convincing to utilitarians, whose justification for the state is more direct, but maybe they'll help people understand how anarchists/non-utilitarians think.

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/Intertubes_Unclogger · 11 pointsr/watchpeopledie

I know what you mean, but it's not only a possible excuse, it's also one of the factual causes. When your whole world tells you that education and a job aren't an option, that crime is your destiny, it's extremely hard to choose a different path.

This book opened my eyes on the issue. The author isn't blind to the moral side of things but set out to describe a bad neighborhood in detail. It's a great but depressing read.

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/jf_ftw · 10 pointsr/actualconspiracies

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

u/NicCageKillerBees · 10 pointsr/Pennsylvania

There's an interesting book about this, The Big Sort by Bill Bishop. It looks at how people have moved to areas that align more with their politics, consciously or unconsciously, over the past 50 years. Worth a read if you like this sort of thing.

u/PeripateticPothead · 10 pointsr/philosophy

Chomsky's views on postmodernism aren't at all new. He dismisses pomo in Understanding Power (2002); I don't have my copy handy to give a page number, but I'm pretty sure it's in the index. He said things to the effect that he can hardly read pomo literature and that it's hardly amenable to serious analysis because its claims are so obscure or indeterminate. His latest remarks are a quite-consistent extension of his earlier ones.

u/etch_ · 10 pointsr/politics

I think that is a terrible response, to dismiss something because of where it comes from, not because of the content it contains.
How about an 88 year old black dude who grew up in Harlem and is a senior fellow at the hoover institute?

u/LadyLib2 · 10 pointsr/WayOfTheBern

lol. no way I could do it justice... thanks!

I like bobswern's comment where he politely suggests kos take a sabbatical and give all this some more thought. Im tempted to pile on and tell markos to log off DKOS, turn off MSNBC for a week or two and go read a few good books. Go hole up or have a few drinks with Meteor Blades maybe, heh.

start with this one:

Im sure we collectively could come up with a pretty good reading list for him lol

u/supremecommand · 10 pointsr/ColorizedHistory

Why do you attribute hostility towards Soviet union as American propaganda? Is that some pathetic way to try and argue or do you believe that Europeans view Soviet union more favorably? Soviet union was murderous corrupted dictatorship what took over entire Easter Europe and fucked them for 50 years, why would anyone like Soviet union? Have some reading

u/insanemetal187 · 10 pointsr/Libertarian

...not that bad? Here's a quora post?!

The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

For about what it was actually like during that time.

Lenin's Tomb by David Remnick

About what it looked like around the fall of USSR.

Eastern Border Podcast

If you want something more casual, less dense and a podcast

If you weren't a party member there was no "pretty good win" for anyone. I would have happily been homeless in any other first world country than "middle class" in a socialist country during the 20th century.

u/monkeybreath · 10 pointsr/politics

That is an excellent question. I think it requires diligence, pointing out the lie each and every time you hear it, and being fearless in doing so. The liar will profess instant indignation and threaten legal action, so courage is required.

Being careful of what is being said is also important. "Tax relief", for example, is a loaded term, making taxes sound like a sort of punishment, when in reality they are the necessary fees that keep society running, like the membership fees of a gym. You pay your fees, you get something useful in return, like a stable society.

George Lakoff called this "framing the debate" and wrote an interesting book called Don't Think of an Elephant! about this.

u/apreotea · 10 pointsr/The_Donald <-- Vox' book. Have it myself in print, great read!

u/Imnotmrabut · 9 pointsr/MensRights

SJWs Always Lie.

>The eight stages of the SJW attack:
>1. Locate or Create a Violation of the Narrative.
>2. Point and Shriek.
>3. Isolate and Swarm.
>4. Reject and Transform.
>5. Press for Surrender.
>6. Appeal to Amenable Authority.
>7. Show Trial.
>8. Victory Parade.
>SJWs don't like to be seen as the vicious attack dogs they are because that flies in the face of their determination to present themselves as victims holding the moral high ground.

Vox Day, SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police, Castalia House, Aug 2015, ASIN: B014GMBUR4 - Kindle Loc. 570

u/BlaiseDB · 9 pointsr/TheRedPill

On it's face, the organization she is writing for is traditional and counter-feminism. She puts the blame on feminism and in a very RP manner notes that men are the relationship gatekeepers.

However, it comes across as a dig to mention "perpetual adolescence". The "normal progression into adult roles of responsibility and self-sufficiency, roles generally associated with marriage and fatherhood" is more of an objective observation.

However, she doesn't go into any analysis like in, say, Men On Strike. No-fault divorce is probably the biggest factor. Why would you invest time, money, and emotion into a life that can be taken away from you for any reason or no reason at all?

IMHO, all the other factors are either secondary or are effects rather than causes.

u/addctd2badideas · 9 pointsr/AskHistorians

No one else has mentioned it. "Don't Think of an Elephant" by George Lakoff talked greatly about how James Dobson and Focus on the Family moved Evangelical Christianity into a wealth=moral fortitude type of mentality. The idea that God only allows the people who are upright Christians to be successful and wealthy is one they capitalized upon and were able to use that value-speak to cause a lot of people who often voted with the Democrats (particularly the blue-collar labor class in the South and Midwest) to side with the Republicans.

u/TimmyC · 9 pointsr/IAmA
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 -

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Bernie Sanders Is the Commander in Chief We Need -

“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] -

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 -

Hillary Might Break the Glass Ceiling If She Wins, But She Won't Put a Dent in the Military-Industrial Complex -

Ten Reasons Why Bill and Hillary Clinton Do Not Deserve a Third Term in the White House -

Hillary the Hawk -

Hillary Clinton’s Six Foreign-Policy Catastrophes -

Hillary Clinton’s Energy Initiative Pressed Countries to Embrace Fracking, New Emails Reveal -

How Hillary Clinton's 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) -

Hillary Clinton's Complex Corporate Ties -

Oil Companies Donated To Clinton Foundation While Lobbying State Department -

As Colombian Oil Money Flowed To Clintons, State Department Took No Action To Prevent Labor Violations -

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal -

Clinton's Chevron ties -

UBS Deal Shows Clinton’s Complicated Ties -

Hillary Helps a Bank—and Then It Funnels Millions to the Clintons -

Hillary Clinton, Cisco And China: Company Funded Foundation, Was Lauded By Clinton Despite Role In Repression -

The cash donations Hillary simply has no answer for -

Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors -

Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department -

Arab nations’ donations to Clinton Foundation: Curing world’s ills or currying favor? -

Related Info: A searchable index of Clinton Foundation donors -

Related Info: Clinton Foundation Contributor and Grantor Information -

Related Info: Speeches for the Clinton Foundation by President, Secretary, and Chelsea Clinton -


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 -

“"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 -

Hundreds of Scholars Demand Justice for Assassinated Honduran Indigenous Activist Berta Cáceres -

Open Letter to Secretary of State John Kerry -

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 -

Before Her Assassination, Berta Cáceres Singled Out Hillary Clinton for Backing Honduran Coup -

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Enabled the Coup in Honduras -

Uproar Over Hillary's Role in Honduran Coup Grows as Her Campaign Denies Connection -

The Clinton-Backed Honduran Regime Is Picking Off Indigenous Leaders -


Hillary Clinton vs. Bernie Sanders on Whether to Invade Iraq – 2002 [video] -

Campaign 2016: Hillary Clinton Pitched Iraq As 'A Business Opportunity' For US Corporations -

Hillary Clinton Iraq Business Opportunity [video] -

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 -


A New Libya, With ‘Very Little Time Left’ -

“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 -

Money, Power and Oil. Exposing the Libyan Agenda: A Closer Look at Hillary’s Emails -

Cleaning Up Hillary’s Libyan Mess -

“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/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

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/DooDooDoodle · 9 pointsr/news

It's always the same story with these types, they push policies but don't actually suffer the consequences if they fail.

Economist Thomas Sowell in his book Vision of the Anointed:Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy calls these types out so well.

u/Aaod · 9 pointsr/FeMRADebates

Not /u suicidedreamer but this segmentation of society is not just online you also have multiple books written on it

Even before that you had the removal of urban centers which were focus points/meeting grounds for exposure to people from different walks of life.

u/scsimodem · 9 pointsr/KotakuInAction

This one actually exists.

At risk of copyright infringement, I will print here the entire text of the book here.

>It doesn't.

u/Dreamboe · 8 pointsr/MensRights

>There can be no law that says "you're not allowed to hate other people", even though society considers it a big taboo.

lol hating men is the last thing from a "big taboo." It's literally institutionalized in every aspect of Western society.

u/Mauve_Cubedweller · 8 pointsr/AskFeminists

I used to be a huge fan of the Men's Rights Movement... like, a huge fan. I started buying into the MRM when I was working at a bookstore for a summer job, and I happened across the book "Spreading Misandry" in the psychology/social science section. Here was a book - published by a university press no less - that detailed all the ways that men were being systematically fucked over in society! Wow! I devoured it, and I was hooked. It told me all of the ways that I, as a white Canadian man, was being screwed, and it pointed out in a series of powerful arguments (or so I thought at the time) how movements like feminism had helped spread this toxic attitude that victimized men. From there it was a fairly simple step to reading the staples of the MRM like "The Myth of Male Power", and lurking on MRA and MRA-friendly websites. By the time I had begun my 3rd year of university I was an "egalitarian" with strong MRA leanings - you know, the usual stuff an MRA says when in public.

I rejected the reality of the pay gap; I refused to accept that feminists gave a shit about men in any way - or if they did, it was only so that the "radicals" among them could break men and make them weak. I smugly pointed out that only men had the desire - and strength - to work the really "dirty jobs" and that when men were depressed, they were the ones who would seriously and aggressively attempt suicide. I was also just beginning my trek into the realms of atheism and skepticism, so I basically rejected anything from the social sciences - especially that bullshit field of sociology - that disconfirmed my views.

And then, because I needed some credits, I decided that I'd take a couple of gender courses. After all, I was a pretty well-read amateur gender theorist: maybe I could argue my case in front of some professors and bring a little "balance" to those courses. After all, gender theory is basically the study of women; they would almost certainly be interested in hearing from the perspective of a man!

And then, in my first class, I saw the textbooks we'd be using: "Masculinities", and "The Men and the Boys", both by Raewyn Connell. Here was a gender studies course, taught by a straight up radical feminist, in the sociology department of my university, and the principle textbooks were almost exclusively about men and men's lives. And it only got worse from there. I was introduced to dozens of articles published through the "Men and Masculinities" journal (some of which appear in the textbook "Men's Lives", and unlike the books and blogs I was so familiar with, these articles had substance to them; they had empirical meat. I was in a space where the only evidence I would accept for any argument - no matter what it was for - had to come from hard, empirical data. And here it was, in black and white, so to speak. The material I read and the discussions I had in class scrutinized the concept of masculinity and the realities of men's lived experiences from a number of theoretical and empirical angles, and in doing so showed me without a shadow of a doubt, that the works I had been reading before were basically play-acting at being concerned about men's experiences. The work that had been dropped on me in these courses showed me what it really looks like to examine men's lives in detail - straight men, white men, gay men, trans men, men of colour and indigenous men; masculinities of huge variety and scope. And the overwhelming majority of people engaged in the study of men and men's lives were feminist or pro-feminist.

So to answer your question: it wasn't a single argument or source, and it wasn't a single perspective that "shifted my stance" towards feminism. It was the recognition of a massive, empirically-rigorous corpus of actual, honest research being conducted by feminists and pro-feminists from around the world - in defiance of the bullshit claims by the MRM that "no one" cared about men but them - that convinced me that the MRM was a festering boil of anger and bitterness, and that if I wanted to help men and understand men's lives, I needed to get on the level of the feminists whose work I'd end up relying on.

Because that's the punchline, I guess: I'm a sociologist now. I study men and men's lives; I've published papers on the subject, chaired conference committee meetings about it, and taught classes about it and not once have I ever - ever - been attacked, mocked or criticized by any feminists for it.

But I do occasionally get death threats from MRAs who read about the work I do and feel the need to silence it.

u/veringer · 8 pointsr/todayilearned

Interesting hypothesis. There's also Thomas Sowell's book which argues that Black Americans inherited the old South's backward and violent culture of honor. I could see your suggestion fitting pretty nicely into that framework as well.


> Poor white people sit in their trailer parks smoking meth, not conspiring to kill a guy for not respecting them.

Piggybacking on my previous thought a little. It's worth noting that, actually, whites (poor or not) did conspire to kill guys for not respecting them. But it was primarily a feature of Southern culture (think: Hatfield and McCoys and The Caning of Charles Sumner) in bygone centuries. This phenomenon was is mentioned in Gladwell's Outliers. Interestingly there is an apparent modern artifact. Namely Southern men were found to have significantly heightened responses to perceived insults. You can read more about it here:

So, it may be that there's a slow cultural pacification process taking place. Maybe the most violent people are/have-been removing themselves from the planet. Maybe wider norms in America are showing that it's okay to not be violent. Maybe Sowell is on to something.

u/CyriusBloodbane · 8 pointsr/AskThe_Donald
u/TheOldGuy54 · 8 pointsr/MensRights

I lost respect for Feminists back when Bill Clinton was president . Two women brought sexual harassment cases against him. Even back then the feminist were saying we always have to believe the women in these cases. Until it was Bill Clinton and then Gloria Steinem and other feminist sided with the Clinton's

I am not a right wing conservative, But over the years I have seen feminist turn their back on a lot of women simply because they did not like their politics.


I agree with you that men's issues have been completely ignored and if you are a man and you speak up you are a misogynist. Some great books and a movie you might be interested in


The Boy Crisis


Men on Strike

American society has become anti-male. Men are sensing the backlash and are consciously and unconsciously going “on strike.” They are dropping out of college, leaving the workforce and avoiding marriage and fatherhood at alarming rates. The trend is so pronounced that a number of books have been written about this “man-child” phenomenon, concluding that men have taken a vacation from responsibility simply because they can. But why should men participate in a system that seems to be increasingly stacked against them?


The movie " The Red Pill" I think it is on Amazon

u/galacticboy2009 · 8 pointsr/conspiracy

The books written by people such as Dinesh D'Souza have very high ratings compared to what I would expect.

I mean I know that doesn't mean 1 star reviews are deleted, but his book about how "the left" is somehow connected to the Nazi Party, has 4.5 stars and 300 something reviews.

u/doodcool612 · 8 pointsr/Screenwriting

Don't Think of an Elephant is by a cognitive scientist and psycholinguist named George Lakoff. Whether or not you agree with his politics, I've found it incredibly useful to know how to bait audiences into making assumptions.

The general thesis is that people organize their concepts into "frames," or categories that help us make sense of complicated ideas. But many of these ideas can exist in more than one frame, so when people evoke a specific frame instead of another, they can subtly guide your thinking by introducing a new semantic context and perspective.

So much of Act One requires the audience to simultaneously 1) know that the protagonist has a flaw, 2) secretly agree with the misguided belief behind that protagonist's flaw, 3) not know how to defeat that belief, and 4) be enticed into learning how to defeat the wrong belief. Though #1 an #2 seem mutually exclusive, knowing how to lure audiences into adopting incorrect frames can allow you to highlight cognitive dissonance in the audience, which you then correct over the course of the protagonist's adventure.

Further, knowing when leaders or organizations are trying to manipulate you into accepting incorrect frames can be a big indicator that other people are being misled also. So you can be "Mr. prescient hot-button writer guy" when you write a movie about the issue that "says all the things I was thinking, but didn't quite know how to say."

u/TryDoingSomethingNew · 8 pointsr/TheRedPill

Excellent post. I see several points from Vox Day's SJWs Always Lie.

I remember back when I first saw the beginnings of the crossover from "political correctness" to real social justice warrior (SJW) behavior and destroying careers.

Radio "shock jocks" as I recall were the first to really make the news and to be the targets of it.

Anyone remember the Greaseman? He was a huge, and very entertaining, radio personality who lost his career after racial-relating comments. Then it was more and more guys on the radio, both big names and small. Opie and Anthony years ago where contantly getting shit from the new SJW climate where there is a butthurt backlash against mild jokes and humor.

And who can forget Donglegate? This was an ordinary guy with a family and kids with an SJW listening in on a private conversation and publicly shaming him and attempting to ruin his life and costing him his job.

What always amazed me, though, was how with more and more celebrities and well-known people on the receiving end of SJW hate, that few if any seemed to learn the points you made: inevitably they would end up apologizing, only to STILL lose their jobs/clients/sponsors, etc., and SJWs were NEVER satisfied.

No matter what media or category, there was ALWAYS someone at home with no life, ready at the phone or keyboard to stir up trouble and drama at the drop of a hat.

Understand your enemy. Do not disregard the points in his post.

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/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/CesarShackleston · 8 pointsr/WayOfTheBern

>It's important to note that this is a cultural phenomenon, not a political one.

I may be misunderstanding you but I'm not sure you're correct on this particular point. Cultural misandry is indeed being reflected in actual laws. See Legalizing Misandry by the Canadian academics Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young (both left-wingers, incidentally).

Indeed analyses of political discrimination against men go back to at least the late 19th century when the socialist Earnest Belfort Bax wrote The Legal Subjugation of Men (1896).

The very idea that males can suffer gender-based discrimination is extremely counter-intuitive for both men and women. This is in part because the male gender role is rooted in strength. The other problem is that most people in positions of overt power are male; however powerful men do not actually try to "privilege" other males; quite the opposite; males (unlike females) lack in-group preference and indeed tend to favor the opposite sex. Powerful men loving being chivalrous. Study after study has determined that there is a very large "empathy gap" between the sexes. Several have found eg if forced to choose between killing an innocent man or woman, both sexes will choose the man.

One academic, albeit an Israeli right-wing military strategist, has even claimed that females are and always have been the privileged sex. I wouldn't go that far, but it's pretty clear if you look at the statistical data alone that "patriarchy" hypothesis is fundamentally irrational. No, men don't want to oppress their own mothers and daughters, and no, males aren't privileged. Rich men, sure.

Since we're talking about feminism and political power, it's very interesting to note that there is probably a Machiavellian aspect to this as well. The first "gender studies" courses were financed by the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, and extreme anti-male feminism (what we would now call mainstream feminism) arose during the "COINTELPRO" era.

Left wing media analysis Mark Crispin Miller stated the following during Occupy Wall Street, after being accosted by feminist Laurie Pennie:

"It’s interesting to note that Ford and Rockefeller and the other foundations with strong CIA connections started giving grants in the early 70s to study race and gender. It was a sudden move towards identity politics by these organisations and the theory is that the reason they did this was to balkanise the left and to prevent it from pursuing any kind of a class or economic analysis. Without denying the justice of what you’re saying, this is not an irrelevant theory. I don’t think, anyway."

His opinion is bolstered by an FBI document from 1969:

"The Women’s Liberation Movement may be considered as subversive to the New Left and revolutionary movements as they have proven to be a divisive and factionalizing factor.... It could be well recommended as a counterintelligence movement to weaken the revolutionary movement.” This was from an August, 1969 report by the head of the San Francisco FBI office.[4] Within several years, the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations were pumping millions into women’s studies programs on campus.

If you actually look at the statistics you find that men and boys fare worse on practically every quality of life indicator. So at minimum, leftists need to abandon this "male privilege" nonsense.

u/FalconGK81 · 7 pointsr/The_Donald
u/Coltorl- · 7 pointsr/askphilosophy

This book, The Pig That Wants To Be Eaten, is a very easy read. Others can vouch for its readability (I know /u/TychoCelchuuu has mentioned this book in the past) alongside me, but in regards to me recommending something like this to you: I've been a native speaker for all my life so I may not be the best in determining how well a non-native reader can understand a foreign text. Hope someone can come along to recommend you some reading from a place of similar experience, good luck!

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:

A book he wrote in 1969:

"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

u/kanuk876 · 7 pointsr/

misandry: (mis·an·dry): noun, hatred of males (Wikipedia link)

Books by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young:

Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture

Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men

u/earwaxremovalsystem · 7 pointsr/pussypassdenied

It has little to do with race. The driver was black and very decent.

Read Black Rednecks and White Liberals by Thomas Sowell for a better understanding.

u/JihadNinjaCowboy · 7 pointsr/MGTOW

My friend, you are correct but late:

Men ARE starting to stop agreeing to get married:

And it Western society is already rotting from within.

u/HoppeanHaymaker · 7 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism
u/Drunkard_DoE · 7 pointsr/jacksonville

Just order off of Amazon. Here's a good book. Why Socialism Works

u/Johnny_B_GOODBOI · 7 pointsr/Political_Revolution

The two books i've read are The Political Mind and Don't Think of an Elephant. He is a congitive linguist who wrote a lot about metaphor and framing, and how the Right has effectively framed every major issue in their own terms.

His ideas aren't radical or world changing, but the Dems really shun him (i think over some personal spats... like, he disagreed with Rahm Emmanuel once (a plus in my book) and also with Steven Pinker (more plus), so they don't like him). Not that if they listened to him they'd win all elections, but maybe they'd do a little better?

I'm interested in him because, so far as i've read, his explanation for why Republicans voters vote for Republicans is the only one that makes sense. "Why do they vote against their interests" leaves out that they are voting for their values, even when those values are against their interests.

But, i dunno, maybe he's way off base and that's why no one listens to him. Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts.

u/rkoloeg · 7 pointsr/politics

You might be interested in a short read called "Don't Think of an Elephant". The author is a linguist and he looks at how Republicans manipulate language as a means to an end. He addresses your question to some extent.

u/thegriz_ · 7 pointsr/Christianity

Bishop Barron would push forward Thomas Aquinas for this, but that is far too extensive to type out his natural theology here. This is an argument from pure philosophy to Catholicism. Not starting with a belief in God, and Catholicism in particular, but building to this truth from philosophy to theology to catholicism.

I would suggest starting with this:

Then read this:

Finally(if you are still with me) there is about 1000 pages of this to go through:

u/massgraves · 7 pointsr/melbourne

This is because you lost yesterday's argument isn't it. It's okay, I already learned here that you people are always projecting.

u/sorbix · 6 pointsr/

Actually George Lakoff is not praising them for doing this at all! He founded a progressive think tank to try and COUTNER this framing, and wrote a book about it called Don't Think Like an Elephant (

u/Sergio_56 · 6 pointsr/Catholicism

Ed Feser's books are great:

The Last Superstition, or "Why he's wrong."

Aquinas, or "Why we're right."

And Scholastic Metaphysics: An Introduction, or "As close to the truth as we can get without Revelation."

u/hammiesink · 6 pointsr/DebateReligion

Aristotle was wrong about some of his natural science, but his metaphysics is not necessarily wrong and is defended to the present day (example).

u/inquirer50 · 6 pointsr/KotakuInAction

You need the two most definitive books that outline GamerGate, the lead up to today's problems, how to crush the SJW and how to win.

Vox Day, SJWs always lie.

SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police (The Laws of Social Justice Book 1)


SJWs Always Double Down: Anticipating the Thought Police (The Laws of Social Justice Book 2)

u/OneWingedShark · 6 pointsr/recruitinghell

> As easy as it would be to cover their backsides and do legally, why on earth would they bung this up?

Well, there's a theory around about SJWs being attracted to HR, infesting it, and then hiring other SJWs until the corporation is about 'social justice' rather than whatever the corporation is supposed to do -- the process is called 'convergence' and illustrated in these two books -- given what we're seeing out of the tech industry, it may be that this theory of convergence has some truth to it.

u/aginorfled · 6 pointsr/books

I'm surprised no one's mentioned this one:

Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky

It's pretty comprehensive in terms of covering the essentials of his positions on most major issues, but the editors did a fantastic job of presenting all of it as a question/answer type of format. Another cool thing, the footnotes/citations were so voluminous they made it a .pdf online because it would've probably doubled the size of the book:

The Footnotes to Understanding Power

u/OxKnowledge · 6 pointsr/CoonTown

His best book in my opinion is Black Rednecks, White liberals. It explores the degeneracy of black culture and how it was learned from whites in the south that brought their degenerate culture here from Scotland and England. I am black by the way. You should also read his autobiography, My Personal Odessey, so you can see how he developed his worldview.

u/TheSingulatarian · 6 pointsr/SandersForPresident

Kamala Harris let fucking Steve Mnuchin go when there was a mountain of evidence that he was a corporate criminal. Harris was also the only Democrat to receive a campaign contribution from Mnuchin and his criminal enterprise One West Bank. Now that crook is Trump's treasury secretary.

Get the Book "Listen Liberal" by Thomas Frank. He lists the crimes of the Clintons and Obama in detail and Frank is a well know liberal himself. It may open your eyes.

u/Sparkle_Chimp · 6 pointsr/politics

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

u/pocket_queens · 6 pointsr/Showerthoughts
u/TychoCelchuuu · 6 pointsr/askphilosophy

I'm usually partial to the "explore fields to find out what you enjoy" sort of thing. One of the best books for this is The Pig That Wants to be Eaten. It's excellent because each of the puzzles it discusses contains an explanation of what problem in philosophy it is related to and what books to read if you want to explore that problem. Once you get a sense for the sorts of things you like thinking about, you know what fields (like epistemology, ethics, philosophy of law, etc.) to explore in more depth, at which point I would usually recommend either an introductory textbook in the field or reading the article + bibliography about the field on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

edit: actually I just read a review on the page, maybe that Pig book doesn't have much of a bibliography for each topic. Oh well. You can Google that shit because it at least tells you the key words.

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.

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

u/jessy0108 · 6 pointsr/Anthropology

For my Intro to Cultural Anthropology class last semester we read an ethnography called "In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in the Barrio" by Philippe Bourgois. It was an interesting read, very captivating and real. I really liked it.

u/yvaN_ehT_nioJ · 6 pointsr/MensRights

It's quite surprising. I just finished reading Spreading Misandry and though it was originally published in like 2000 (or shortly after) a lot of what it talks about either still rings true or has gotten worse. It takes a look at how pop-culture spreads misandrist ideas/values and how those came from certain circles of academia/marxism.

It's worth a read if for no other reason than to see how there were people talking about the same issues we worry about back in the 1990s. Pretty well referenced and has a decent chunk of the book just devoted to explaining why the two profs who wrote it included/talked about the issues they did.

u/SDBP · 6 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

I'd start by questioning the notion of political authority. There is a range of activities which the state does that we'd condemn a private agent or entity if they did those things. So the question is: what accounts of this authority are there, and do they actually justify our holding governments to different ethical standards as non-governmental entities? (These accounts will typically be appeals to things like social contracts and democracy.) The anarcho-capitalist answer is oftentimes: these accounts fail to justify political authority.

This alone doesn't get you to anarcho-capitalism. You'll need a couple more things. Firstly, you'll need some sort of account of how an anarcho-capitalist society will provide the services or features that seem necessary for any acceptably functioning society. These are typically things like settling disputes (courts?), including tricky disputes regarding certain kinds of externalities, rights protection (police? military?), and, if you are so inclined, perhaps some kind of social justice. Secondly, since anarcho-capitalism is capitalistic, then one will probably need some sort of defense of private property rights as well. (If you already accept private property, then this might not be necessary. But those who are suspicious of it will probably want some sort of account of it, probably for similar reasons that we desire an account of political authority from the state.)

If each of these notions hold up (1 - political authority doesn't exist; 2 - private institutions can provide the services and features required for an acceptably decent society; 3 - private property is just), then you have a pretty good general case for anarcho-capitalism.

As for suggested reading regarding each of these points...

  • The Problem of Political Authority, by Michael Huemer. This one attempts to debunk political authority and provides a rough account of how an anarcho-capitalist society might provide for things like dispute resolution and the defense of individual rights.
  • The Machinery of Freedom, by David Friedman. While this provides an account of private property, I think the real virtue of this book is its ability to showcase capitalistic solutions to what we typically consider the domain of government action. (Again, things like providing law -- resolving disputes --, providing defense, education, etc.)
  • Anarchy, State, and Utopia, by Robert Nozick. While Nozick is no anarchist, he is a libertarian, and he developed an account of property entitlement that has been fairly influential, called The Entitlement Theory. While I'm not a strict adherent of this theory, it does seem to capture and explain a very wide variety of basic ethical intuitions regarding property rights.

    On the other hand, a good argument against anarcho-capitalism will probably hit on the negations of these points. It will attempt to establish political authority, or show anarcho-capitalist solutions to be highly impractical and improbable, or debunk private property, or something of this sort. Hopefully that helps lay out a sort of structure with which to analyze anarcho-capitalism with.
u/riplox · 6 pointsr/Libertarian

Don't forget the excellent book from Michael Huemer: The Problem of Political Authority.

Ebook download for free here: Download

u/Phanes7 · 6 pointsr/CapitalismVSocialism

If I was going to provide someone with a list of books that best expressed my current thinking on the Political Economy these would be my top ones:

  1. The Law - While over a century old this books stands as the perfect intro to the ideas of Classical Liberalism. When you understand the core message of this book you understand why people oppose so many aspects of government action.
  2. Seeing Like A State - The idea that society can be rebuilt from the top down is well demolished in this dense but important read. The concept of Legibility was a game changer for my brain.
  3. Stubborn Attachments - This books presents a compelling philosophical argument for the importance of economic growth. It's hard to overstate how important getting the balance of economic growth vs other considerations actually is.
  4. The Breakdown of Nations - A classic text on why the trend toward "bigger" isn't a good thing. While various nits can be picked with this book I think its general thesis is holding up well in our increasingly bifurcated age.
  5. The Joy of Freedom - Lots of books, many objectively better, could have gone here but this book was my personal pivot point which sent me away from Socialism and towards capitalism. This introduction to "Libertarian Capitalism" is a bit dated now but it was powerful.

    There are, of course many more books that could go on this list. But the above list is a good sampling of my personal philosophy of political economy. It is not meant as a list of books to change your mind but simply as a list of books that are descriptive of my current belief that we should be orientated towards high (sustainable) economic growth & more decentralization.

    Some honorable mentions:

    As a self proclaimed "Libertarian Crunchy Con" I have to add The Quest for Community & Crunchy Cons

    The book The Fourth Economy fundamentally changed my professional direction in life.

    Anti-Fragile was another book full of mind blowing ideas and shifted my approach to many things.

    The End of Jobs is a great combination of The Fourth Economy & Anti-Fragile (among other concepts) into a more real-world useful set of ideas.

    Markets Not Capitalism is a powerful reminder that it is not Capitalism per se that is important but the transformational power of markets that need be unleashed.

    You will note that I left out pure economic books, this was on purpose. There are tons of good intro to econ type books and any non-trained economist should read a bunch from a bunch of different perspectives. With that said I am currently working my way through the book Choice and if it stays as good as it has started that will probably get added to my core list.

    So many more I could I list like The Left, The Right, & The State or The Problem of Political Authority and on it goes...
    I am still looking for a "manifesto" of sorts for the broad movement towards decentralization (I have a few possibilities on my 'to read list') so if you know of any that might fit that description let me know.
u/tkms · 6 pointsr/Firearms

I have a fantastic book for you! Unfortunately it only comes through an academic publisher, so the price is high... but it's an amazing read.

u/BaronSathonyx · 6 pointsr/Firearms

An important book everyone thinking about joining these groups should read:

u/repmack · 5 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

>previously minarchism

Don't leave us!!!!!!!!

Huemer's problem of political authority.

David Friedman's Machinery of Freedom

Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto.

I've read Machinery and For a New Liberty. I'm half way through Huemer's book. I finished part I which is seems to be the most important part.

>WTF is Austrian economics

Don't feel the need to relate to Austrian economics. Personally I'm skeptical of Austrian methodology. Being a non Austrian is a minority view here, but I wish more people took it. Bryan Caplan wrote an essay why he isn't an Austrian.

u/DenPratt · 5 pointsr/AnCap101

I want to add to any list:

  • Michael Huemer’s The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey

    The fundamental question of political philosophy is, “How do rulers get the authority to initiate violence against us citizens (via laws and regulations)?”

    This has been answered in various ways over the century, usually by philosophers who had very much to fear from their rulers (e.g., loss of prestige, loss of funding, loss of employment, loss of freedom, loss of life) should their rulers be displeased with their answer. Thus their answers usually glorified their bosses and explained why we peons must obey them.

    Michael Hummer has far less to lose and thus he much more rigorously examines the justifications that philosophers have given over time as to why we should believe that rulers have different ethics from us, ethics that no other human would be permitted (e.g., the right to kill, the right to steal), and why we have an obligation to obey them, an obligation that can be enforced by severest of penalties.

    The results are eye- and mind-opening.
u/ButYouDisagree · 5 pointsr/askphilosophy

You should check out Michael Huemer. He argues against democratic governments having legitimate political authority, and also argues for limiting the scope of democratic decisionmaking.
See e.g. In Praise of Passitivity, The Problem of Political Authority.

u/Chris_Pacia · 5 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

@ninja Definitely read Michael Huemer, The Problem of Political Authority. It is one of the best books you will ever read.

> how a free market could actually work, how justice could be dealt in a stateless society etc.

The entire second half of the book describes a stateless society with probably 10x more clarity than you will find anywhere else.

> that address common objections like who will build the roads

I've made my little contribution to this here:

u/Go_Todash · 5 pointsr/worldnews

Noam Chomsky has been talking about this since before most of us were even born.

u/tayssir · 5 pointsr/philosophy

Depends. What topic interests you, and at what level? He's written on philosophy, politics and of course lingustics.

For an overview of his political beliefs, I like Understanding Power, whose footnotes are web-only, because otherwise they would've more than doubled the book. (It's also very readable, since it's taken from question & answer sessions, where he's looser with language than in prepared talks or in print. And even Chomsky uses the book to look up stuff, praising the duo who assembled the book.)

Language and Politics is also interesting, and touches more on philosophy and lingustics.

There's much on the web. He also used to participate on ZNet's old message forums; however his years of posts (probably in the thousands) answering people's political questions may be lost.

u/shit-zen-giggles · 5 pointsr/JordanPeterson

>In terms of the bad legal climate, fight back dammit. Fight for yourself, your kids and everyone else’s kids.

Won't have any success. MRAs have been pushing that load for decades and gotten nowhere with it.

But men are becoming aware of their power.

The power to say no.



u/Mojotank · 5 pointsr/samharris

I've heard several people call Liberalism a Mental Disorder, I've seen it on bumper stickers. In fact, someone wrote a book with that exact title.

Even so, I'd say that an ideology that promotes the belief, for example, that we should not all have to work 40+ hours every week to have a decent life is not the same as having a compulsive behaviour preventing someone from accomplishing what they require for basic needs. For one, a belief is not the same as a behaviour.

u/staomeel · 5 pointsr/PoliticalRevolutionID

We need a trust circle in which the party, activists, and the average voter can engage in dialog and support. A philosophical stalemate between activists and the Idaho Democratic Party has led to a total communication breakdown. The average citizen has given up completely as they know the Democratic Party serves only millionaires and up. The activist resent the IDP for their greed, ineptitude, and frank reluctance to show any support for FDR's values.

The IDP refuses to acknowledge that neoliberalism has failed utterly and completely. The party base continues on roaring into the void while the IDP declines to support what might have been their best field organizers. Unfortunately the IDP has been hooked on the D.C. money funnel for so long they fail to see they have lost all credibility by supporting the DNC. If the IDP were to turn off the tap and start having faith in the citizens to provide for their economic well being they might turn things around. They dare not become accountable to the majority. The simple math determines that pleasing a wealthy minority easier and more profitable then attempting to solicit funding from the cash strapped average citizens. Politics have become a safe career to leach money from the upper crust, see Sally Boyton Brown skipping town.

The enthusiasm among the citizens for the IDP has bottomed out due to the radical differences in finical desires. Idaho's majority individuals lives in poverty or near poverty.. The average the median per capita income for Idaho was $24,273 in 2015. You need at least 30k to stop living pay check to pay check per person. The citizens want healthcare, green jobs, education and social security. The IDP waits in vain for a Idaho millionaire/billionaire to help build the "collation of the ascendant" that will never come to Idaho and what little was here has begun to crumble.

The Democrats for the past 40 years have been slowly dismantling the FDR values that brought them easy votes for multiple generations. They have become lazy and spoiled expecting the working class to keep blindly heaving them over the finish line. The working class well has finally run dry, see the 2016 Presidential elections. Now we face an impasse, do we burn down the crooked orchard and start again or do we try to prune down the twisted roots put down by the neoliberal elite?

The answer is neither. The IDP needs radical restructuring so as to knock out the hierarchical leadership. All party decision should return to directly to precinct captains. As in precinct captains act as a virtual house of representatives that elect a virtual senate made of the district leadership. The senate elects a party leader. Why add all this crazy complication to the political machine?

  1. The average citizen can have a direct impact on the Idaho democratic party without leaving their home precinct. It gives the power back to the people.
  2. It forces the democratic authoritarians running the party to face democratic libertarians in a honest political discussion for once.
  3. It democratizes how the donations get distributed.
  4. It gives potential candidates opportunity to practice politics in a sandbox.
  5. It limits the center-right brow beating the hierarchical structure delivers.
  6. It pushes the career political wonks away from the money and levers of power.
u/Chungking-Expresso · 5 pointsr/indieheads

Probably do some more (any) research instead of continuing to advocate for economic illiteracy and abject human suffering.

u/ErnieMaclan · 5 pointsr/Anarchism

It's not about free speech. Stop accepting that framing.

  1. Street violence is a tactic used by fascists of all stripes - the Klan, the Nazi party, fascist skins, whatever. "Free speech" is a pretense used to give legal cover so they can assert themselves on the streets. If they have the numbers, they'll beat people, as they did in Berkeley and Charlottesville. If not, they'll hide behind the cops.*

  2. Fascism is a serious enough threat that direct, violent tactics are justified. History suggests that fascists can capture control of the liberal-democratic state, with catastrophic results. Trying to crush fascism while it's still small is justifiable.

  3. One of the reason First Amendment law is so focused on being content-neutral is that a) you can't trust the government to only outlaw the really bad movements, and b) you don't want to set a precedent that could be used against you. Those issues don't necessarily apply to direct action.

    *This arguments is obviously less applicable to situations where they really are just sticking to speech, which is worth thinking about. Kinda a whole other can of worms I'm not really ready to get in to.
u/GregoireDeNarek · 5 pointsr/Christianity

A recent work by David Bentley Hart, The Experience of God is well worth reading (it is more philosophical than its title lets on).

Ed Feser's The Last Superstition is good and I would also recommend his Scholastic Metaphysics.

u/kjdtkd · 5 pointsr/Catholicism

It's very dense, and this is him writing to an untrained audience. Try giving his Scholastic Metaphysics a try sometime.

u/SpeSalvi · 5 pointsr/Catholicism
u/hmbmelly · 5 pointsr/BestOfOutrageCulture

Have you checked out the reviews for his book? They are amazing and /r/iamverysmart.

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/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/scubachris · 5 pointsr/insanepeoplefacebook

In Search of Respect is a good way to understand how this happens. An anthropologist goes to East Harlem to study crack dealers in the 90's.

u/360-No-Stump · 5 pointsr/educationalgifs

A demographic shift taking place nationwide. This book puts it in a good context.

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

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/Metathinker · 4 pointsr/aww

Yeah. My ethics doesn't exclude eating meat now, but if lab meat becomes a thing I will absolutely support that to eliminate the ethical grey all together. By chance, have you read The Pig That Wants To Be Eaten?

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

The Grand Chessboard. Written by: Zbigniew Brzezinski.

u/energirl · 4 pointsr/Anthropology

Just read ethnographies on a subject or group that interests you.

One of my favorites in college was [In Search of Respect(] Philippe Bourgeois was studying crack dealers in El Barrio (a mostly Hispanic are of New York City also called Spanish Harlem). It's a very good ethnography because it is objective, showing how social capital and other phenomena play a role in keeping the crack dealers from "going legit," yet it does not make apologies for the sometimes obscene things they do to other human beings.

Thunder Rides a Black Horse is about a traditional Mescalero coming of age ceremony for women.

Life and Death on Mt Everest is an intimate look at the experienced Sherpas who aid mountain climbers as they tackle the world's tallest mountain.

There are ethnographies all over the place on just about every culture you could ask for. Just do a google search on something that interests you and use the keyword "ethnography" in your search. You're bound to come up with something.

u/Enailis · 4 pointsr/TheWire this is a VERY intresting book about an anthropologist who studied crack dealers, its pretty cool.

u/bluecalx2 · 4 pointsr/LibertarianSocialism

The first one I read was Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda, which was a great introduction. It's short and very easy to get into. You can read it in an afternoon. It's actually from a speech he gave, so you can probably find the audio online for free and listen to it instead if you prefer.

But his best book, in my opinion, is Understanding Power. It's more of a collection of essays, speeches and interviews, but it really shaped my understanding of the world better than any other book I have read. I can't recommend this book enough.

If you're more interested in libertarian socialism, in addition to Understanding Power, read Chomsky on Anarchism. He presents the theories in very clear language, instead of being overly theoretical.

If you're more interested in his writings on US foreign policy, also read either Failed States or Hegemony or Survival.


u/BTC_Brin · 4 pointsr/Firearms

Actually, it isn't classism so much as a statement on culture, and an acknowledgement of the economic consequences thereof.

I suggest you read Thomas Sowell's book "Black Rednecks and White Liberals.": it does an excellent job of explaining how bad culture can act to prevent upward social mobility.

u/frugalNOTcheap · 4 pointsr/nba

Take it up with Thomas Sowell and his book

Even Barkley called Karl a redneck.

u/Kyrra · 4 pointsr/Conservative

Just tell them to go read to show them that way of talking came from northern England hillbillies. (Along with most of the "black culture" that seems cherished today.)

u/greetingstoyou · 4 pointsr/news

I would actually argue that it has more to do with men choosing not to marry...or date even. There's no economic or family incentive. A friend let me borrow this book a few weeks ago and it was eye-opening. It's one opinion, but an interesting read with some valid points.

Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why It Matters:

u/StealthVoter1138 · 4 pointsr/The_Donald

> Liberalism is literally a mental disorder.


u/ethertrace · 4 pointsr/politics

They've read too much Dinesh D'Souza.

Who am I kidding? They probably just listened to too many talking points on right wing media generated by the book.

u/joseph-hurtado · 4 pointsr/ConservativesOnly

Absolutely true. Dinesh D’Souza proves this in his book “The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left”

u/endoftheliner · 4 pointsr/GenderCritical

"With his trademark sardonic wit and lacerating logic, Frank's Listen, Liberal lays bare the essence of the Democratic Party's philosophy and how it has changed over the years. A form of corporate and cultural elitism has largely eclipsed the party's old working-class commitment, he finds. For certain favored groups, this has meant prosperity. But for the nation as a whole, it is a one-way ticket into the abyss of inequality. In this critical election year, Frank recalls the Democrats to their historic goals-the only way to reverse the ever-deepening rift between the rich and the poor in America."

And the Dems are not listening to us. On the contrary, the money of the privileged class is speaking.

u/AlrightToBeRight · 4 pointsr/ukpolitics

> Source?


u/Stardate_94262-92 · 4 pointsr/australia

> Authoritarianism has literally nothing to do with revolutionary politics.

[Some reading for you and others who think they can do the revolitionary politics without the authoritarianism] (

u/mr_egalitarian · 4 pointsr/FeMRADebates
u/Scrivver · 4 pointsr/GoldandBlack

Michael Huemer, the philosopher who wrote the fantastic The Problem of Political Authority, is a vegan (or at least ethical vegetarian). He had a back and forth discussion with Bryan Caplan published to Econlib about it. He also wrote an easy-to-read book on the subject. He takes morality very seriously, and is incredibly consistent about it. If veganism and voluntarism were incompatible, I doubt he would subscribe to both.

u/bitbutter · 4 pointsr/atheism

> I can't even mention Somolia without fervent denials about how it in anyway equates to volunteerism but how is the vacuum in a failed state going to be filled any better by the vacuum left by a dismantled state?

Voluntaryists don't want failed states. They want (in my experience, and reflecting my own preference too) to build the institutions of a stateless society before the state (as an institution generally) fails, allowing the state to safely whither away with a minimum of turmoil rather than catastrophically collapse.

> Could someone explain a working stateless society for me?

Not in a reddit comment. It's a big topic. There are a few good books on the subject. But you can get a decent start by focusing on law and defense. These are (imo) the problems with the least obvious solutions, relative to the status quo.

Illustrated summary of the machinery of freedom:

The Problem of Political Authority:

u/psycho_trope_ic · 4 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Well, for starters I think we should discuss what it means to enforce justice. In whose eyes is justice determined? How is it that one comes to be a party to 'justice being served' on either side of the coin?

State justice systems are, as you indicated, built on something like the Rawlsian Leviathan whereby someone believes themselves aggrieved and transfers what would in prior systems have been their right of vengeance to the Leviathan to pursue. This is a method of breaking the cycle of revenge generated by handling this personally. It might also make the outcome more even-handed because the investigating and enforcing parties are presumed to be less personally invested in the outcome. These are good features of the system. They do not require that the Leviathan-entity be a monopoly (and in fact it is not a monopoly now unless you consider the US system to be the monopoly being enforced everywhere else to varying degrees of success).

There are a rather large number of books and articles on this subject, as libertarian dispute resolution is probably the most fleshed out portion of libertarian thinking. I would recommend The problem of Political Authority and For A New Liberty as good starting places which will allow you to self-guide to further sources.

What AnCaps are advocating for is that the services of the Leviathan can be provided by firms interacting through a market. In some ways this is what exists. A primary difference in what we want from what is available is that we think you ought to be free to choose the firm you go to. Now we (many of us) are advocating for a system based on restitution rather than the 'transferred right-of-vengence.'

So, since we are not advocating for any states, we are not advocating for anything like legislative law really but rather contractual terms and agreements negotiated either through something like an insurance company (the DROs mentioned elsewhere) or through communities of legal agreement, or probably any number of other methods we have not even dreamt of yet.

u/WilliamKiely · 4 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Any other fans of (the best book on libertarian political philosophy, according to Bryan Caplan) Michael Huemer's The Problem of Political Authority?

u/etherael · 4 pointsr/CryptoAnarchy

> Is a starving man not coerced to steal food? Is a homeless man not coerced to take shelter?

It's like you're not even vaguely familiar with the ideas you put forward, and you don't know they've been a subject of ridicule for so long that people wrote [satirical comics about them years ago.] (

What's next, who will build the roads?

Because you require something for your survival does not mean that somebody else is coercing you, nature is the coercive agent, and the trials of nature are levied upon everyone, giving you no right to coerce others in order to meet your needs as a special snowflake uniquely so coerced by nature.

> Is a poor man not coerced to sell his labor for the profits of a rich man?

No, he is not. He could conduct his own profit yielding enterprise and engage in free trade with his fellow man in order to meet his needs. If another offers him an opportunity which in contrast to the prior is his best option, that is the opposite of a reason to chastise that other, they should be commended for increasing the opportunities available to the man beyond what he would otherwise have had.

If he is useless to nature, and useless to his fellow man, there is only one way to secure his well being; become a thief, either small scale as the traditional bandit, or writ large as the aspirant to political authority and statehood.

The role is the same, the disguise is the only variance. One steals with a gun and risks his own life, the other steals with a pen and a suit and risks the lives of millions of fools he has conned to act as thieves on his behalf.

> Does capitalist law enforcenforcement not coerce, with its constant threat of violence, kidnapping, and caging?

All law enforcement in modern statist societies is backed by political force. Police forces are financed by taxes levied by entities wielding political force. You continue to ascribe the innate sins of political authority to the actor which by nature eschews its use, and beg for the source of those sins to save you from their ravages.

You may as well cry for a tiger to save you from a vicious lamb.

Wake up, you can do better than this. If you have any hope at all of standing a chance in an argument with an anarchocapitalist, you should at least read [The problem of political authority] ( by Michael Huemer, at the moment you simply come across as severely ill informed and utterly out of touch with the basic terrain of the debate.

u/RogueZ1 · 4 pointsr/CFBOffTopic

How much time do you have? If you have enough time, I’d recommend this book. It’s a little older but it’s the only one by Lakoff that I’ve personally read. It’s a very quick read and great help. There’s a book on a essentially the same topic by Frank Luntz and the thought of my money going to Luntz kinda makes me wanna puke but there’s no denying he’s effective at messaging. At the end of the day (and also sadly) facts won’t effect influence unless you can effect emotion from your message. That’s what the book is about.

Edit 1: Best of luck buddy!

Edit 2: If you don’t have enough time, or if you want a second pair of eyes, feel free to send me what you’re planning to say and I’ll use my experience with this to help. Just PM and we can work out the deets

u/jtoomim · 4 pointsr/Bitcoin

> effective blocksize increase

"Effective blocksize increase" isn't too bad. Presuming that "blocksize increase" is the same thing as "effective blocksize increase" is what I'm objecting to. Perhaps you were just misreading Bitcoinopoly, or perhaps you were just abruptly disagreeing with his terminology, I don't know.

> before you started proposing "capacity increase"

I'm just following Greg Maxwell's terminology on that. I think he was being very careful in how he worded things in order to avoid ambiguity and confusion, and I appreciate his effort.

> cut-through transactions like Lightning

Interesting term. That's an improvement, thanks.

> You seem remarkably paranoid and quick to jump to negative conclusions.

Sorry, it maybe comes from being American. Politics in the USA are full of calculated use of [language and framing in order to direct debates] ( I took enough classes as an undergrad to know how important these kinds of effects can be, and my cognitive science background makes it hard for me to not notice when these kinds of effects are occurring and potentially becoming significant. In this case it was probably unintentional.

u/SRSLovesGawker · 4 pointsr/MensRights

JtO's response seems to me the sort of emotion-laden bombast that you'd find from many political commentators. I don't think he has the reach of impact of a Glenn Beck or Andrew Sullivan, but the tactics aren't dissimilar and they do seem to work by shifting the Overton window.

I sometimes think that the most useful information many people here could learn is standard political issue framing. Pick up George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant and give it a read (don't panic if Lakoff doesn't mesh with your personal political stripe - the tactics are agnostic and the book examines which ones tend to be used by which side in a pretty even-handed way).

This is a political fight, and in political fights, words matter. Learning how to use them effectively forges your metaphorical linguistic sword and shield for that battle.

u/dill0nfd · 4 pointsr/DebateReligion

Ok, this article has convinced me to read a copy of this book. Is there anyone else here who is familiar with this or any other book by Feser?

u/megamanxtc · 4 pointsr/TheRedPill

Thank you for your recommendation. Just to confirm, this is it?

u/CisSiberianOrchestra · 4 pointsr/AskThe_Donald

Vox Day wrote an entire book on the subject:

SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police

The e-book is only a few bucks, and it's not a terribly long read. But it gives some good info insight into the social justice warrior mindset and how to defend yourself and even counter-attack against them.

Vox Day does answer your question, too. If a SJW takes offense at an inoffensive remark you make and starts to name-call and shame you, there's a list of what to do in that situation. But the most important thing is don't capitulate and don't apologize.

u/Quantum_Telegraph · 3 pointsr/DailyShow

You might be thinking of George Lakoff's Don't Think of An Elephant (2004). I searched the wiki of episode guests from 1999 - 2006, but Lakoff doesn't appear. He has written many books over 40 years, has lots of interviews on youtube; plenty of material to sink your teeth into.

If Lakoff wasn't what you were searching, maybe he'll be a good substitute.

u/Thomist · 3 pointsr/Catholicism

He has a new book coming out soon - - so it might be a good opportunity to get people exposed to his work and get those book orders rolling in.

u/Ibrey · 3 pointsr/Catholicism

One objection that can be raised against full-blown Cartesian dualism, with a material, mechanical body interacting with an immaterial soul, is that it seems to violate the law of conservation of energy, since for the body to act upon the soul or the soul to act upon the body would require a transfer of energy in or out of the material universe.

But I don't know if you can make the hylemorphic conception of the soul understood without first explaining how everything is a union of matter and form. We don't live in a universe made up only of matter with we humans having something extra called a soul, everything has a form and the soul is ours. Edward Feser builds up from this metaphysics to the existence of the soul in The Last Superstition, with competing views attacked in the last two chapters. For arguments at a more academic level, check out the work of David S. Oderberg, particularly "Hylemorphic Dualism". If you're in it to win it, see Oderberg's monograph Real Essentialism, or Feser's Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction, which has apparently made Stephen Mumford realise he was a Scholastic realist without knowing it.

I know that few will thrill at the prospect of studying metaphysics at that level, but I do think it's important for evangelisation since so much unbelief proceeds from this fiction that what happens at Mass, for example, could in principle be more accurately described in terms of chemical interaction between atoms without reference to abstractions like religion, history, music, or people. So for those of you who are still discerning, please think about a vocation as a philosopher.

u/Pope-Urban-III · 3 pointsr/Catholicism

Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction will certainly cover it, but from a definitely Thomistic point of view. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy, and don't know much about the argument, save I'll probably agree with Aquinas because he's larger and easier to hide behind.

u/rodmclaughlin · 3 pointsr/KotakuInAction

Another example of trying to appease SJWs and getting more aggro because of it. As Vox Day explains in
SJWs Always Lie, you shouldn't make any concessions to these Nazis at all - it just makes them hungry for more.

u/SillyEnthusiasm · 3 pointsr/slatestarcodex

You might as well be quoting Vox Day. I'm not sure how long I expect this book to stay up on Amazon, given the way the winds are blowing these days.

u/Frankly_George · 3 pointsr/MensRights

Stop what you're doing and read this.

No, don't read it later, don't think about things, or add it to your to-do list--stop what you're doing and read it now.

If you'd like more grounding, consider getting the full ebook here (which is free on Kindle Unlimited so you have no real reason not to,) but in a pinch the survival guide above will give you the basics you need to go forward.

Follow the guide. Seriously. Follow it.

  • Don't panic.

  • Don't try to reason with them.

  • Don't apologize. Ever.

  • Accept that this is going to negatively impact your life and make peace with it.

  • Document the hell out of everything. is your friend, so is Screengrab! though you will always have people claiming photoshop no matter what you do.

  • Don't resign or quit any positions or jobs--make them fire you.

    I'd keep posting but by the time I finished I'd have done a bad job of recreating the guide I linked to. So read it. Seriously, just do it. Do it now! The information in that PDF could save your life if not your career.

    I sincerely hope you do take this advice seriously. Good luck and Godspeed.
u/maxchavesblog · 3 pointsr/The_Donald

You might want to familiarize yourself with Vox Day's "SJW Attack Survival Guide" which is from SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Though Police

u/wr3decoy · 3 pointsr/ShitPoliticsSays

Have you read SJW's always lie? It's not exactly what you're asking, but when dealing with these people especially if you are a target being attacked. The author is sometimes a douche but it is a decent book.

u/Alephone1 · 3 pointsr/MGTOW

Think about it. If you hate men where else can you get you're revenge and be practically untouchable.

It's the same with all social justice warriors. Check out Vox Days SJWs Always Lie and SJWs Always Double Down.

They want you disemployed if not dead. Communists at heart. It always ends this way with them.

u/ColdEiric · 3 pointsr/TheRedPill
u/mnemosyne-0002 · 3 pointsr/KotakuInAction

Archives for the links in comments:

u/Aurolak · 3 pointsr/samharris

>But I've not yet found a good discussion on power.

Noam Chomsky is your huckleberry if you lack the stomach for French verbosity.

Power & Ideology

Understanding Power

u/XOmniverse · 3 pointsr/JordanPeterson

In Black Rednecks and White Liberals, Thomas Sowell puts forward a pretty convincing case that the cause is that the Jews often played the role of a "middle man minority", which is to say, when they entered a culture or a society, they tended to enter into professions in which they are middle men (bankers, lawyers, etc.) rather than directly producing goods and services. Since people don't intuitively understand how such professions add genuine value, the money obtained through them was perceived as unfair rent seeking rather than genuinely earned.

u/hga_another · 3 pointsr/KotakuInAction

And now Men [Are Going] On Strike, the ungrateful wretches.

u/dalurkingluke · 3 pointsr/MensRights

Men on strike, Dr. Helen Smith. Her articles are regularly linked in this reddit, so just do a search for a fast preview.

u/nakedjay · 3 pointsr/The_Donald

Father's day is coming up, OP should get his dad a copy of Michael Savage's book, Liberalism is a Mental Disease

u/Nutfungus · 3 pointsr/RightwingLGBT

I left years and years ago. 9/11 opened my eyes to what the left was all about, I remember people on the left saying stuff like “what did we do to offend them?”

I couldn’t believe it. 3000 dead Americans in one day, and these people were asking what we did to offend the Islamic mental cases that did it?

Over the years it has just gotten worse and worse as the left has become more and more fascist.

Here’s a good book to understand the left:

The Big Lie

u/frosty67 · 3 pointsr/NeutralPolitics

Listen, Liberal by Thomas Frank

u/RNGmaster · 3 pointsr/starterpacks

>Also Clinton supporters being right wing? I don't see it, like Trump supporters most Clinton supporters are coming straight from Obama and I don't see how they're right wing.

From a modern American perspective, no. But from a global perspective yes. It used to be very different, in FDR's time for example. People did fight against his social-democrat policies, but they were adopted and widely popular. I mentioned how the John Birch Society shifted the Republicans to the right, and that's where things started to change. After McGovern's loss and, later, 12 years of Reagan and his VP being massively popular somehow, Democratic leaders assumed that they couldn't win by appealing to the left (which ignored the other circumstances surrounding McGovern's loss and Reagan's win). When they got back into power it was with Bill Clinton, who explicitly pursued a centrist agenda (he called it "triangulation") that included dismantling/privatizing the welfare state (welfare reform), expanding the police state and deregulating the financial industry (Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000). And these are all positions which were considered right-wing in the pre-Bill Clinton era. Now fast-forward to Obama, who has basically pursued the same foreign policy as Bush II, and whose central accomplishment is a bill which is an altered form of a healthcare-reform idea proposed by the far-right Heritage Foundation, and he is basically being attacked as a secret communist by Republicans. Frankly, it's rather insulting to the communists to group Obama with them.

(The book Listen, Liberal discusses in more detail how the Democratic Party moved to the right, if you're curious in reading further into this.)

>the real problem that we both should be against is the current corrupt people in power which is why a lot of people support Trump's promises to get rid of the people dividing us further for their own gain.

His proposals for lobbying reform and term limits aren't bad actually. But his proposed cabinet is, well, it's certainly a change from Democratic corruption but not the good kind. The people he's proposing are mostly distinguished by loyalty rather than actually fitting their position (lol Ben Carson), most of them have conflicts of interest based on their business histories, and most of them are big donors to the Trump campaign. Is any of this unusual for a Presidential cabinet? Well, not really, but it doesn't inspire hope about Trump actually wanting to address corruption more than nominally. And maybe he won't appoint any people with connections to the right-wing's favorite boogeymen such as Soros (though Mnuchin is a close Soros associate so... lol) but for every Dem-aligned billionaire rigging the system in their favor there's a Republican one doing the same thing. There's the Kochs, ALEC, and so on. Corruption isn't a Dem-only thing. When businesses spend billions to elect their stooges, that's an assault to democracy, doesn't matter which party's doing it (as I've said, the two parties are not too different in their goals at this point). But I never see Trump supporters worry about the Kochs or ALEC, oddly. I think that they're using anti-corruption as a cover for partisanship, ultimately.

If anti-corruption reform does happen, it's not going to occur thanks to politicians and businesspeople who've benefited from it. You can't use the system to change the system. Big money is the problem. And capitalism more broadly is the problem. Electing someone who'll just put the big businesses in power directly, rather than having them go through middlemen, isn't a solution in my opinion. If you want to get shit done, you do it through a mass movement and direct action. The civil rights and women's rights movements didn't succeed because they elected the right people, they succeeded because they essentially used sheer manpower (or, womanpower in the latter case) to make the government change shit. That's real democracy, IMO.

u/j3utton · 3 pointsr/POLITIC

> murdered that man

Yea, that was kind of the point of posting the quote.

And somehow you morons don't understand that as soon as the socialists take power here the same thing is going to happen to all you other useful idiots, as has happened every single other time this little experiment has been tried.

Here's some recommended reading.

u/Aetole · 3 pointsr/globalistshills

I have noticed that when existing moral or cognitive categories/structures are challenged, people tend to regress to more basic ones. So even as many people have embraced liberal human rights ideas, such as gender equality and dignity for QUILTBAG (LGBTQIA+), many others are in a backlash as they pull back to try to find something that they can understand and rely on, and that tends to be more simplified power and authority structures where big/loud=strong.

George Lakoff described some of this thinking in Don't Think of an Elephant.

u/Sherbert42 · 3 pointsr/askphilosophy

Thanks for mentioning you're seventeen; it does make a difference (to my mind!). M'colleagues below have recommended some pretty heavy reading, which I don't think is what you're really looking for on the face of it. If I were to recommend a book about philosophy to a seventeen-year-old, I wouldn't recommend a textbook, I'd recommend the following:

Plato and a Platypus walk into a bar. This is a book of jokes about philosophy. They're not very funny, but it's a good way to learn some ideas. Doesn't talk about people (old dead white men, for the most part); focuses on ideas.

The Pig that Wants to be Eaten. This is a little less frivolous; it's 100 little thought experiments. I'd say this is a bite-at-a-time book; read one, put the book down and think about it for a bit, then read another. I really enjoyed this.

Philosophy 101. This little volume is a pretty decent intro to some of the key ideas and thinkers of philosophy. No, it's not a textbook and it's not written by a professional philosopher, which is why I've recommended it. Its mistakes are small enough that if you get interested and start reading some more about the topic you'll pick up where the author went wrong pretty quickly. Again, this is a bite-at-a-time book.

Hope that helps, and of course if you find an idea and you have questions about it: ask away. :)

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:

US distribution of wealth

The grand chessboard

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?


  • 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."
u/gangofminotaurs · 3 pointsr/france

Certains avancent que ce triage social nourri la polarisation politique excessive que beaucoup de pays développés connaissent à divers degrés. Et la France n'est pas nécessairement la pire élève de ce coté là, mais n'est pas non plus indemne de cette situation.

u/hazabee · 3 pointsr/CGPGrey2

There's a book titled The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart by Bill Bishop. I haven't read it myself and only came across it yesterday, but it seems relevant to what we're discussing here.

u/wolfnb · 3 pointsr/goodyearwelt

>It didn't really change anybody's mind, and one's view on it was 99% shaped by what they were already thinking.

These books are about why they think that way. Hillbilly Elegy is about communities (mainly the non-urban communities that gave Trump huge support) that feel left behind and the recent history and thinking of those groups. The Big Sort is about the homogenization of social groups and thinking in the US, leading to why people feel comfortable throwing "grenades". The Righteous Mind is a book on the psychology of morality and politics in the US and why the ideologies are so different.

Trump may have won big with white voters of all stripes, but he also did better among Latinos than Romney, so it's obvious that it isn't just "poor uneducated whites", but if people don't try to figure out why the division is so strong and where the other side is coming from, what chance do we have for uniting and restoration?

I live in the most liberal district in one of the most liberal cities in the US. I have no difficulty in understanding that perspective and its driving forces. The other view is not so well illuminated

Edit: though I shouldn't have said anything in the first place. This is the one place I can go to avoid all the cross-talk about politics and ideologies. I like all of you guys and our light conversations about shoes. I'd rather not ruin that for myself.

u/890989 · 3 pointsr/MensRights

That wasn't the claim. The claim was that misandry is much more common than misogyny -- it appears literally every day in mainstream newspapers, is taught every day in schools etc.; indeed it is institutionalized. Police have to investigate hate crimes when a complaint is made. Therefore feminists would come under direct threat, legal precedents would have to be set etc. It would certainly make for some interesting debates, because most "misogyny" is just a figment of the feminist imagination. It would also force feminists to deal with fundamentalist religion, which is arguably misogynistic in some respects (and misandric in others).

Don't get me wrong, I don't support hate crime/speech laws.

u/DavidByron2 · 3 pointsr/MensRights

So I'm reading the Amazon reviews of the second book mentioned. Does anyone know if this statement is accurate?

> Perhaps the single most important thing Nathonson and Young do is refuse to draw back from saying that academic feminists--most of the feminists they discuss are professional scholar-teachers, most with PhDs--are unabashed hatemongers. In going so far they only stop short of annoncing that the "gender war" is in no way a metaphor, that feminists are just as determined to wreak damage on males as they contend males are determined to wreak on them.

> In a way, it will be interesting to see just how far this gauntlet thrown down to academic feminists will be picked up by them and responded to. To admit that feminists are explicitly anti-male, for instance, is to open up the whole academic industry of "Women' Studies"--which includes the female professors who teach in them--to the charge that they violate federal, state, and institutional regulations against hostile environment sexual harassment.

u/Rygarb · 3 pointsr/MensRights

Check out the books:

Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture

Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men

They are described as "massive and massively-researched volumes", and "thoroughly documented scholarly work". These two books are must read material.

u/Goodard · 3 pointsr/MensRights

I think you are ignorant about what feminism actually does

And as Othompson said, fuck off.

u/ManAid · 3 pointsr/MensRights

Title: Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men

Title: Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture

Title: The Manipulated Man

u/Munchausen-By-Proxy · 3 pointsr/MensRights

> Large proportion of men are CEOs (like extremely large proportion)

You have that backwards. Most CEOs are men, most men are not CEOs. Around here, this is called the apex fallacy. More men are homeless or in prison than are CEOs, but only one side of this coin is seen as a gender issue.

> Through fiction/mythology: Men are always the heros, women are the helpless creatures who can't do anything themselves.

What does that have to do with the value of their lives? Children are considered helpless, but also valuable.

> Through media: only 16% of oscar nominees are women, so men are better actors? Women are always nagging while men are always trying to avoid nagging spouses.

Again, nothing to do with value. Men achieve more because for men achievements are the path to value. They work longer hours, take bigger risks, but if they fail they are much more likely to kill themselves.

> Through policy: Ties back in with CEOs, most policy makers are men themselves (21/100 congress members are women)

But most voters are women. The behavior of politicians reflects society's wider values, not the other way around.

> It's easy to come up with anecdotal points that prove your ideals.

None of what I said qualifies as an anecdote. They are all well-documented trends.

> Do you have any actual scientific sources that back up what you're saying?

There have been books written on the subject, from both cultural and evo-psych perspectives. More research is needed, unfortunately the problem is self-reinforcing with many people being actively hostile to spending money researching men's issues.

u/TRPACC · 3 pointsr/masculism
u/the_curious_task · 3 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion


Murray Rothbard. Samples: Anatomy of the State, The Ethics of Liberty

Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Samples: State or Private Law Society?, Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis

Michael Huemer. Sample: The Problem of Political Authority

u/kitten888 · 3 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Democracy is tyranny of the majority

The minority can be denied all their rights including the right to life. For example, young men are minority, they are conscripted to military slavery and sent to war.

Quality of decision

A voter understands that the chance his vote will decide the outcome is negligible. He has no incentive to learn much about politics and make a good decision. The voting for him is sort of entertainment. He is more interested in sexual scandals involving politicians.

Ancap critics of democracy is in the book The Problem of Political Authority by Michael Huemer.

u/auryn0151 · 3 pointsr/politics

>Because society is a social contract.

You really need to read this book.

u/bearCatBird · 3 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Michael Huemer pretty thoroughly dismantles the case for Social Contract Theory in his book The Problem with Political Authority

u/AverageBoringPoster · 3 pointsr/badunitedkingdom
u/Magnifiscent · 3 pointsr/DrainTheSwamp

Is this a Warren Meme? It's pretty clever, tbh. Reminds me of this book on socialism.

u/neofool · 2 pointsr/MensRights

The misandry series.

u/kloo2yoo · 2 pointsr/Equality

Erin Pizzey, author of prone to violence

also, Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young, authors of Legalizing Misandry and Spreading Misandry

u/NiceIce · 2 pointsr/MensRights

Not what I mean at all. Where the hell do you live? As I told you, I live in SoCal. Give me examples that are somewhat remotely relavent to me. Do you think that Egalitarians/MRAs support ANY of those things? Are you new to this subreddit? If you are trying to justify the evils of feminism by comparing them to the Taliban, you're setting the bar pretty damn low.

For over half a century, feminism has been Spreading Misandry, Legalizing Misandry and Sanctifying Misandry.

Waging a war on men and sadly, even a war against boys.

That is why I, like most members of this subreddit, are vehemently antifeminist.

u/Spoonwood · 2 pointsr/FeMRADebates

There's a book on this topic published by two Canadian academics called Spreading Misandry

Also some articles in the New Male Studies journal concern this topic

u/jolly_mcfats · 2 pointsr/MensRights

If you want to talk to someone expert on the subject, I'd suggest you contact Paul Nathanson or Katherine Young. Or even talk to the guy who runs this channel on youtube

u/TomwaIvory · 2 pointsr/MensRights

I will certainly do so, just give me a bit to get it all together.

A great place to start is how feminists diverted funds for shovel ready jobs (The recession in America hit those most, majorly affecting men) into jobs in health care. This negatively impacted men and the industries they work in.

I'll go grab some more later, but it's 1AM.


Thought of another one:

Amanda Childress has this to say about Men in higher education:
"Why could we not expel a student based on an allegation?" Childress asked at the panel, before noting that while 2 to 8 percent of accusations are unfounded (but not necessarily intentionally false), 90 to 95 percent are unreported, committed by repeat offenders, and intentional. "It seems to me that we value fair and equitable processes more than we value the safety of our students. And higher education is not a right. Safety is a right. Higher education is a privilege."


I'd like to add Ezra Klein (Mr. Feminist says "False Accusations are Good") and Jessica Valenti (Ms. "I bath in male tears") to the list as well.

Ezra Klein:
Jessica Valenti:


Or those in the IMF who think women should pay less in taxes than men:
"IMF staff estimates show that cutting labor income taxes paid by women by 5 percentage points would increase the GDP level by 1¾ percentage points, for a fiscal cost of ½ percentage point of GDP. "

A good book to read:


"Schyman left the Left Party in 2004 and in 2005 co-founded Feminist Initiative"

"In October 2004, Schyman together with other MEPs of the Left Party proposed before the Riksdag, a national assessment of the cost of men's violence towards women; furthermore they demanded that the state fund women's shelters.[5] The proposal attracted wide attention, with the media calling it a "man tax.""

Edit5: (I think I edit this too much)
I'd also like to bring up the fact that feminists have repeatedly attached men's rights speeches.

Can you show me one instance where an MRA has stood outside a feminist conference shouting? Or pulled a fire alarm to prevent them from speaking?

u/anon338 · 2 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Awesome, let me hook you up:

Murray N. Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty, the indepth treatise on liberty in a society without the State. And the audiobook.

Chaos Theory by Robert P. Murphy (Audio). Shorter work on the principles of liberty and expands on the economic aspects.

Anarcho-capitalism Primer videos playlist. There are about 4 or 5 shorter than 10 minutes for you to chill. And there are the in-depth, one-hour lectures for when you are in between the books.

Rothbard's For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. Rothbard poured a lifetime of research and all his intellectual energy to makes an overwhelming case on most matters of social concerns to explain society without the Nation-state (Audiobook).

The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman (e-book) and (audiobook). Friedman uses economics and utilitarian concerns to discuss how society would improve with liberty and without the State.

The Market for Liberty by Morris and Linda Tannehill (audiobook.) Excellent and very argumentative, with many interesting illustrations and discussions on several topics of society and economics.

Huemer's Problem of Political Authority. It is a work on political and moral philosophy, with some treatment of psychology.

Leeson's Anarchy Unbound. Peter Leeson is a legal scholar and his work documents historical and contemporary legal practices and teachings and how they apply to a society of liberty.

Christopher Chase Rachels' A Spontaneous Order. Inspired by the work of Hans-Hermann Hoppe on argumentation ethics as an ultimate foundation for liberty. First five chapters available as audio.

For a more complete list see Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Bibliography by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

When you read one of them, I suggest for you to write up a short post on your favourite subjects. It is a great way way to have productive discussions. Don't forget to tag me ( /u/anon338 ) so that I can enjoy it also.

u/bames53 · 2 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

> So most an-caps would agree that the societies would be run with natural rights as the rule of the land, how though does one prove that humans even have rights?

Not all an-caps derive their beliefs from natural rights, and there are different understandings of the term 'natural rights.' In any case, here are what I think are some good resources:

u/Slyer · 2 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Your very first comment you spouted off a bunch of different unsubstantiated points like dogma. What were you trying to achieve there? The whole thing needed some focus.

You're not going to break their belief in the legitimacy of government in a single paragraph, pick a point, an angle of attack and stick to it.

As for countering the social contract theory, pick up Michael Huemer's book. It does a great job of breaking down the arguments.

u/kwanijml · 2 pointsr/TMBR

Very insightful comment, thank you. I don't find a lot I can disagree with certainly softens, at least, the level to which I think hypocrisy is likely taking place.

As an aside, and just because you delved in to the whole collective vs. individual rights thing, you might be interested to explore what I call the intuitionist moral philosophy of political legitimacy. I believe that it successfully finds hybrid of deontological and consequentialist positions, and it is what I largely adhere to in my personal moral code as it regards rights and political authority.

I only know of it in book form The Problem of Political Authority , so assuming you're not going to buy it, I can suggest this decent review, and also access to the first chapter

u/DrunkHacker · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

I won't claim to agree with Michael Huemer, but his book The Problem of Political Authority is a modern look into the origins of political authority and covers the social contract.

u/Blacking · 2 pointsr/Anarchy101

I'd highly recommend you to read The Problem of Political Authority by Michael Huemer.

It's well written and based off a lot of analogies and metaphors to prove the certain legitimacy of the existence of a central government in a society in an unbiased way.


u/Waltonruler5 · 2 pointsr/GoldandBlack

Without a doubt The Problem of Political Authority. It's explains things so clearly and convincingly, you'll wonder how you ever tried explaining libertarianism another way.

u/-jute- · 2 pointsr/neoliberal

>. Clinton could have just written fuck trump for 500 pages and I'd probably find a way to justify it being my favorite book of the year.

reminds me of this

u/jackprune · 2 pointsr/chomsky

"Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky" is outstanding. It's based on speaking engagements and the the footnotes are an actual website, so they're exceptionally thorough and even include some official documents. It covers many, many topics, so best of all, you can jump around and read sections you're interested in. An Amazing book. For the table of contents check it out on Amazon, but buy the book from The New Press link given above.

u/Fragilityx · 2 pointsr/BlackWolfFeed

Salvador Allende is a good example to see the effect America has on other countries.

Understanding Power by Noam Chomsky wonderfully links the domestic struggle with American Imperialism.

Violence by our boy Slavoj Zizek, refracts outbursts of violence into his own unique way of looking at events. Really eye opening.

America has historically exported some of the worst, murderous violence overseas for the pettiest of reasons, its own gain regardless of the consequences to liberators struggle.

I'm glad to hear of someone interested in learning, hope I've helped!

u/FacelessBureaucrat · 2 pointsr/PoliticalPhilosophy

Chomsky's Understanding Power is a long, organized Q&A and has sections where he discusses libertarian socialism directly, but the entire book is about the same general philosophy.

u/formerprof · 2 pointsr/The_Donald
u/TecnoPope · 2 pointsr/TooAfraidToAsk

This is a strange understanding of history imo. We should strive to be better historians. The word slave literally comes from the word slav. White people have also been enslaved and oppressed since the beginning of time as well. Even as recently as the 19th century white people were being enslaved during the barbary wars. If you want to look at the Arab slave trade it dwarfs that of the western / american slave trade and is still going on today. If the logic is that white people have been oppressing people of color more than people of color oppressing each other its just simply not true. Historically european and american whites were actually involved in the chantal / race based slave trade for the least amount of time than other groups and white puritans were the reason slavery started to become abolished. /u/Kayddps check out Black Rednecks & White Liberals by Thomas Sowell (A black economist and historian). It will blow your mind.

u/Teen-la-queef-a · 2 pointsr/StreetFights

There are other points of views from yours that I'm sure you're entirely unwilling to investigate, much less embrace. If you do decide to take your own advice and do even the smallest bit of research to discover a more nuanced opinion, you can read "Black Rednecks and White Liberals by Thomas Sowell. he's a well-respected Harvard economist, who also happens to be black, if that matters to you.

u/lifestuff69 · 2 pointsr/TheRedPill

Watch The Rubin Report on YouTube. Dave Rubin interviewed both Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson, as well as MANY of the other names I see posted by others here. He interviews people from different political, social, and economic philosophies. I even fund him on Patreon because his channel is great (and important).


If I had to pick three people that made the most dramatic impact on my life in terms of how I think, seek and evaluate evidence, and use reason, these people would be at the top. While the people on my list did not always agree on everything, I do believe that they are/were intellectually honest:


Thomas Sowell

u/ericdimwit · 2 pointsr/barstoolsports

read that, and then never worry about the rest of the world...they hated us under bush, they hated us under obama, they hate us under trump....the US has done nothing as bad as: The Germans, The British, The French, The Spanish, The gooses, The Russians, The Chinese, Continental Africa....goes on and on...Indian caste system...the difference is now that they know trump won't be impeached, they are afraid of us again.

u/--Steak · 2 pointsr/MGTOW

Give him the book "The Rational Male" and "Men on Strike" lol


Just tell him you don't want to be a third wheel and that you respect his girlfriend, but feel weird about being part of a trike..

There is nothing wrong with saying that you want to have some "Bro time", because you are kinda burned out from dealing with all the women stresses at work all the time. Makes you sound like an awesome dude, while kinda getting the point across. Plus he's your brother, he should understand, right?

u/tintedlipbalm · 2 pointsr/RedPillWives

Before I even found TRP/RPW I was deep into MRA discussion. I will keep on recommending Karen Straughan's videos, more specifically Feminism and the Disposable Male (probably the most powerful of her pieces). After that, sorting by popular, even if you are already familiar with Karen's content. There's honestly a lot of material on youtube that I would go to before a book because of how non establishment the criticism is.

While Karen's style is more of a take down of specific articles/videos/ideas, TyphonBlue (now Based Bager) approached the subject by analyzing Threat Narrative tropes (not sure if she coined it but I firstheard it from her), here's a playlist. I can't rewatch right now to make sure it's beginner's content, it is less approachable than Karen's but equally insightful.

The thing with a lot of YouTubers though is that it all expires so quickly. Either it's a take-down that was relevant then and it hardly makes any sense now (it peaked around 2011), or the user deleted the channel or became super extreme or changed the focus of the channel...

Why I'm No Longer a Feminist has some good points about how feminist circles are (I generally enjoy such videos, Lauren Southern has one.. I tried to find more in my liked videos and they are either deleted or private), here's a mirror of Christy0Misty's videos before she deleted.

For books, the most obvious would be Christina Hoff Sommers' (Who Stole Feminism?, The War Against Boys) which haven't read aside from articles and videos. A book I have read is Men on Strike by Helen Smith, it's sorta repetitive but books on definite topics are easier to find (she writes a column here). I think articles is where it's mostly at, but I would love to read recommended books.

A lot of antifeminist thought goes hand in hand with criticism of the left. It's so vast though I wouldn't know where to start. I generally look into individual people and their timelines. And A LOT of it has to be your own conclusions of feminist thought you read first-hand. So it's really important to know its main ideas and waves. A very popular criticism is about it being rehashed Marxism, for example. So looking into western philosophy as a primer is always advised. Here's a free introductory course to the History of Western Philosophy.

u/27thStreet · 2 pointsr/politics

It's just as valid a concept as as this one

u/AfD126 · 2 pointsr/FragtAFDWaehler

Erst mal auf eine Definition einigen die Synonyme anschauen.
Und dann ist es ein klares Nein. Wie gesagt: Sozialismus ist links. Buch dazu:

Wenn wir diese absurde Definition nehmen:
"Als rechtsradikal haben wir Positionen definiert, die sich gegen das Grundgesetz richten und Aussagen, in denen die Kandidaten gegen Minderheiten hetzen."
Sind dann Kommunisten rechtsradikal? Würde auf einer Linie laufen mit der MdB von den Linken, die Stalin als rechts tituliert hat. Wir kommen wieder an den Punkt, wo man sich fragen muss, was man eigentlich fragt. Rechtsradikal ist ein Synonym für 'böse' geworden, dass von den 'Guten' bekämpft werden muss. Deswegen sind gewaltbereite Antifaschisten in ihren eigenen Augen die Guten.

Beschreibt D'Souza auch in seinem Buch, wie ähnlich die Taktiken sind. Was die Nazis Untermenschen nannten um ihnen die Menschwürde abzusprechen und sie zu verfolgen, dass nennen die angeblichen Antifaschisten Intolerant um ihnen die Menschenwürde abzusprechen und sie zu jagen.

Oder die gleichen Informationen auf Deutsch von Klonovsky:
> Als die Lebensgefährtin von Meuthen mit ihrer siebenjährigen Tochter, eskortiert von Security und Polizei, zum benachbarten Hotel läuft, werden sie von einem breiten gesellschaftlichen Bündnis beschimpft und attackiert. Das Kind ist danach völlig verstört. Später bricht Meuthen selbst auf, ebenfalls von einem uniformierten Kordon geschützt, und der Mob rastet aus. Pfiffe, Schreie, besessene, wutverzerrte Gesichter – ein Goya-Capriccio anno 2017. Die Kobolde rennen neben dem Oppositionstrüppchen her, brüllen "Nazis raus!", "Haut ab!", "AfD – Rassistenpack!" und ähnliche Urworte orphisch. Einige versuchen, in den Kordon zu drängen, kommen aber nicht an den Beamten vorbei. Man sieht staunend und betroffen: Manche dieser Bakchen würden den AfD-Vorsitzenden gern zerreißen, ihn auf dem Alter ihres perversen Antifaschismus, der längst dem Original zum Verwechseln ähnlich sieht, dem Götzen der Diversity, Vielfalt, Buntheit und Menschenfreundlichkeit zum Opfer bringen; die ganze Szenerie ohne die Staatsgewalt, und der Parteiführer teilte das Schicksal des Pentheus. Der Kampf gegen die vermeintlichen Nazis bringt lauter neue echte hervor. Ich laufe ein paar Meter hinter dem kleinen Pulk und rechne jeden Moment damit, von der Seite angesprungen zu werden, doch die gesamte Aggressivität der Meute konzentriert sich auf Meuthen, ungefähr wie Boxer während des Kampfes den Ringrichter nicht wahrnehmen. Vor dem Hotel flutschen zwei brüllende Furien von höchstens zwanzig Jahren durch die Security und kreischen ihr "Wir kriegen euch!" auf einem Hysterielevel, welches Drogengebrauch vermuten lässt. Als Meuthens Begleiter die eine auf Polnisch anspricht, ist die kurz völlig irritiert und blafft schließlich, er möge gefälligst deutsch zu ihr sprechen. Endlich schließt sich die Hoteltür hinter uns, und das beste Deutschland, das es jemals gab, bleibt draußen. An der Hotelbar klingt der Abend beschaulich aus. Eigentlich schade, dass den Schulz, Tauber, Stegner, Roth, Schwesig, Gabriel et al. eine solche Erfahrung mit den Früchten ihrer Saat verwehrt bleibt.

> Am Rande: Wieviel Courage erfordert es, sich gegen die AfD zu "bekennen"? Null. Welche Gefahr droht bei einer Demo gegen "rechts"? Keine. Was aber gewinnt man? Ein gutes Gewissen, "zivilgesellschaftliche“ Anerkennung, Aufstieg auf der Tugendskala, "Sinn", Lob vom Parteisekretär, ggfs. Kohle von Frau Schwesig, ggfs. Sündenablass, in jedem Fall Herdenbehagen. Es ist pures Wellness.

Sind das Rechtsradikale, die hier auf ein siebenjähriges Mädchen losgehen? Die die Minderheit (13%) AfD-Wähler mit Gewalt bedrohen und gegen sie hetzen?

u/bolbteppa · 2 pointsr/politics

Exactly, a system excluding independents 7 months before the vote, when people barley know any other candidate but the establishment name-recognition candidate, is not corruption, definitely not rigged, it's the voters stupidity for having busy lives and being disgusted by the dirty tricks of the two parties.

They should just know to make sure the system didn't exclude them months before the candidates have even set foot in their state to pitch for their vote.

Trump merely just has to say the democratic primary was rigged and it falls on sympathetic ears, he's now winning amongst the people cheated by that process, and you are calling them idiots, I have rarely seen something so obviously backwards, your perspective makes it that that simple for one of the biggest liars to tell the truth, my god.

u/Redditron-2000-4 · 2 pointsr/politics

The Democratic Party hasn't been liberal for 35 years. It is astounding that liberals still believe the DNC represents them.

Thomas Frank explains it way better than I can, and it is worth a read or listen:
Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?

u/GlyphGryph · 2 pointsr/changemyview

I'll ignore the "insult" part and just focus on the label.

Liberals isn't just used by people talking about those who are "too far left". They are people who believe in or advocate for one of the liberal ideologies. Why do you think it's "toxic" to have a label we can use to refer to those who believe in and advocate for a specific ideology (or family of closely related ideologies)?

Now, I'm not going to disagree it's not misused, but that's a thing that's always going to happen with words, especially ideologies. It's a useful rhetorical tool and, let's be honest, most people aren't gonna have, want, or need a nuanced understandings of the features that differentiate their perceived enemies. Euphemisms happen. Ignorance is a fact of life. I understand people are going to call me a liberal sometimes because they don't know what I am, and that's okay - I'm sure I've done the same to others in other situations!

And yeah, it's gonna get misused as a symbol for the purpose of virtue signaling, but anything could be.

That doesn't mean the word isn't useful, and it is (often) used in a way that is perfectly descriptive. To a certain extent, I sort of feel like this post is an attempt to deny that the ideology even exists, or that it's particularly common - but it is an ideology, a fairly coherent one, and it is a common (often outright dominant) ideology on college campuses, in news rooms, in the entertainment industry and the halls of politics on the Democratic side. How else will you better describe those ideologies and their advocates if not using the word that literally means that?

I think it's also important we have the word, so we can differentiate between the different flavours of leftist thought - between the liberals, the neoliberals (who really aren't particularly liberal despite the name), the socialists (of various flavours) and those who identify as none of the three.

What exactly do you think "Listen, Liberal" should have been called instead? Who exactly would we say the book was trying to address?

u/Just_Bob_2016 · 2 pointsr/Kossacks_for_Sanders

Those two quotations are from the front matter of Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?, the new book from Thomas Frank.

u/Ellison4DNC · 2 pointsr/politics
u/BrackOBoyO · 2 pointsr/news

The politically correct crowd are basically neomarxists in disguise.

Marxism: society is a collection of groups of economic power. Some groups control others and this should be reversed (Leninism).

PC: society is a collection of groups of social (and therefore) economic power. The patriarchy controls others and this should be reversed.

Marxism: dialogue is a mode of control. Speech between different groups can only be for the purpose of maintaining control and supremacy.

PC: dialogue is a mode of control. Safe spaces and trigger warnings are in essence the attempt to remove yourself from the negative effect of another groups dialogue. Because it is, by definition, controlling. Do you wonder why gender studies intellectuals avoid debate like the plague?

Marxism: If we can destroy the hierarchy of groups, eutopia will follow.

PC: Destroy the patriarchy! Equitable eutopia will follow!

Marxism: success and status are, in a classed system, stolen by the higher class from the other. If you are more successful at what you do you MUST have oppressed someone. That was the justification for exporting millions of skilled agriculturalists to Siberia to die (and they did) in the USSR. These rich farmers are rich because they have oppressed you, come and kick their door in with me! (I'm literally paraphrasing Lenin here). Guess what happened when you punish the productive farmers for being productive? You stop producing food! Ask the 6 million Ukrainians how that turned out.

PC: Success and status are, in a patriarchal system, stolen by rich white men from everyone else.
If you are a successful member of a majority class, you are successful because of 'privilege'. White privilege is just a retooling of class guilt. If you are a kulak, you should feel guilty for stealing your success from the working class; if you are a white male, you should feel guilty stealing success from the multiplicity of suppressed minority classes.

100,000,000 people died as a direct result of internal suppression in Marxist systems in the 20th century. Why are we putting up with the same immoral arguments again? Why have we let it almost completely usurp our academic institutions?

Anyone who feels like these words might be resonating with them should read this book. Have a good week everyone, listen to and be good to each other.

u/gabagool69 · 2 pointsr/AskTrumpSupporters

The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. It may not turn you into a Trump supporter, but it will definitely turn you away from current left wing ideologies that tout any form of socialism.

u/BlueSatoshi · 2 pointsr/The_Donald

Is this the book in question? Heard it's a very effective redpill if you wanna completely eviscerate the credibility of Marxism and related stuffs.

u/blobbyblobbyblobby · 2 pointsr/pics

Check out this book if you are interested in communism - it has changed my life.

u/StoneJewel · 2 pointsr/worldnews

> We have the resources to life everyone out if poverty

> and rebuild it.

> We choose not to

Probably because every time this kind of horseshit has been tried it has led to totalitarian dictatorships? I get you want to play woke and pat yourself on the back, but this kind of shit is braindead retarded and only a child would have the capacity to utter such an ignorant and generalized statement.

Go do something actually worth a damn and donate to a charity, bitching on Reddit will get nothing done.

u/smells · 2 pointsr/cogsci

If you found this article interesting, checkout "Don't think of the elephant" by George Lakoff. He goes in much deeper into the whole Horatio Alger myth and how it affects US politics.

u/CoyoteLightning · 2 pointsr/politics

I didn't downvote you, and never downvote what I consider sincere and well-meaning posts by people trying to contribute new ideas, after all, that's how new ideas get going...but I have to say that I don't think more Orwellian double-speak bumper-stickers is necessarily what the Dems need. What we really need is for the American public to finally get their heads out of their asses. A book recommendation for you: Don't Think of an Elephant! Also, a little reminder: it doesn't get much more simple, catchy, and benevolent than "Hope" and "Change."

u/funkmasterfelix · 2 pointsr/politics

this fantastic and short book is a great primer on the cognitive science that underlies political leanings

In short -- conservativism and liberalism constitute holistic world views.

The conservative world view is one in which the following exist: good, evil, weak, strong, work, and sloth. The strong and good must protect the weak from evil. people show their nature through their actions. ultimately this means they get what they deserve. it is evil to interfere with that process because it hampers justice.

The liberal world view is one in which these categorical divisions blur due to complex causality. Behavior that looks like evil can be protective and result from previously received trauma. A good work ethic can be the result of a good and safe upbringing. A bad one can be the result of hampered development. Ultimately we are all the same and deserving of nurturance.

u/He_who_humps · 2 pointsr/politics

Everyone please read this book

We can take back our country!

u/jmscwss · 2 pointsr/ChristianApologetics

I had a comment in here giving a reason for he post, though that's not an explanation.

> Note: may not be the best place to post, but I needed to post somewhere in order to link it in Dr. Feser's open thread today, which he only does a couple of times each year. I've been working through his books since early this year, and developing this concept map as I progress.

By way of explanation, this is a work in progress to visualize the relationships between the concepts brought to bear in the philosophical advances of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas. Beginning for the fundamental argument for the necessary reality of the distinction between actuality and potentiality, the concept map walks through the conceptual divisions of act and potency. Notably, the divisions of act arrive at a core conception of God as Pure Actuality, Being Itself, utterly devoid of any potentiality or passivity. This is not a proof of God, but rather simply serves to define God's role as the First and Unmoved Mover and Sustainer of all things.

The divisions of act and potency expand to the right of the map, where you see how actuality and potentiality come together as Form and Matter to produce concrete, material things.

Branching off of from the soul (here defined as the substantial form of a living substance), there is a section which details the powers or capacities of the different levels of living substances, which are hierarchically related, with respect to the corporeal order.

For now, the section on the Four Causes is placed on its own, as I still haven't decided where best to tie it in, since many topics make use of this principle. Particularly, Final Causation (defined as the end, goal, purpose, directedness or teleology of a thing) is essential to understanding the concept of objective goodness, which carries into the section on ethics (which, in this view, amounts to an understanding of the directedness of the will).

Also included, but not yet connected as well as it could be, is a section on the divine attributes, along with a brief explanation of how we can know them.

There is much more that can be included. As mentioned elsewhere, this was posted here so that I could link to the WIP. I had hoped that I could catch Edward Feser's attention in the comments of his open thread, which he posted on his blog site yesterday, and which he does only a couple times per year. This concept map is the result of my learning from his books:

u/fnv245 · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

I don't think classical metaphysics is that popular today in philosophy at least in analytic philosophy as far as I can tell. I think for the most part this is true because most people don't know what Aquinas said. However, that really shouldn't by itself that classical metaphysics (at least the one that Aquinas argues for) is false. You basically gotta look at the arguments for classical metaphysics written by defenders in the past and today. One good book is called "Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction" by Feser ( Also the title is a bit misleading and should honestly be renamed Thomistic metaphyics. Not all Scholastics are Thomists and Scholastics in general have a lot of diversity in their views like Scotists, Ockamists, etc.

I finished reading the book, but I plan to go back to it relatively soon and take notes on and really digest it. Honestly I think his arguments are pretty good. He really fleshes out the details and defends many of the background stuff.

A big point about the stuff I read from the book, is that the metaphysics it is arguing for is true primarily because of the existence of change. I'm painting with a very broad brush and ignoring many important details, but basically its 1) Change exists 2) Change can only exist if potentiality and actuality are truly distinct otherwise change would not exist (insert argument by Parmenides for the non-existence of change) 3) the distinction between potentiality and actuality imply much of classical metaphysics like teleology, substance metaphysics, and some other stuff. So basically Feser is saying that classical metaphysics is necessarily true as long as change exists (and I'm not talking about the argument from motion about God).

Edit #1: Also I think most people don't know about Aquinas and other Scholastics, primarily because they just don't read their stuff. Its not that people have rejected classical metaphysics because they investigated. Its like how I have not tasted a meal from certain restaurants. I can't tell the meal is bad because I haven't tasted it. And I in a way "reject" the restaurant because I just ignore or just don't even know it exists.

I should also add that by most people I mean philosophers today.

u/TheTripleDeke · 2 pointsr/CatholicPhilosophy

Luckily Thomism is on the rise.

I would recommend anything by Edward Feser but specifically this

and I would check out Eleonore Stump on this page [here] (

u/throw0105b · 2 pointsr/Catholicism

Not exactly an answer to your question, but you may be interested in Prof. Edward Feser's weblog:

u/RenegadeMinds · 2 pointsr/metacanada

SJWs Always Lie

Highly recommended reading.

Vox Day outlines and explains SJW behaviour and how to defeat them.

These people need to be stopped.

u/TheRoRo1971 · 2 pointsr/KotakuInAction

You're exactly right. Not like one can screen for every tumblrina or special snowflake in every instance, every type of employment specialty. But there are ways to cut out the tumor before it becomes malignant, so I've heard.
If you didn't already know, there is an excellent read on the very subject:
It's by Vox Day, everyone's favorite crazy author/publisher.

u/abecedarian_radish · 2 pointsr/The_Donald

For more on concern trolling and other SJW behavior, read SJWs Always Lie by Vox Day.

T_D also had an AMA with Day a few months ago, here.

u/SupremeReader · 2 pointsr/KotakuInAction
u/RlUu3vuPcI · 2 pointsr/The_Donald

Vox Day probably has a lot to say about it -

That said, the left won the morality (culture) war back in the 60s and since then has used morality as a club to get what they want. It's only now that they've completely depleted the value of the moral club.

u/James_Smith1234 · 2 pointsr/The_Donald
u/ABProsper · 2 pointsr/The_Donald

Leaking is not treason. That can only happen when in war time by giving aid to the enemy.

It probably couldn't qualify as sedition either in that while her goals were to undermine a sitting President but given it was meant to show wrongdoing, leaking is an edge case.

Its a separate offense, basically violating a security clearance or maybe espionage.

RW however is going to get a real taste of an unpleasant reality very soon. Orange is her new black

Also Liberals are not Leftists, Liberal can have moral standards, Leftists do not.

Remember Leftists don't have fixed rules either.

Rules for Radicals #4

>The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

They don't have a moral center other than "grab all you can because its free, what the rabbit warren says is OK and avoid actual risk and conflict preferably by pitting decent people against one another."

As such, they are immune to any charges of hypocritical conduct. They simply can't care as they aren't wired for it or any kind of morality other than "obey the warren law"

Once you get past the strangeness and the discomforting ideas (Leftists might as well be aliens) Anonymous Conservative lays it all down.

His book is also often free in PDF , read it or at least the summary and you'll have a goo understanding of who they are

Also read Vox Day's SJW's Always Lie and of course Rules for Radical text

Read up, Pedes its depressing but as Leslie Fish noted "Not all wisdom brings joy" and knowing is half the battle anyway.

u/unorthodoxcowboy · 2 pointsr/JordanPeterson
u/IMULTRAHARDCORE · 2 pointsr/AskTrumpSupporters

Thank you. This is actually a very well measured and well formatted post. Let me do my best to respond to each point, if you don't mind.

>labelling critical news of him as "fake news" instead of just biased yet true information, leading to his supporters to completely disregard it

Absolutely. The thing is his opponents handed him the perfect weapon in that a lot of news surrounding Trump, his campaign, and now his presidency is clearly fake. Or at least intentionally misleading, if you prefer. So Trump takes those instances and reminds his supporters of it often so when a piece of news comes out this is bad for him but does in fact have truth to it he can just hand wave it and dismiss it along with the whole media because of their prior transgressions. I'm not saying it's right but his critics in the media have only themselves to blame. They have a credibility problem and Trump did not create that.

>nepotism, allowing Ivanka and Jared to stay so long in the WH despite their complete lack of qualifications, allowing Ivanka to do the duties of Secretary of State and meeting with North Korea

I agree 100%. I don't want Ivanka or Kushner anywhere near the WH or doing work for Trump. In fact Kushner probably belongs in jail. Anyone who defends him is probably being disingenuous.

>broke the norm of releasing tax returns

First of all, not a requirement. Secondly, his base of supporters did not care. Third, there's still time to do it technically speaking.

>broke the norm of completely divesting from businesses

I believe it was found that he doesn't actually have to do this.

>campaign's ties to Cambridge Analytica, which illegally retained information from Facebook, and has illegally framed politicians in the past and created fake news campaigns (esp in African countries)

Didn't it also come out that the Obama campaign did the same thing in 2012? With Facebooks knowledge and permission no less? I'm not entirely up to date on what exactly the situation with this thing is but from what I can tell this sort of thing is not unique to Trump.

>disregard for flagrant lying and never apologizing or retracting (retweeted fake statistics on black crime, fake videos of Muslim extremism, fake numbers for his inauguration, popular vote, could go on and on)

I'd like to direct you to the book SJWs Always Lie by Vox Day. The book has a lot of useful information in it but one lesson that must be remembered is you never apologize to the types of people Trump is dealing with. Here's what Vox has to say about apologizing (emphasis added by me),

"The third thing to remember when undergoing an SJW-attack is to never apologize for anything you have done. I repeat: do not apologize. Do not say you are sorry if anyone's feelings were hurt, do not express regret, remorse, or contrition, do not say anything that can be taken as an apology in any way. Just in case I am not being sufficiently clear, do not apologize!

Normal people seek apologies because they want to know that you feel bad about what you have done and that you will at least attempt to avoid doing it again in the future. They seek apologies within the context of an expectation of a better future relationship with you. This is why it is important to apologize to normal people you have harmed in some way, so that you can mutually repair the damaged relationship through the bonding process of repentance and forgiveness. When we sincerely apologize to those we have inadvertently offended, this process actually strengthens the relationship and often leads to improved mutual understanding.

None of that applies to SJWs. They don't care how you feel, they don't care about your future behavior, they don't expect to have a future relationship with you, and there is absolutely no chance they are going to forgive you for anything. You are, after all, a dangerous thought-criminal. When they push you for an apology after pointing-and-shrieking at you, what they are seeking is a confession to bolster their indictment. They are like the police down at the station with a suspect in the interrogation room, badgering him to confess to the crime. And like all too many police these days, the SJWs don't really care if you did it or not, they're just looking for a confession that they can take to the prosecutor.
This means that every apology, every compromise, and every attempt to find common ground will be viewed as a display of weakness, a lack of confidence, and damning evidence in the case concerning which they intend to prosecute you.

Therefore, the correct answer to a demand for an apology is always no. “Wouldn't it only make sense if....” No. “Can't we just....” No. “Wouldn't it be fair to....” No. “You have to admit....” No. “If you would just apologize....” No. “Don't you realize you hurt....” No.
Look at Hunt. Look at Eich. Look at everyone in your personal experience who has come under attack by SJWs. Did apologizing do them any good at all? Did apologizing reduce the intensity of the attacks on them, or did the SJWs keep attacking? An apology is not going to relieve the pressure on you, it is only going to increase it. To the SJW, an apology is merely the first step in the ritual act of abasement and submission, after which one must recant any previously expressed doubts about the Narrative and declare one's intentions of future adherence to it.

It is very educational to see what happens when one simply refuses to fall in line with their demands. A refusal to play along with their game quickly strips the mask of sanity from their faces and reveals the angry, shrieking madness underneath. Never forget that they have no certainty of a win without your compliance. So do not, under any circumstances, comply with any of their demands. Do not, under any circumstances, apologize, not even if you feel genuinely bad about what you have done or if you suspect you may have genuinely hurt someone's feelings.
Remember, they don't believe in forgiveness. They don't believe in repentance. All they are looking for is for you to condemn yourself so the show trial can begin. As one SJW has put it: “Apologies are not merely the end of a bad situation. They are the beginning of a promise to do (and be) better.” So don't be under the false impression that an apology will put an end to anything. It will only serve as the start of the next stage of their attack.

Be aware that once they have launched an attack on you, they will press you hard for an apology and repeatedly imply that if you will just apologize, all will be forgiven. Do not be fooled! I have seen people fall for it time and time again, and the result is always the same. The SJWs are simply looking for a public confession that will confirm their accusations, give them PR cover, and provide them with the ammunition required to discredit and disemploy you. Apologizing will accomplish nothing more than hand them the very weapons they require to destroy you."

>broke the norm for campaign finance laws (paying Stormy Daniels 130k with it)

I don't know about this. The whole thing with Stormy I couldn't care less about but if he paid it from his campaign coffers I'm pretty sure that's wrong and would like it if he paid it back.

>broke the norm of caring about the Hatch Act (Kellyanne Conway promoting Ivanka's clothing line, supporting campaigns as a federal agent)

This was wrong as well. Kellyanne should have been fined or something.

>broke the norm of having a competent staff with low turnover: has not filled extremely important positions, such as ambassador to SK, turnover is around 50%, three times that of Obama's, while it's typical to have partisan picks, it's atypical for them to be so incompetent, conflicts of interest (Ajit Pai) and without the background for it (DeVos, Carson, etc), also tries to get staff to sign illegal NDAs

I think the high turnover is a good thing. As for not filling positions. You can thank Democrat obstruction in the Senate for that. They aren't confirming his nominations.

>fired the people investigating him (Comey, McCabe, attempted Mueller)

He was within his rights to fire Comey. Comey himself said so. He didn't fire McCabe or Mueller.

>general lack of goodwill and presidential behavior (let's be real, no one tells their kids to be like our POTUS), uses his position to shout down and bully private citizens in a personal, immature way, before we used to care that the POTUS was a "good person", instead, we have someone who has bragged about cheating on all 3 wives (in public, in interviews, for decades)

Are you sure no one tells their kids to be like Trump? Are you very sure? I somehow think that's not true. As for "bullying" private citizens. I think most of what you're implying here is about the rude motherfuckers that come to his rallies to interrupt (and/or attack his supporters)? If so they deserve the verbal beat down they got and worse. There's a time and place for that kind of thing and those were neither the times nor the places.

>Do you think the erosion of these norms are dangerous?

No. I think in many ways it's what Trump was elected to do. He's here to smash the Establishment and shake things up. What that means I'm not always sure and I probably wont always approve but I understand it's what he was elected for.

>What if a crazy Democrat runs in 2020...

I think if any Democrat wins the presidency in the next 20-50 years this country is probably doomed. Actually it's probably doomed anyway. Trump was just the last person fighting for the impossibility of saving us from ourselves.

>I wouldn't want any future POTUS to act like Trump, would you?

We wont be so lucky to have a President even emulate Trump again in our lifetimes I think.

u/STARVE_THE_BEAST · 2 pointsr/The_Donald
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/wizkid123 · 2 pointsr/philosophy

The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten: 100 Experiments for the Armchair Philosopher is a fantastic book for a beginning philosopher. It explores some really deep topics in a very accessible way. Even if you don't understand all the explanations, the stories will really make you think (and you can mess with your friends by asking them what they would do). Good luck!

u/andrew_richmo · 2 pointsr/philosophy

For those new to philosophy, I'd recommend The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten: 100 Experiments for the Armchair Philosopher, as well as Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar. I'm not all the way through the second one but it seems interesting. These are fairly simple but interesting introductory books that teach you some of the issues philosophers deal with.

Hope this helps!

u/captainNematode · 2 pointsr/rational

Referring to them as "Friend 1", "Friend 2", and so on seems a bit dehumanizing/clinical, no?

I any case, I think lists of questions are great under the right circumstances -- I've made ample use of them on long road trips and hiking trips on occasion, and they've provided a springboard for plenty of 10-15 hour long conversations. I think one issue with the ones you're using is that a lot of them are really boring and don't really provide fertile ground for followup discussion. I've probably most enjoyed going through Greg Stock's books (e.g. 1, 2, 3, which you can pick up used for a few bucks each), as well as the "If..." series and books of thought experiments. Each question usually provides 5-120 minutes of conversation, with median time being, I dunno, 15ish minutes.

And I'll second recommendations on getting out and doing other things while conversing with people in person. It doesn't have to be too active -- a walk will do.

u/punkerdante182 · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

do you have any light reading philosphy books? So far all I've read is "The pig who loves to be eaten"

u/j-j-j · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

Try The Pig That Wants To Be Eaten by Julian Baggini. Link here

u/zukros · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

Baggini's The Pig That Wants to be eaten is an excellent and fun start for thinking about general philosophical problems, which is, naturally, an excellent introduction to philosophy.

If you're looking for something more rigorous, Russell's The Problems of Philosophy is a tiny and very well-written guide to philosophy almost up to the modern day by arguably the greatest thinker in analytical philosophy of the last century.

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.

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.

Charles Lister's The Syrian Jihad. Good read.

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.


> 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.

u/_AnObviousThrowaway_ · 2 pointsr/Conservative

Thomas Sowell, Vision of the Anointed. Imo the best place to start with Sowell, continue on to his more recent books afterwards.

u/peter_lorres_lorry · 2 pointsr/relationships

>I'm very liberal minded.

You mean modern American liberalism (which isn't liberal in the slightest), or do you mean Classical Liberalism (ie, modern day Libertarianism)?

Perhaps you're the one who needs to read up on the roots of your political philosophy.

u/double-happiness · 2 pointsr/Documentaries

> I am male, and to cut a long story short, yes i am 'particularly masculine' by the usual metrics.

Ah right, well this is all very easy for you to say then, isn't it? Strikes me you are talking from a position of privilege in that respect.

> Can you answer the part about who your favourite articles were to teach on? I'm quite curious!

I have no idea why that would be. What possible difference could it make to you? It sounds to me like you are testing me.

Anyway, if you really want to read some sociology, here are a few suggestions...

I will try and add some more if I think of anything, but TBH I think you are just trying to test me anyway. For some reason redditors often seem to be incredulous that someone could actually do a sociology degree and a post-grad, and go on to work in teaching, though it is actually a pretty humble accomplishment AFAIAC.

Edit: one of my favourite sociology books when I was an undergrad was Scotland the Brand.

u/VanSlyck · 2 pointsr/suggestmeabook

In Search of Respect is often used in modern cultural anthropology classes as a first hand look at the culture and life of drug dealers and associated characters. It's a bit dry in some points, but it's pretty detailed. The author depicts things sort of 'from the ground up', as he slowly gains the trust of the neighborhood, and access to more influential figures in the trade.

u/haplesstaco · 2 pointsr/IAmA

About culture? Anthropology may be the area you want to check out. It's a very complex topic, but has loads of interesting reports on marginalized cultures within America. The Navajo probably have had a few ethnographies already done for them.

One of my favorite that you may find interesting is In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio. Oddly, it really reminded me of where I grew up.

u/illimitable1 · 2 pointsr/nashville

I'm not a felon because I was never arrested nor charged for a felony. Consequently, I was not found guilty of a felony.

On the other hand, the people who are, indeed, arrested for felonies tend to be poorer and blacker than everyone else. And the people who actually get convicted for a felony? If you had to pick poor and black, you'd be right more than wrong.

Possible explanations for this would be that there are more blacks than whites in the US, but this is obviously false.

The next possible answer is that white people use less dope than black people, or that white people don't sell dope, or that white people commit fewer crimes. But I've seen white people smoke plenty of weed, snort lots of coke, sling plenty of stuff. I'd reckon your favorite explanation is that black people just commit more crimes, but I don't buy it.

I say that black people get busted more often because of unequal attention from law enforcement. Once they get arrested, and then are less likely to be able to defend themselves adequately because $$. Generations of public policy in the US, from slavery, through Reconstruction, to Jim Crow, to redlining, to the GI Bill have all made it so that black people are less likely to have the money to buy the same justice that others can.

There is certainly an element of personal choice to everything. And certainly I have had white acquaintances who got busted for heavy things (larceny, burglary, heroin x 5) and went away for awhile. That said, there's a pattern here that is greater than individual choice.

I am not a convicted felon because I live in the right neighborhood, had the right sort of parents, and never got busted for any crime. I don't think that my story would be the same if I were African American or poor.

If we accept that more black people are convicted because more black people do crime-- which I wouldn't-- then one still has to ask why is that so? Is it because black people were born somehow inherently incapable of making good decisions? That doesn't seem likely.

As for your second question, the only dealers I've been acquainted with were supporting a habit or making some side money. I have read an ethnography or so that shows the ultimate hourly wage of a crack dealer at the height of the crack boom to be less than minimum wage, tho.

u/jmk816 · 2 pointsr/politics

Hmm ok I'm glad you clarified. I can see where you are coming from, but I just see it differently in that, American culture tends to put too much emphasis on the individual without considering the strutural. Since I studied social science (if you couldn't tell!) I changed a lot of my views, about the value of work (in regards of "skilled" and "unskilled labor), about oppertunity in America and about how larger structual issues creates a direct impact on people's lives and how we aren't willing to even look at those options to change (God forbid if we do anything against the mighty capitalism!).

A book that really stuck with me, because of the quality of writing, research and the insights it has, was In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio. Also people will give you funny looks for reading it!

u/BeenJamminMon · 2 pointsr/todayilearned

I read an ethnography called "In Search of Respect" that details the lives of the impoverished in the Barrio in New York during the 1980s. It covers in depth the societal and cultural conditions that create drug and gang violence. Yes, there are many people who just draw on welfare, but many of those people work in the untaxed workforce. They might be the neighborhood plumber, electrician, automotive repairman, or refrdgerator specialist. They don't have formal jobs or titles or pay taxes so they are unaccounted for. These people also sell drugs and steal car stereos. Its all part of their 'underground' economy. In fact, many drug dealers start selling either because they became unemployed, or they were trying to lift themselves out of poverty.

u/RoundSimbacca · 2 pointsr/law

> You're fooling yourself if you think that's the primary issue.

And yet, report after report shows that geographical self-sorting is the number one driver. ^123

> No one is debating compactness as the main problem that creates gerrymandering. The issue is political lines drawn to minimize Democratic voters.

And yet, here you are doing exactly that.

u/kingoftheoneliners · 2 pointsr/Foodforthought

A fairly popular book was written on this very subject back in 2009. The Big Sort

u/InitiatePenguin · 2 pointsr/currentaffairs

Historically in broad strokes no.

There's arguably good reason for the ideological homogeneous formations around identity, coalitional, and party politics.

This can only happen within political systems which prop up binary choices.

Edit: additional polarization reading

Keyword: The Big Sort

u/dakta · 2 pointsr/inthenews

> forcing people into echo chambers of conformity

Nah man they do that on their own really really well. For an investigation of this phenomenon at scale in the real world, check out Bill Bishop's The Big Sort.

> excessive moderation

Funny, the least echo-chamber-ey subs I know of are some of the most heavily moderated. See /r/NeutralPolitics or /r/PoliticalDiscussion.

u/very_old_guy · 2 pointsr/changemyview

If conservatives had their way, the federal budget would be smaller. Certain large federal bureaucracies would be shut down and dismantled. There would be no Obamacare and no Dodd Frank.

What we have right now is not conservative rule, it's a stalemate. Given the polarization in society at large, the stalemate is a product of politicians on both sides of the aisle representing their constituents as best they can.

The problem isn't Congress; it's the constituents. A radical polarization has occurred in American society over the past few decades. This book offers one possible explanation. Unless we citizens can bridge the gaps in society, we should not expect Congress to do it for us.

Edit: I shouldn't say the budget would be smaller under conservatives. They certainly didn't do much to shrink it in the Bush years.

u/thedarkerside · 2 pointsr/KotakuInAction

I am reading this book right now and it is also draws a pretty bleak picture and shows this has been going on for 40 odd years.

> Wehret den Anfängen ;)

Way too late for that I am afraid.

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”.


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:


“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.

[][Clinton Cash:]

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.


“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.


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


“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.


“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.”


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


“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:”


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.


“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...


u/Orlyborly · 1 pointr/politics

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

u/azural · 1 pointr/politics

What they did is pretty extensive and very shady, this details it well:

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.

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/thegoo280 · 1 pointr/CGPGrey

CGP Grey mentions the teleport thought experiment in this episode.

If you enjoy those sort of discussions I very highly recommend the pig that wants to be eaten

A fantastic collection of similar thought provoking excerpts from novels. You might recognize the title from the Hitchhiker's Guide series.

u/nolsen01 · 1 pointr/politics

I used to be "pro-life" but recently flipped because of something I read. I will transcribe it here and see what you think:

>Dick had made a mistake, but surely the price he was paying was too high. He of course knew that level six of the hospital was a restricted area. But after he had drunk one too many glasses of wine with his colleagues at the finance department Christmas party, he had inadvertently staggered out of the elevator on the sixth floor and passed out on one of the empty beds.

> When he woke up he discovered to his horror that he had been mistaken for a volunteer in a new life-saving procedure. Patients who required vital organ transplants to survive were being hooked up to volunteers, whose own vital organs kept both alive. This would continue until a donor organ could be found, which was usually around nine months later.

> Dick quickly called over a nurse to explain the mistake, who in turn brought over a worried-looking doctor.

>"I understand your anger," explained the doctor, "but you did behave irresponsibly, and now you are in this position, the brutal truth is that if we disconnect you, the world-renowned violinist who depends on you will die. You would in fact be murdering him."

> "But you have no right!" protested Dick. "Evenif he dies without me, how can you force me to give up nine months of my life to save him."

> "I think the question you should be asking," said the doctor sternly, "is how you could choose to end this violinists life."

  • Julian Baggini, The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, (Credit is given to "A defense of abortion," by Judith Jarvis Thompson

    Firstly, you have to understand that when I read this, I didn't realize I was approaching the issue of abortion, which makes me feel that I was less biased and more honest in my assessment of this scenario. You are "primed" so to speak because you understand that this scenario it supposed to make a point about abortion. All I ask is that you try your best to be as honest with yourself as possible.

    When I read the scenario, I felt that is was pretty open and closed. Even if your own personal morals tell you that, if you were in Dick's position then you should stay connected to the "violinist," they still have no right, in my opinion, to force him to stay connected.

    The scenario also allows for a lot of things that are normally taken for granted in arguments about abortion. For instance, Dick is unarguably connected to another, clearly sentient human being. In fact, the human being he is connected to has memories and experiences, things we cannot attribute to a fetus. Also, in the scenario, Dick ended up in the situation through an irresponsible act of his own.

    Despite all of these things, I still feel that Dick should not be forced to stay connected to this other person against his will.

    It took me a couple weeks, but I eventually had to admit that I see no relevant difference between this scenario and abortion and therefore, in order for me to remain consistent, I either had to change my stance on libertarianism (which would change my position on a huge amount of other issues), or assume a libertarian position on abortion. I chose the latter and I am now pro-choice.
u/idioma · 1 pointr/technology

I could offer you a reading list to elucidate my points about Russia and the negatives of imperialism within burgeoning industrialist society. Right now however, I'm actually very stretched thin. I'm on a business trip that looks like will now be extended. I'm working just under 100 hours per week now that I've inherited two more projects that were supposed to be assigned to others. It's kind of a cop-out to not further expand on my earlier statements. But since I don't perceive you as being particularly close-minded (if anything you seem appropriately honest about what you do and do not know) it might actually be beneficial to simply provide you with the data as it was presented to me, and then let you draw your own conclusions.

For starters I'd recommend reading about the history:

This book gives a very wide-angle approach to Russia, Russians, and their governments.

This book offers a bit more of an intimate perspective about perhaps the most relevant generation of Post-Soviet influence.

This book offers some insight into America's foreign policy during the 20th century. In particular the negative impact of crafting foreign policy through an aggressive campaign of global occupation. The latter chapters talk about China and the former Soviet Union and draws many disturbing parallels with the United States defense spending habits in the last decade.

This book will perhaps be the most controversial read out of the list. It deals with the very unfortunate relationship between corporatism and American politics as well as the various stages of civil rights and labor movements. There is also a great deal of additional facts about imperialism in America which expands many of the points made by Chalmers Johnson.

There are several areas of agreement in this book between the views expressed by Chalmers Johnson and Howard Zinn. While the principles certainly come from different places, there is a well-reasoned, and thoughtful common ground. It is challenging from any perspective to completely agree or disagree with these narratives, but the contrast is most refreshing.

This book is basically a breath mint. The subjects being tackled in the rest of these books can often be somewhat troubling. This book will offer you short thought experiments that will prove entertaining as well as provocative. They will also help provide some lightheartedness to the mix.

u/kingpomba · 1 pointr/agnostic

The pig that wants to be eaten (collection of philosophical thought experiments with short commentary, i dont think its useful for someone with 0 background in philosophy except maybe as a taster but the more experienced people will see what they know and appreciate it).

[Contemporary debates in the philosophy of religion] ( (looks at arguments from both sides which im sure us agnostics looking for the truth will appreciate)

Life, Death, and Meaning: Key Philosophical Readings on the Big Questions

And for some (thought provoking) philosophical humour:

Antitheism - A reflection (essentially they turned the problem of evil on its head, they said all the good in the world disproves an all evil God in humour)

*Pascals Mugging

u/lisatomic · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Hey me too :) But Biochem. Which UC (if you don't mind my asking)?

Let's see, what to read... How about this? Or personally I recommend The Mind's I by Dennet and Hofstadter or Godel, Escher and Bach by Hofstadter. They are really good philosophy/science/intelligence books, and are largely well-formed and thoughtful arguments on various philosophical questions.

u/backmask · 1 pointr/philosophy

Like this?

u/phylogenik · 1 pointr/rational

My usual "recipe" for conversations is:

  1. start with observational humor on environmental banalities (weather, pop culture, interesting buildings/statues, recent festivals, etc.) and explore basic biographical details (where are you from, have you lived here long, etc.)

  2. eventually pivot to FORD (family, occupation, recreation, dreams), which can easily fill a few dozen hours

    2.5) actively listen to your conversation partner in addition to thinking about what to say next, e.g. split your attentions 65/25, respectively. Ask them questions about the stories they tell, but if your question is too much of a digression keep it in mind for later (earlier you mentioned X, I think Y, what do you think of Z?)

    2.75) have a bunch of relevant stories of your own in your back pocket that you can retrieve at a moment's notice, but beware one-upmanship; instead, seek to find or build common ground. Helpful to have explored lots of hobbies yourself here

  3. you mentioned grad school -- people usually study stuff they're interested in, so dredge up relevant memories of old articles you've read and questions you had while reading them, and have them clarify tricky concepts for you. If you're not quite right it's just all the more opportunity for them to swoop in and show off, and at least signals your interest in whatever subject they're studying

  4. another poster mentioned lists of questions -- I actually think these can be useful conversational aids! But don't, like, memorize the questions and completely break the flow of conversation asking one. Maybe during a quiet moment when all prior conversation threads have terminated you can pop in with a random "what's your favorite dinosaur" (and why?), but otherwise I've found these best for e.g. long drives together. Also, the linked questions maybe aren't the best -- I'd recommend getting one of these (personal faves have been Greg Stock's books, and I think I've tried most at this point; something like this also works). Each question has usually afforded around half an hour of conversation, though some took us a few hours and some a few minutes. Also, these are great for building a relationship off an existing foundation, which is to say that I've only ever tried the books of questions thing after I'd already talked to the person “organically” for 50-100 hours. But collectively they've probably given me many hundreds, if not thousands of hours of conversation, so I wouldn't be so quick to discount them!

  5. bring it back to local entertainment -- listen to a podcast or audiobook together or watch a movie or documentary and pause to discuss points
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/

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.

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?


  • 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."
u/Enosspick · 1 pointr/neoliberal

So I’m guessing you’re not actually a Neoliberal, because you must of missed Sowells, Friedman, and others view on the subject.

>entirely natural that white males dominate leadership positions

Well it might have something to do with being a white majority country? Especially the UK, and that said the white males in question usually come from upper middle class/upper class backgrounds it perfectly makes sense.

Why? I’d take a guess you could do an analysIs of any top private firm leadership positions and you’ll find the majority of those people come from upper middle class to upper class backgrounds. The reason is simple their parents afford them a superior education, and thus have better qualifications.

Why are the majority of people in said positions also taller than average?

Again your making arguments based on equity not equality. also you have not a single data point that supports your claims. Your looking for problems where their are none; all there are, are differences in individual choices between me and women.

And again you completely ignore blind recruitment which controls for subconscious bias and eliminates sexism/racism in hiring.

It’s funny because your beliefs are almost religious in nature, but here this might help you out. It’s a book by a black male.

u/ineedsomewhiskey · 1 pointr/Austin

Here are some I suggest for you!





u/dmiff · 1 pointr/Economics

Isn't it strange how the credit card companies still want to make money? I guess good intentions do not always lead to good policies.

u/SibilantFricative · 1 pointr/linguistics

We Are Our Language: An Ethnography of Language Revitalization in a Northern Athabaskan Community by Barbra Meek

If anyone has any interest in language revitalization, I think this is a great read.

Wisdom Sits in Place: Landscape and Language Among the Western Apache by Keith Basso

A classic.

Trade of the Tricks: Inside the Magician's Craft by Graham Jones

Not nearly as heavy on the linguistics as the other two I mentioned (though he has a fair amount on language), but I thought it was a very entertaining and interesting read!

In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio by Philippe Bourgois

He constantly uses large chunks of quoted text from his informants, so there's really interesting code-switching and discussions of dialects and language ideologies happening, but it's not something that the author really focuses on or analyzes (his focus is on political economy). But I enjoyed it as an ethnography.

Writing Women's Worlds: Bedouin Stories by Lila Abu-Lughod

Fantastically written, really recommend this one, though it's not linguistic at all.

u/International_Foot · 1 pointr/suggestmeabook

In Search of Respect if you’re into anthropology at all

u/TwoBirdsSt0ned · 1 pointr/suggestmeabook

In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio, by Philipe Bourgeois, is an ethnography of street-level drug dealers written by an anthropologist. It's very readable for an academic analysis.

Makes Me Wanna Holler, by Nathan McCall, is an autobiography written by a gang-member-turned-journalist. It offers an unapologetic look at his experiences.

Public Enemies, by Bryan Burroughs, doesn't focus on the personal experiences and perspectives of gang members in the same ways. But it offers an interesting account of some of the big-name gangs and gang members of the 1930s and the FBI response.

u/twice-as-cheerful · 1 pointr/SubredditDrama

Interesting question. Off the top of my head, I would say that makes you not so much 'a feminist' as 'a person whose viewpoint has been influenced by feminism'. Personally, I don't think you can really call yourself a feminist if you don't believe in patriarchy, as in the idea that women are historically oppressed as a class, but that is a big discussion and not one I intend to get into here.

By the way, you say you 'really don't believe in a contemporary patriarchy' - what about the likes of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan? Is patriarchy not expressed through the machismo of certain Latin American culture and households? If it was considered relatively normal for Latino men to beat their wives and have control over the household finances, (that's a big 'if', I know), would that not be considered a form of patriarchy? You might like to take a look at In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio, which could be said to portray a patriarchal society, in terms of the social norms and household arrangements of the subjects. Obviously, it depends a bit on what you mean by 'patriarchal', but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to refer to these families in that way.

u/distilledw · 1 pointr/Anthropology

If you want to read an Ethnography i suggest In Search of Respect by Phillipe Bourgois. I read it after my first semester of Anthropology and i think its the book that made me continue on and do a major in Anthro.

It is pretty easy to get through and very interesting and relevant subject matter.

u/board4life · 1 pointr/conspiracy

You should check out this book. Written by an actual researcher who lived in one of Harlem's worst drug neighborhoods. It deals with a lot of issues, but one is particularly related to your post- the family units. Given the societal pressure for a two parent home, most mothers (since primarily the fathers do the abusing) stay with them, thinking that's what is best for their children. However, the real problem is they don't kick them out. When the kid(s) grow up seeing the parents constantly arguing and fighting, they think that's how relationships are supposed to be, and perpetuate the cycle.

The whole book is really good though. Definitely demonstrates why it is so difficult for people to get out of very poor neighborhoods, where they make more money selling dope and committing crimes than the minimum wage jobs they are barely qualified for. It's not as easy as "pull yourself up by your bootstraps," like the politicians and MSM would like the population to believe.

u/subTropicOffTopic · 1 pointr/DecidingToBeBetter

Books I would add to balance this list out:


Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches by Marvin Harris. Unlike Germs, Guns, and Steel, this book is written by an actual anthropologist (sorry Mr. Diamond) and is a really easy read--it covers topics from the sacredness of cows to cargo cults. It's fun, too, as Harris is an entertaining and engaging writer, and it's a slim book.

Bonus Level Challenge Anthropology Read:

In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio by Phillipe Bourgois. This is another monograph written by an actual anthropologist. This book is more challenging subject matter, and I should put a big Trigger Warning on it for violence against women.


Wages, Price, and Profit by Karl Marx. It's a shame more people don't read Marx beyond the Manifesto, which he wrote fairly early on in his academic life. W,P and P is a preparatory work for Capital and outlines one of the arguments Marx makes in the much denser and more complete work that was to follow. It's short, and one of Marx's more approachable writings, dealing with something we are all familiar with: how much we get paid, and why.

Bonus Level Challenge Economics Read:

Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism by V. I. Lenin. This book contains much drier material, as Lenin draws upon common economic sources (I hope you like talking about tons of iron) to illustrate phenomenon like World War 1--which he saw as a competition of imperialist powers to redivide the Middle East and Africa--and even the Iraq Invasion that would come almost 100 years later.

u/projectrevo505 · 1 pointr/WhiteRights

Wow, you have to be really bigoted to think that was the only reason these things happen. It's not as simple as that. It's a huge cycle of poverty, violence, and drugs that all contribute to this. Please please educate yourself so you don't embarrass yourself. This book will help you. It's not about black people mainly, but it'll give you an idea what the reasons are.

u/zuoken · 1 pointr/

Kling blaims the poor for their poverty. I disagree with him and think his argument is not firmly developed.

Poverty is a structure whose product is the poor. Class reproduces itself. The children of the wealthy and well-educated grow up to be wealthy and well-educated because their parents bestow upon them the ability to navigate this socioeconomic system. Similarly is true for the poor and poorly-educated. (read the sociological study Unequal Childhoods if you want something more substantial than my rambling comment).

He is coding class warfare in "libertarian beliefs." Rather, we should recogonize the poor are disadvantaged not only because of their poverty, but because they don't understand our current socioeconomic system. "Hard work" alone won't help you (drug dealers work hard). Teach kids to discard constraining notions of gender, teach kids how to talk to professionals, teach kids to how to speak and dress like the hegemonic class - like rich white people. That (unfortunately) will likely get you far in this country.

u/EverWatcher · 1 pointr/politics

> It feels like we're gerrymandered, but honestly it's just the nature of our population. The Blue is too clustered for it's own good.

Yep, the suspicion of gerrymandering is generally accurate but is not always correct. Some possibilities about population distribution need to be kept in mind.

u/StevenMaurer · 1 pointr/politics

You are certainly welcome to believe anything you'd like, but if you insist on holding pejorative views of others, don't be shocked when they don't react positively.

In terms of you claiming that the Democratic party leadership not reflecting the values of the Democratic electorate - you are correct. Democratic leaders are considerably more liberal and progressive than the general public at large. Again, the whole thing that started this conversation we're having is me pointing out the election results, which clearly shows this issue.

I clearly understand how you get to that condition. Thanks to The Big Sort, lefties in big emerald blue cities almost can't help but fall into group-think. While suburban and rural Democratic activists are stuck trying to explain to you that America isn't all a bunch of frustrated socialists.

In terms of Donald Trump, please understand that there is a huge white temper tantrum going on, as the 1950s economy, where if you were American, white, and male, you could get a job more or less straight out of highschool, even if you learned nothing there. The US hasn't fallen behind in the market, so much as the rest of the world has caught up, and succeeding if you're the "right" kind of person, isn't so easy anymore. Hence the tantrum.

Most of this tantrum exhibits itself as blatant white racism and nativism, but there is the leftist version of this as well. Scratch the surface of a so-called "millennial" supposedly angry at "capitalism", you find they're no more in favor of raising taxes on the rich than others. Measure 97 in particular, lost in Oregon because the public got convinced by the "rich plutocrats give people jobs and low prices as a gift - not because that's what the market will bear - so tax increases on them will all be passed on to you" canard. It's depressing.

Quite literally, in 150 yeas, no non-incumbent Democratic party candidate has ever followed a Democratic President. This is not due to "incompetence", it's due to the fact that 25% of the public always just votes against the president's party no matter what. It is generally true for Republicans as well, with the exception of Reagan, who successfully convinced the public to shift dramatically to the right.

The voters, mind you. Not the leadership.

No. Democrats are not socialists. We worship neither at the altar of "free markets" nor "government everything". Both concentrate power in the hands of a few, which leads inevitably to authoritarianism. We happen to be pulling in the same direction as socialists - advocating for more government control of completely out of control crony-capitalism and plutocracy that the GOP espouses. But we also see the lessons of socialist corrupt fascism, and don't want that either.

u/salpa · 1 pointr/de

Wen das Thema interessiert, dem kann ich "The Big Sort" von Bill Bishop empfehlen. Ist zwar schon von 2008, aber auch in den USA aktueller denn je.

u/tjshipman44 · 1 pointr/todayilearned

I think you're confusing cause and effect.

The big thing that's happened in the last 30-40 years in American politics has been sorting. Look up The Big Sort.

Essentially, before 1965, you had lots of Southern Democrats who were more ideologically conservative and a smaller, but still significant number of Rockefeller Republicans in the North who were more ideologically liberal. The largest reason for congressional dysfunction is that increasingly representatives are more responsive to their constituents than before. This causes more gridlock, not less.

Now, you can argue that those constituents are frequently not thinking of their own best interests, but it's hard to make the case that in the vast majority of instances, congress is more responsive, not less.

u/JinxsLover · 1 pointr/politics

How is it victim blaming when you are the one carrying out the action..... If a district is 50-50 in Kentucky and 10% of Democrats are continually moving to a more liberal area rather it is a city or a state to be surrounded by people with similar views then that district will probably never go blue again. There is even a good book on the topic called the big sort. . Also regardless of your strong personal opinion on the topic that will result in losing the House and state legislatures in most of the south and west every year barring a financial collapse or impeachment that provokes a backlash.

u/SammyD1st · 1 pointr/RealEstate

> By living in the same place where there are role models of people who care about the property, and the property itself is maintained to very high standards, you create an atmosphere that demands respect.

Nope, there is tons of data showing that this is demonstrably not true. That is exactly how people theorized Section 8 would work, and it hasn't: the worst drag people down, the best get the hell out and form their own communities.

I realize you're in the ivory tower. I hope that you'll actually listen to what the real landlords are telling you here.

u/jamestown112 · 1 pointr/Libertarian

I'm not sure your hypothesis is backed by the evidence. People are plenty different, not just due to cultural differences, but also due to basic differences in their personalities (which are largely determined by genes).

Moreover, to say that Ice-T's agreement with Rush on the issue of gun control is evidence that we're all simiilar s spurious. Let's see how they compare on other issues? These two are oil and water. That they agree on one issue at all is surprising.

Edit: This is a great read on the issue

u/unfuckreddit · 1 pointr/Suomi

Trollaat nyt jäämällä kiinni hyvin epäoleelliseen asiaan, mutta okei. Ihan hauska aihehan tämä on.

Olemassaoleva tiede tuntuu tukevan väitteitäni, vaikkakin en usko että sitä voi suoraan soveltaa Suomen monipuoluejärjestelmään. Tässä tutkimuksessa havainnoitiin erittäin merkittävää homofiliaa republikaanien ja demokraattien twitterin sosiaalisissa graafeissa. Lisää poliittista homofiliaa graafien avulla Vähän erilainen tutkimus poliittisesta homofiliasta redditissä Todettiin aika selkeää poliittista homofiliaa facebookin sosiaalisissa graafeissa. En saanut kirjasta helposti kopiota, mutta economistin artikkelissa on mielenkiintoista juttua poliittisesta homofiliasta liittyen asumiseen.

Voisin jatkaa mutta eiköhän noilla pääse hyvin alkuun.

Oletan että olemme tässä vaiheessa samaa mieltä vahvan poliittisen homofilian läsnäolosta sosiaalisessa mediassa. Jos näin on, graafianalyysi vaikuttaa äärimmäisen tehokkaalta työkalulta äänestyskäyttäytymisen ennustamiseen ainakin kaksipuoluejärjestelmässä. Koska pystymme luotettavasti ennustamaan ihmisten äänestyskäyttäytymistä, pystymme myös havaitsemaan mahdollisia poikkeamia sosiaalisen piirin sekä äänestyskoppikuvien välillä.

Toki voitaisiin myös yksinkertaistaa ja lähettää poliittisia kyselyitä äänestyskoppikuvien postaajille, merkittävät poikkeamat kyselyvastausten ja todellisen äänestyskäytöksen välillä kertoisi jo aika paljon.

Uskoisin että näitä kahta tekniikkaa yhdistämällä voitaisiin jo päästä aika selkeisiin tuloksiin.

>Eli tämä vaalivilppikuvaaminen erotetaan normikuvaamisesta "työkalujen" ja "graafin analyysin" avulla. Mites toimitaan jos kuvaaja on vaihtanut kameran polaarisuuden tai jos salamavalon vaiheinen on ollut tainnutus -asennossa?

Ehkä puhuit tässä jonkinlaisesta teknisestä keinosta tunnistaa äänestyskoppikuvia? Jos näin oli, en koe teknisiä keinoja tässä kovin tarpeelliseksi. Suomen populaatio on niin pieni että tämä olisi triviaalinen ongelma ratkaista vaikkapa mechanical turkilla.

u/satanic_hamster · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

> Seriously you expect me to watch all that?

Watch however much you want whenever you want to.

> Please summarize.

They hate divorce court. They hate the institutionalized and legally codified misandry (here, here, here, here, here, etc.). They hate contempt for men in society.

The reasons have been accounted for, documented and published all over the place.

u/tkr2099 · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Understanding Power gives a pretty broad overview of his ideas.

u/justinmchase · 1 pointr/politics

I don't think that they are paid, this is just the way propaganda works. It's a little scary to see it first hand frankly.

You may enjoy reading a book by Noam Chomsky, it is quite eye opening:

Understanding Power: The Indispensible Chomsky

u/make_fascists_afraid · 1 pointr/SandersForPresident

No doubt about it, I'm in a niche ideology.

As far as "selling" it to the masses, that's been the focus of my thoughts for a while now. I don't feel that libertarian socialism is as radical an ideology as it might appear at first, especially in the context of the United States' political traditions.

The broad concepts aren't particularly complex, and they can be easily understood even by children. In the late 19th and early 20th century when leftist ideologies were more common, their ideas were spread through town hall assemblies, discussions in union meetings, popular songs, and, perhaps most importantly, a robust, widely-available working class press.

I don't want to harp on Chomsky too much, but the Propaganda Model presented in Manufacturing Consent goes a long way toward explaining why leftist ideologies have fallen by the wayside in the last 150 years or so. There's a great summary of this in Understanding Power, but I don't have my copy handy and google searches aren't turning anything up (as an aside, I'd highly recommend giving Understanding Power a read as it offers a great example of just how accessible and easy-to-understand anarchism can be)

So to me, it's not really a question of whether or not these ideologies are comprehensible to the average Joe. In fact, I'd argue that the current neoliberal capitalist paradigm demands much more complex and illogical reconciliations (2+2=5) from non-elite adherents.

To sum it up, in my mind there are two primary hurdles that need to be overcome in order for the idea to gain traction: (1) our perspective on private property (income-producing property; i.e. the 'means of production'--not your toothbrush), and (2) our understanding of "human nature"

Happy to go into more depth on those points, but I want to keep my comment brief(ish).

As far as coming up with a workable, realistic path, my personal opinion is that the specifics of Marxist and Syndicalist approaches to organizing are largely irrelevant in today's context (but the broad ideas are still on point).

Economically, I don't think it's realistic to expect everyone to abandon the idea of markets as a way of allocating resources, so a solid first step would be embracing a Mutualist approach that democratizes workplace control but retains a market. However, my long-term view is that markets are corrupting and should eventually be phased out.

Politically, I'm drawn to Bookchin's Libertarian Municipalism as a workable framework that doesn't require immediate and total revolution (though the expectation would be that eventually there would be a confrontation with the state)

I'm rambling at this point, so I'll shut up now. But I hope that all makes sense and answers your question(s).

u/elemenohpee · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

Understanding Power is a collection of lectures and Q&A sessions, and as such it is in a conversational style that is much easier to digest than his more scholarly works. I would definitely recommend this over books like Manufacturing Consent as an introduction to Chomsky's ideas. Manufacturing Consent was made into a documentary which does a good job of outlining his critique of the mass media.

u/pseudonym1066 · 1 pointr/atheism

No, this is false. Have a read of Stephen Pinker's Better Angel's of our Nature. It shows clearly, in many graphs detailing information about many different types of violence; that all types of violence have been in steady decline over the last thousand years.

This trend of a steady decline also continues over the last 100 and last fifty years and he documents this.

Further, US military strength has been in steady decline over the same period.

Your argument is not backed by data if your argument is that greater military strength produces greater peace. The inverse is true. Also if you want some political discussion about why this is the case have a read of this book.

u/Bman0921 · 1 pointr/worldpolitics

[Understanding Power] ( USA good one. I linked to it in Amazon just so you can read the description. Just a heads up, Chomsky is widely considered to be one of the greatest modern thinkers, but because of that, he can be pretty formidable and at times difficult to follow, but if you can you will definitely be smarter because of it.

u/UltimatePhilosopher · 1 pointr/politics

>>So having a political leaning makes one biased as to what facts to focus on and report?

>It very well can. More importantly why suggest a left wing pundit when there's going to be hundreds of other reports on the documents from other sources that aren't biased?

I don't see an answer to my question here. That it "very well can" doesn't show that Maddow in particular is biased just because she has obvious political leanings. (It's actually the obviousness of the political leanings that would incentivize her to be as unbiased as she can - you know, for credibility's sake, which you preemptively deny to her for no good reason.) As to "why Maddow," it's because she notably spends a lot of her shows being on Mitt Romney's case, trapping him with facts and his own statements, that's why.

>And why the mention of chompskey? Do you even understand his views? He spoke out against mainstream media regularly so I don't think he would be suggesting we listen to a cable news reporter either. More importantly chompskey holds very different views from a modern liberal like Maddow. Chompskey is heavily influenced by classicaly liberal philosophy which is completely different from modern liberalism. If anything chompskey would be a sort of neo libertarian. Do you know who noam chompskey is?

First off, it's spelled Chomsky. I've read his book Understanding Power and numerous columns of his at So yeah, I know a thing or two about the guy. Even had a short e-mail exchange with him a couple weeks back. And I know how he's influenced by classical liberal philosophy and calls himself a libertarian socialist, the socialism (and, e.g., his stated support for the OWS movement) being what places him quite prominently on today's political left. And he's very clued into factors that generate bias in the media, and he inspires his more adept readers to identify and combat any biases in their own cognitive endeavors. Which brings me to my original question which you really haven't answered.

u/georgewashingtonblog · 1 pointr/science

One of the main reasons for writing this essay is to point out that we must make sure that our "solutions" are not more dangerous than the problems themselves.

For example, the Washington Post noted that the government forced a switch from one type of chemical to another because it was believed the first was enlarging the ozone hole. However, according to the Post, the chemical which the government demanded be used instead is 4,470 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Currently, "government scientists are studying the feasibility of sending nearly microscopic particles of specially made glass into the Earth's upper atmosphere to try to dampen the effects of 'global warming.' " Others are currently suggesting cutting down trees and burying them. Other ways to geoengineer the planet are being proposed.

And Noam Chomsky has said that he would submit to fascism if it would help combat global warming:

"Suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way understimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something.

Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we'd probably have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I'd even agree to it, because there's just no other alternatives right now."

(page 388).

Are those ideas any better than pouring soot on the North Pole?

Our primary responsibility must be to ensure that we are not doing more harm than good.

u/jellyravel23 · 1 pointr/JoeRogan

He's using Thomas Sowell's book, have you read it?

u/slimjimjohnson · 1 pointr/iamverysmart

According to Thomas sowell those beats and the rhyming scheme of rap actually stems from Celtic culture which intermingled with the free blacks during the time of the potato famine.

Since the blacks didn't have a culture of their own since it was stripped away from them they latched onto the remnant Celtic culture of the crackers

u/japenner · 1 pointr/IAmA

I've heard of a book that covers the cultural differences of black people to other ethnicities and the history of how the social reforms brought about by liberal Bureaucrats that gave them a specific mindset such as this, the book was Black Rednecks and White Liberals I believe...

u/donotswallow · 1 pointr/politics

Well, I'm not sure where Ron Paul would direct you but Thomas Sowell makes a damn strong argument in his book "Black Rednecks and White Liberals." ( )

Milton Friedman makes similar (although, obviously not identical) arguments about "Equal Pay for Equal Work" here:

u/Lowbacca1977 · 1 pointr/AdviceAnimals

Thomas Sowell's got a book that explores exactly that:

u/bradfromearth · 1 pointr/politics

I voted for him. I'm white. I know tons of whites that voted for him. I live in Houston and whites seem to be the minority. Are we forgetting about all the blacks in the Bush administration?

I dare you to read this.

I'll even buy it for you..

u/TheManInBlack_ · 1 pointr/AskTrumpSupporters

Just popping in to recommend Black Rednecks and White Liberals, a collection of essays by Thomas Sowell that address these very topics. His arguments are quite convincing, as is his evidence.

u/iMalinowski · 1 pointr/BlackPeopleTwitter

Consider looking into the book by Thomas Sowell on the matter.

u/bluescape · 1 pointr/unpopularopinion

You're severely moving the goal posts.

>most Black and Hispanic people in the US were brought here / came here in extreme poverty and have been kept that way for centuries, whereas most immigrants (especially more recent ones) from Asia come from wealthy families who are actually able to make the move here

Your statement doesn't talk about police policy, nor do you specifically mention post WWII. That's why the Irish were brought up to begin with. Your premise based on the words you chose, was that black/hispanic people don't have the same opportunities because of poverty and racial discrimination. These are two things which were faced by other groups as well. Groups that now flourish.

Might want to check out Black Rednecks and White Liberals

u/ExOttoyuhr · 1 pointr/CapitalismVSocialism

Nigeria has an Arab-like IQ; they don't have Arab genes, but they do have Arab cultural influence in the north, so much of it that they even have Arab pathologies. Nigeria also has British influences from colonization (which sometimes spread useful memes in spite of itself), and the native Ibo had an industrious, mercantile outlook on life even before colonization. If race causes IQ and GDP, Nigeria is random noise; if memes cause IQ and GDP, and can spread independently of race, Nigeria makes sense.

Race causing IQ and GDP also can't explain West Virginia nearly as well as memes causing them can. West Virginia has IQ of 99, higher than Canada's 97; but they have a GDP per capita of $30,000, much lower than Canada's $45,000, and there are obvious memetic differences between West Virginia and Canada that would obviously tend to hold West Virginia back. Thomas Sowell also argues that memes -- in fact the same memes that work their mischief in Appalachia -- hold back American blacks, and I already mentioned how A Farewell to Alms seems to be more an argument for memes evolving and spreading than for genes doing the same. (A Farewell to Alms claims that there was meaningful genetic change in the West in the past 1500 years; but the avoid-gluten crowd offers pretty compelling arguments that you can't have big evolutionary changes in short periods of time, so A Farewell to Alms must be documenting a form of evolution other than the one it thinks it's documenting.)

There are obviously other factors in intelligence and economic functioning (I mention nutrition below), but I think that different memes are a lot of what it comes down to -- and that outliers like Appalachia and Nigeria are arguments for a memes-first position.

Of course, beneficial and harmful memes don't mean that you have to rip out cultures wholesale and replace them. Sowell approves of New England's 19th-century cultural-replacement program for blacks, since he sees Southern black culture as a white imposition and is therefore willing to go shopping for the most useful white-imposed culture; but American Indian writers are much less enthusiastic about New England's 19th-century cultural-replacement program aimed at them, and they have a point. As A Farewell to Alms accidentally establishes, peace, stability, and a minimum of outside exploitation are enough for valuable memes to evolve -- and I'd say that doing more than that is counterproductive. The arguments for cultural diversity are the same as the arguments for ecological diversity, and I doubt that I need to rehash them here.

u/Bat_man_89 · 1 pointr/AskMen

This book i stumbled across described exactly your mindset and mine as well. I'm 30 and i've felt that way about being mentally checked out in a sense...since about...15 or so....checkout the book link here.

u/Docbear64 · 1 pointr/MGTOW

As for Women who support or at least understand MGTOW I'd assume the two would be

Esther Vilar of The Manipulated man :

and Dr. Helen Smith Of Men on Strike :

It's going to be harder to find sources that rationally argue against MGTOW because the typical arguments against MGTOW tend to attack mens sexuality , sexual abilities( incel / virgin ) , or tend to call men who do not subscribe to traditional male gender roles cowards and similar emasculating claims to evoke an emotional response .

The most common arguments against MGTOW are probably going to be listed as arguments in support of men marrying .

u/polakfury · 1 pointr/canada
u/DubsPackage · 1 pointr/IncelsWithoutHate

>Your one example of a house husband doesn't outweigh all the guys >that are successfully and happily doing it.

I'm sure all 7 of them are living the dream.

> Now you're saying that women don't like to work?

I'm saying women have options and statistically go for "fun" jobs, whereas men have no options and statistically chase money to provide for their families.

>There are plenty of men who work in corporate America in air >conditioned offices.

Most of which are swamped with HR harpies and #metoo bullshit, men are being driven out of the professional jobs, as well as most of academia and being alienated from wider society.

All of this is backed up by hard data, there are entire books written about this subject, you should go do your research.

>it's possible to teach men to do manual labor too

IIRC men are ~%95 of the construction profession and have been since the dawn of humanity.

>I already have a career in construction.

Yesterday you worked in an office, you should probably get your story straight but at this point I already see that you're an ideologue living in her own private idaho.

> Women have to perform just like men do.

Provably false

> On that topic, what about all the guys who post about being "proud" >of living off their parents and playing video games all day?

>My question was what I would possibly miss if I turned male, and after >several replies, you still have no answer.

You have your answers, you simply lack the ability to think outside of your own vagina.

u/FreeManIsFrank · 1 pointr/MGTOW

>saying that I should man up and start acting like a man

I've always had the problem with someone saying "man up". It wasn't until I read Men on Strike by Helen Smith - Amazon that I finally learned that it means "do as I say and don't give me trouble". It's simply a shaming tactic, which all women, and many men, use on men.
The best response to anyone that says it is to tell them they have an opinion of what a man is but it's their opinion. You don't share their opinion so they should go away and leave you be.

u/vicious_armbar · 1 pointr/politics

If we as a society want more people to breed; then we should enact more favorable laws towards men around marriage and reproduction. The book Men On Strike does a pretty good job of explaining this.

u/pandolfio · 1 pointr/Marriage

That's not what this scholar says in her book.

Your opinion is interesting, but only anecdotal, given the extensive study on the subject.

They've had a similar situation in Japan, except that they're decades ahead. Men do not want to marry, they do not even want to be in relationship.

Do not think that this could not happen in the US.

As to evidence of bachelors getting laid, it may only be anecdotal, but judging by my co-workers, who are not at all alpha males, it's pretty clear that these guys do get laid much more frequently. Especially those without girlfriends.

And the issue with divorce is massive - this is the reason number 1 why men are very right to stay away from marriage, and yet, nobody seems to want to do something about it.

u/_Qubit · 1 pointr/politics

Seriously, they've already been trying to convince people that. See Liberalism is a Mental Disorder by Michael Savage or anything written by Ann Coulter.

u/djweinerscience · 1 pointr/The_Donald

They need mental help.

u/MacheteSanta · 1 pointr/The_Donald

Michael Savage coined it, even wrote a book about it

His new book is Trump's War

u/hannahsfriend · 1 pointr/PoliticalHumor

My comment was meant to be humorous, just as the title of Michael Savage’s book was meant to be funny.

u/iFonePhag · 1 pointr/IslamUnveiled

Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder

u/MegaMindxXx · 1 pointr/PoliticalHumor


The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left

u/chaotic_zx · 1 pointr/Conservative
u/GoBSAGo · 1 pointr/politics

[I wish it were nothing](The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left

u/101fulminations · 1 pointr/Austin

> Comparing a rabble of halfwits ... to actual Nazi brownshirts — a nationwide, organized paramilitary force — is risible.

Somebody forgot to tell this guy...

>> Yes, there is a fascist threat in America—but that threat is from the Left and the Democratic Party. The Democratic left has an ideology virtually identical with fascism and routinely borrows tactics of intimidation and political terror from the Nazi Brownshirts. Dinesh D'Souza, The Big Lie

Yours is the perception of that frog that doesn't realize the water he's in is being brought to a boil, until it's too late. "Risible", I know.

u/NateRoberts · 1 pointr/Kossacks_for_Sanders

>Democrats have done little to advance traditional liberal goals: expanding opportunity, fighting for social justice, and ensuring that workers get a fair deal. Indeed, they have scarcely dented the free-market consensus at all. This is not for lack of opportunity: Democrats have occupied the White House for sixteen of the last twenty-four years, and yet the decline of the middle class has only accelerated. Wall Street gets its bailouts, wages keep falling, and the free-trade deals keep coming.

>With his trademark sardonic wit and lacerating logic, Frank's Listen, Liberal lays bare the essence of the Democratic Party's philosophy and how it has changed over the years. A form of corporate and cultural elitism has largely eclipsed the party's old working-class commitment, he finds. For certain favored groups, this has meant prosperity. But for the nation as a whole, it is a one-way ticket into the abyss of inequality. In this critical election year, Frank recalls the Democrats to their historic goals-the only way to reverse the ever-deepening rift between the rich and the poor in America.

From the publisher's description of Thomas Frank's Listen, Liberal. Sounds like I gotta read this book!

u/Patango · 1 pointr/politics

Here is his new one , another home run imo

[Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?]

>From the bestselling author of What's the Matter With Kansas, a scathing look at the standard-bearers of liberal politics -- a book that asks: what's the matter with Democrats?

>It is a widespread belief among liberals that if only Democrats can continue to dominate national elections, if only those awful Republicans are beaten into submission, the country will be on the right course.

>But this is to fundamentally misunderstand the modern Democratic Party. Drawing on years of research and first-hand reporting, Frank points out that the Democrats have done little to advance traditional liberal goals: expanding opportunity, fighting for social justice, and ensuring that workers get a fair deal. Indeed, they have scarcely dented the free-market consensus at all. This is not for lack of opportunity: Democrats have occupied the White House for sixteen of the last twenty-four years, and yet the decline of the middle class has only accelerated. Wall Street gets its bailouts, wages keep falling, and the free-trade deals keep coming.

u/jengabeef · 1 pointr/todayilearned

Read Listen Liberal if you really believe Dems aren't neoliberal.

u/ginnj · 1 pointr/politics

>1. The Democratic party, for some insane reason, followed the Republican party to the right. I dunno what the strategy behind that was, but if they had not, they would likely have control of most State governments + Congress.

Read or listen to Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? by Thomas Frank

u/thesilverpig · 1 pointr/politics

cool. Thanks for acknowledging my point and stating your disagreement in a diplomatic way. I think we are getting to a real discourse here.

My first disagreement with your statement is I don't think fighting republicans and making democrats better is either or first or second type of situation. In fact, considering how the democrats are always chasing the republicans rightward often losing big in election seasons, I think that making the democratic party a stronger one that better represents and inspires its people will stop the rightward shift of both parties.

Because policy polling shows the democratic platform is way more popular than the republican one and actually on most polices, the majority of American's are left of the democratic party but the constant losing of ground on policy, the appearance of elitism and corruption, the focus on identity politics which doesn't resonate compared to economic issues, and the fact that economically the middle and working classes have been devastated by republicans AND Democrats are some of the reasons why Democrats keep losing. That and the Democrats constant shift rightward, because when voters are presented with the options of republican and republican light, they'll go with the real thing.

I do agree the republicans are worse and we should fight and obstruct their agenda I also don't think investing energy in trying to change the republicans is the most prudent strategy.

There is a cogent argument made by Thomas Frank in his book Listen Liberal that the democratic party abandoning the working class in favor of the professional class is what led to them losing the majority of legislatures over the last 40 some years. So the way I see it, if the democratic party can take on the role of being the party of the people again, in a meaningful not rhetorical, way they will win seats and if the republicans want to stand a chance as a party they'll have to follow the democrats lead.

u/williafx · 1 pointr/environment

Continued support for the military industrial complex
Bold and expressed support for the war in Iraq
Pushing for the war In Syria
Continued support for more wars abroad, even adding 4 more major conflicts under the Obama presidency
Continued support for the war on drugs
Continued support for the prison industrial complex
Continued support for predatory lending industries
refusal to support a living wage
refusal to support single payer / medicare for all / universal healthcare
refusal to support extending public education beyond k-12
growing support within the party to move towards greater and greater privatization of public services
Enactment of the ACA, a healthcare proposal initially concocted by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
refusal to break up the big banks
refusal to support or truly fight for a carbon tax
a continual decline of support for unionized labor
The continued and increasing acceptance of legalized bribery / money in politics
A general abandonment of leftist economic policy

The democrats do pander very frequently to leftist ideals, but they are either extremely ineffective at governing toward their ideals or are disingenuous. In my view I lean toward the latter, mostly due to the blatant and transparent acceptance of enormous sums of money from special interest groups. It makes them look like they are paid to lose/throw the fight - but still pander to the left and win votes.

This criticism of the Democratic party as moving rightward by no means excused the disgusting sprint toward facism of the Republican party, but the Democrats have been trying for years to run away from being branded with associations to FDR or New Deal style politics. For a very thorough analysis, check out this book:

u/Icanus · 1 pointr/ConspiracyMemes

In WW2 we fought national socialism.
Then came Korea and Vietnam, communism.

Please read this lovely little bit of communist paradise

u/GingerJack76 · 1 pointr/AskLibertarians

Oh, this video, it's been a while since I've touched on this one. I've already touched on this video a few times before since it came out, it's missing many things and makes broad accusations against, and using simplifications of systems that are more complex than the weather to justify it.

Look, this conversation is going to be pointless, I know it, and I suspect you know it given your name. You have bought into ideas and shaped your identity around them, asking you to let go of those ideas is like asking you to jump your ship in the open ocean during a hurricane, hoping that someone else will pick you up rather than just staying with the boat you have. I can't change your mind, even if we knew each other as best friends and you trusted me implicitly, it would take me months and months of talking to you, showing you evidence, and even then it might not work.

The best thing I can do for you is to give you a list of books to read, and hope you read them, which I'll do while I explain where each of them fit in Badmouse's video.

>Black Book's Estimations

This estimation is an average between other estimations. It's difficult to really understand this number until you start looking at the error bars. Democide under communism has been estimated by many different people, but the range of these numbers is from 40 Million, which is accounting basically for the minimum Stalin killed, and the minimum that Mao killed, which is 28 and 5 million respectively, and then adding bits and pieces from the other regimes. Adding other events, like the Cambodia Killing Fields, North Korea, and many African countries, can put this number well above 100 million, and if we take the highest estimations and assume they're correct, the total number comes out to be just under 260 million. This number could be further inflated, as if killing anywhere between 40-260 million people needed an inflation, to something much higher given that communistic regimes often start wars and turn their countries into meat grinders for the conflict.

>That's not real socialism

At this point if you think that your ideas have nothing to do with theirs then there's no saving this conversation. That would be like a young fascist, wanting to bring about the perfect form of government, claiming that Hitler was really a socialist, or a capitalist, and had nothing to do with fascism. Sometimes people go so far off the reservation that you just can't reason with them because their morality is orange (as in the fruit) and blue. instead of right and wrong. All I can say is read The Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn spends three books explaining why the USSR, one of the two big serious offenders, was socialist, and why it went down the way it did. If it's too much for you, listen to the audio book.

Peterson isn't wrong when he says the thinking is that the person apologizing for socialism and it's regimes assumes they could have done it better, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were in the right place and did the worst thing possible and so it's blamed on them, that's why is wasn't socialist. But that assumes that there could be a person who could do it right, and given that there isn't a ready example given, it's assumed the person apologizing is making that claim.


This assumes these problems could have been stopped, which Badmouse does not know that, and neither do you. You don't know how to run an economy, and the people who have tried killed millions of their own people trying.

Getting a burger in your house on a plate is much harder than you think. Multiple people are needed and multiple steps have to go correctly: The beef farmer has to have a good stock of cows, the wheat farmer has to have a good crop, the lettuce and tomato farmers need to have a good crop, the wine maker needs to have good vinegar for things like mustard, the baker needs to be on time, needs to have sleep, needs to eat, and needs to make good bread on time, then the butcher needs to not waste the meat by making bad cuts, or know when the meat is spoiled, then needs to make a good grind for the burger, keep the grinder clean and so on. Then the cook needs to know how to cook, needs his sleep, his own food, and the spices to make the burger right, a grill to cook it on, oil to make sure he doesn't make a mess. Then the manager of the restaurant needs to make sure he watches out for people lagging on safety, ensure orders are correct, disputes with customers are resolved, fills in for the cooks when the cook is sick or needs help, order the buns and meat and condiments for the burger so that the cook has the things he needs to make the burger. Then the driver need to know where to take the burger, need to know how to drive in any conditions, need to have insurance, need to have food, sleep, and so on, and lastly, they need to know how to treat the customer.

And that's not even half the steps, and accounting for most of the usual scenarios, and that's just one burger, the steps for more complicated things that make that process possible, like Mack Trucks, are even more complex.

Anyone who claims that they have the answer on how to distribute wealth has no idea what they're talking about. These systems are incredibly complex and is the equivalent of a retarded child wanting to drive the helicopter. I'm sorry little Timmy but Collins here spent 5 years just getting his license and has been flying since '72, you barely know how to tie your shoes, let alone how to fly this thing.

Taking on Crusades like this is historically bound to end in failure. Yes, horrible things happen, I know you think you can save them but you really can't. The best thing we can do is to keep what little patch of street we have clean. The moral pleading is there to manipulate people into dismissing those who have looked at the process and come out of it saying "we're literally doing all we can, things have gotten amazingly better, what are you complaining about?"

When the doctor says "you have cancer, and with any luck you'll have a few more years to live with little to no pain if we work on it." you don't stand up and scream "You're just dismissing the problem! you're benefiting off my suffering! You're wrong! I could be a better doctor!" You sit there and accept that even if this person is wrong, he's probably not that far off from the truth, and at the very least you got back what little time you could.

I'm not going to go into a comment chain with you, I might answer a few questions, but I've done that too many times with people to want to really get into one right now. It's a waste of time, and you're better off reading the books that I provided and having an open mind instead of this reactionary, socialist insistence that there must be a better way.

u/yeahnokidding · 1 pointr/rva

The crucial difference is compelling businesses to do this, rather than them making the decision freely. I've worked in employee-owned businesses and it was not particularly different than publicly traded employers. Privately traded securities can be easily manipulated in price as well because there is no market. It's also very bad asset allocation to have any significant amount of your net worth attached to your employer. If (and when) they go belly up, you're out of a job and out of a huge chunk of your net worth.

Anyone can freely invest in companies right now for free. Vanguard's index ETFs have zero commission and exceptionally low expenses. These things can all be easily automated with very low investment minimums.

Soviet socialism has indeed destroyed numerous countries and has been responsible for the deaths of millions. Very good first-hand account of what it's like to live under such a totalitarian regime.

Additionally, employees have no ethical claim or entitlement to ownership of the organizations they work for. Entrepreneurs take all the risk in starting businesses and can rightfully reap the reward. Most of them fail and lose everything. Employees take zero risk because they are paid for their time and can walk any time they like.

If you want to start a co-op, that's great. You have every right to do so. This is a free country. And if it's actually better, as the socialists claim, then you won't fail.

If you want to force others to turn over their business, that's where we have a problem.

As a business owner myself, I have taken all of the risk. All of my employees and contractors have been fairly compensated for their time. They were not compelled to work for me and made the decision of their own free will. I invested years and tens of thousands of dollars to build this business, taking all the risk along the way. None of my employees took a lick of risk because they were all compensated for their time. Now the DSA wants me and other entrepreneurs to take all the risk and then give away the reward when we succeed.

u/future-porkchop · 1 pointr/CringeAnarchy

>read a book about socialism

Yes, please do! How about Gulag Archipelago? Also Inside the Soviet Army is pretty cool, too - the Amazon description makes it sound dry and boring, but it offers really good insight into the absolute clusterfuck that was the Soviet Union from an army officer's perspective.

u/Jack-Of-Few-Trades · 1 pointr/books

Two books related to upbringing and politics that you might enjoy: George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant and Thomas Franks' What's the Matter with Kansas?

Lakoff also has some youtube videos of his lectures.

u/Inconnu2u · 1 pointr/MensRights

I have done extensive research, which is why I hate feminists. I am an antifeminist - someone who is against the feminist movement, which for the past four decades have been systematically Spreading Misandry, Legalizing Misandry, waging an all out War Against Men and sadly even a War Against Boys.

u/Operator77 · 1 pointr/IAmA

>I'm not really associated with the feminist movement.

Really? Then why defend it?

I read the wikipedia article. Wikipedia is a great resource, I love it.

Third wave feminism?! These waves need to stop. The article did mention Christina Hoff Sommers, though.

I have her book The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men. Fantastic book, it really should just how harmful feminism really is.

Two more I would highly recommend:

Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture

Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men

I am all for equal rights. People who feel likewise should call temselves equalists.
I would embrace that in a heartbeat.
They should not continue to describe themselves as feminists, which is such a loaded term so full of negative connotations.

I posted this in Eqality - what do you think?

u/Feminism_Is_Evil · 1 pointr/MensRights

Legalizing Misandry by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young.

u/ee4m · 1 pointr/JordanPeterson

>For one, communism was a complete wash

Ok, thats one - but it lead to lots of polices that your parents benefited from, social mobility, decent wages, good access to education.

>or another thing, most right-wingers today are liberal rather than reactionary or monarchical.

Yes, but at the time the right were fighting the left on these matters and the liberals (the left) were the enemy. The liberalism that the right wants today, is a right wing intrepretation of it that adam smith disapproved of.

> Would you considered Peterson to be right wing?

Going by his activity and affiliations in twitter he is extreme right.

>"Freedom of speech" is this a left/right thing?

Freedom of speech was a hard fought battle against the right which had to be won over and over, the right to speak against the church, the right to protest war etc.

>"Evolution" again, not a left/right thing.

Yes, the right fought for biblical fundamentalism.

>Also, even if all of what you said was true, it wouldn't mean today's right wing thought had nothing to argue.

the majority of the rights arguments against feminism and sjw's today came from the left. Warren Farrell was the one who debunked all the feminist talking points in the 1970s and talked about men falling behind in education due to neolibral left policies.

These two as well.

u/sam_jacksons_dingus · 1 pointr/worldnews

> First off, they were civil penalties, not criminal ones.

Actually, it's both.

> the only reason it would violate peoples' right to free speech is because the American government decided that "Money = Speech"

They recognized that the two are inseparable. Expressing your political beliefs with your mouth in your home or on the street isn't the only kind of activity protected under the "right to free speech." You cannot separate free speech from the freedom to use the platforms on which speech occurs, and the platforms on which speech occurs cost money. There is no difference in terms of "power of censorship" between a government who maintains the right to ban media productions which cost money vs. a dictator who bans media on a whim -- both would have essentially absolute authority to ban virtually any piece of media.

Suppose the Trump administration banned the release of the following pieces of media by threat of civil and criminal penalties, using the F.E.C.'s logic in the Citizens United case as legal support:

  • Jon Oliver's "Last Week Tonight"
  • Michael Moore's documentaries
  • The Daily Show
  • Union pamphlets in support of Bernie Sanders
  • Thomas Paine's "Common Sense", published by, say, Harper Collins, Simon & Schuster, or some other publishing corporation . (Or perhaps a hypothetical modern day equivalent to Paine's pamphlet?)

    Would you consider it a violation of free speech to restrict these pieces of media based on the money spent on them?

    > In pretty much any other country

    Most other countries don't value free speech.

    > not the actual act of making the movie, but having it on TV and advertising it

    If Trump banned your documentary criticizing him, would it be much consolation that the he didn't prevent you from making it, but only preventing you from showing it to people?

    > [I'd prefer access to socialized healthcare and free university education over the right to produce political ads].

    This isn't just about "political ads". The argument the F.E.C used was broad and sweeping and would give the government unilateral and uninhibited authority to block any speech it didn't like on any platform where people would actually see it. It might not sound scary when it was applied to a partisan documentary a few years ago, but court decisions are like laying bricks. And when a guy you don't like gets into power a few years down the road (or maybe many years), you might not like the ugly havoc he is able to wreak with the authority you have allowed him to have. So its incorrect to belittle its importance by phrasing it as "the right to produce political ads". No. It is the "right to free speech".

    In any case, the "trade off" question is ultimately a value question. To truly settle it would involve getting deeper into moral philosophy. I'll just say that my value system is very different than your value system, and under my value system, trading away free speech for a system where the government threatens to lock people in cages if they don't fund people's university educations or hospital bills is not worth it. This is especially true for education expenses. (In fact, you can already get a free education through the internet. You just won't have a piece of paper to show for it.)

    EDIT: Cut out some stuff to focus my message. Don't wanna get bogged down in side arguments.
u/Not_Pictured · 1 pointr/news

You too. I recommend .

I promise you I will read your book (I've been meaning to), if you promise to read mine.

u/DeismAccountant · 1 pointr/Naruto

My comment was an attempt to answer your question, but I admit I didn't make that part very clear. Of course you can't just rely on people's goodness, because people are neither inherently good or evil. They follow incentives, and in a society where people move on from rulers, there would be natural incentives for people to try and get along even if they didn't like each other, as These guys explain as their solution.

Power and authority positions, on the other hand, are inherently defined by being able to do harm and damage to one group for the benefit of another without the threat of consequence, as this video explains. This is the kind of action that the Cycle of Hatred is based upon, and is why any real discussion of peace must question the structures of power that are involved. In contrast, a action of trade that happens between two people only occurs if both people see it as benefiting them, so the things and rules that occur are only what people agree on.

People have written whole novels about these concepts, and there are a lot to choose from, like this one, but feel free to look around.

u/haroldp · 1 pointr/Libertarian

Are you unfamiliar with the arguments of anarcho-capitalists on this topic? Have you read The Machinery of Freedom? Or The Problem of Political Authority? I'm not saying I agree with them altogether, but this seems like a rather shallow criticism.

u/SwampDrainer · 1 pointr/Libertarian
u/LeeHyori · 1 pointr/todayilearned

Or you could just accept it :D! Kidding. You should critically evaluate everything (as you are doing).

I tried to make it fairly simple and intuitive, but I also have deeper philosophical reasons for holding these beliefs. In any case, the book garnering the most attention in professional political philosophy right now is The Problem of Political Authority by professor Michael Huemer.

You should buy it, or I can help subsidize you to buy it. Or, you could always pirate it :P But that lays out the argument in an incredibly cogent way. It is a real piece of scholarship, and it's an easy read. I know skeptical graduate students who are very impressed by the book. I think you will be too.

u/3goist · 1 pointr/news
u/wonder_er · 1 pointr/Anarcho_Capitalism

This is the best argument I've read in support of taxation that acts as if the average an-cap isn't a lunatic.

Thank you for writing this up! You're raising the bar of discussion around here.

Since you wrote up on the idea of political authority, I wonder if you've read The Problem of Political Authority by Michael Huemer.

I cannot summarize the whole thing here (the reviews on Amazon do it better) but I feel like he does a good line of reasoning on the topic, and it was this book that made me (reluctantly) give up the notion that a certain amount of government was required.

And I do mean "reluctantly". I'm already used to keeping my political views to myself, because even without being an an-cap, I am pretty fringe in my political views. This just pushed me even fringier.

(He specifically addresses Kant's arguments in support of political authority. It's really good reading!)

Thank you, again, for this awesome comment. You deserve far more than the six points upvotes you have right now.

u/CaptainMegaJuice · 1 pointr/JoeRogan

Well then, go read The Problem of Political Authority by Michael Huemer and The Machinery of Freedom by David Freidman.

Books won't downvote you, I promise.

u/t3nk3n · 1 pointr/AskLibertarians

Probably not. But you also have a positive obligation to do most things that liberal democratic states tell you to do.

u/glowplugmech · 1 pointr/Anarcho_Capitalism

"Nobody should be given the right to initiate violence against others without repercussions."

For clarity then, you believe that some people should have the right to initiate violence against others with zero repercussions?

>My definition of property doesn't matter. All that matters is that IF it is different than the AnCap one that AnCap will feel completely justified in taking what I think is mine and then possibly killing me when I try to take it back.

For anyone who is just getting started with the ideas of polycentric law and property rights I highly reccomend these two books.

>I'm not sure why you're linking to extraordinary rendition. Canada has never used it.

The Canadian Military and Special Forces have murdered countless people without trial. The Canadian justice system has imprisoned countless people for victimless crimes. And you trust these people to not use their written power to extract you from a foreign country?

>It makes me feel as though you're making things up. Mind substantiating all of that.

To be clear, you don't believe that the Canadian Government has the right to Extraordinary Rendition of Canadian Citizens? That is your position?

>What a completely terrible argument. Wow. Even if I were, why would I think AnCap is a good idea. Greed is one of the worst human characteristics. Greed + unrestricted capitalism + 'justice' = BAD

For anyone who is new to economics I would highly reccomend this book. Sowell is not an AnCap but he is a genius that has an unmatched perspective on history, and economics.

>Sometimes it does and sometimes it does not. Are you suggesting that Capitalism doesn't sometimes lead to a consolidation of wealth/power in the few who then subjugate the many?

Of course I am suggesting that. All of the wealth consolidation happens after Nation States get involved in Capitalism. It even has a name.

>More like "When in Rome..."

If you keep insulting people on the sub then of course you are going to get a negative response. Maybe we should get a fresh start then? Stop insulting people and see what happens.

>Grow up.

It is apparent to myself and everyone else on this sub that you have not read the basics of the basics of AnCap literature. If you really want to stir things up then get some books under your belt and come back with arguments that are unique and thought provoking. The arguments you have put forth are tired and old. They have been posted a million times and refuted a million and one.

Imagine if Thomas Jefferson gave up because someone told him to grow up? You would be paying 80% of your income in taxes to some King who would be murdering and caging even MORE people than your current government does.

u/allaboutthebernankes · 1 pointr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Have you read (or are you generally aware of) Huemer's Problem of Political Authority? If not, I'd recommend giving it a read. If so, what did you think of it?

u/Washbag · 1 pointr/Anarcho_Capitalism

I also recommend looking up Michael Huemer on Youtube. You could also buy his book

although it is a bit pricey (but totally worth it).

u/Dr-No- · 1 pointr/Libertarian

This is a good empirical look at how anarcho-capitalism could work.

Huemer fully admits that getting there is problematic because it doesn't lever with human instincts and our natural tendencies. He proposes thousands of years of social engineering to get us there...good luck with that.

u/Vatzfu · 1 pointr/funny
u/iamthinksnow · 1 pointr/LateStageCapitalism

Read "Don't think about an elephant" ( for an excellent rundown of how the GOP has used language to shape the thinking (when people bother to think) over the last 30+ years.

u/ta912301 · 1 pointr/politics

Read Lakoff's, Dont think of an elephant. It talks about how politicians like Lamar frame their debates around issues similar to SOPA. You can learn a lot from the book on running a productive campaign against politicians who try misrepresenting an issue.

u/4chzbrgrzplz · 1 pointr/bestof

A great book that discusses why some don't want taxes on the rich, are against abortion but for the death penalty. Don't think of an elephant!. Summary: some believe in the nurturing parent theory, others believe in the strong father theory.

u/alexandertwentytwo · 1 pointr/SandersForPresident

I'm being down-voted, but seriously. This isn't just once in a lifetime. We can repeat this. We have to. Electing Bernie once won't do much this first point . We need to sustain. We need a new generation of politicians like Bernie. That is the only way the liberal vision will survive.

George Lakoff has some great ideas on liberal language that people should read! Language is important! I'll post some links to his works. Incorporate them into your daily life. PM me and I might buy you the books. We need an awaking of liberal frames.

Little blue book annotations:

Seriously. The language of the debate is important. I'll be releasing a paper on language of Bernie vs Hillary soon. I'm not respected or good at writing, but I think it has a good few points on the language we use. It's more important that people think.

u/Decon · 1 pointr/politics

Reddit should read more George Lakoff. He said the same thing years ago.

Don't Think of An Elephant

u/TheBrainSlug · 1 pointr/unitedkingdom

>The only way to counter this is to use "fox news" tactics. Step one: Give this law a catchy nickname that will make people oppose it.

There's actually a best-selling book about those tactics:

u/shenglong · 1 pointr/

Everyone still puzzled by right-wing tactics in the US should read George Lakoff's Don't Think Of An Elephant.

Chapter 1 is especially relevant:

u/JudgeBastiat · 1 pointr/askphilosophy

Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction by Edward Feser is a great place to start.

u/bslorence · 1 pointr/Catholicism

Yeah my understanding is that classical theism doesn't hold much truck with ontological arguments either. I once attended a lecture in which a guy tried to defend Anselm's ontological argument to a room full of Aristotelian Thomists, and the ensuing bloodbath was not edifying.

Definitely check out Feser if you have a background in philosophy. He just came out with a new book for the not-so-much-of-a-layman.

(edit: fixed link)

u/deakannoying · 1 pointr/Catholicism

This is one of the primary reasons I enjoy Edward Feser's writings so much.

u/TheRandomWookie · 1 pointr/austrian_economics

I will read that book if you read this book.

u/stainslemountaintops · 1 pointr/Christianity

You should check out Edward Feser's books. He's a philosopher who specializes in Thomism and he has written several books about Thomist philosophy. His book Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide is a pretty clear introduction to Thomas Aquinas' work. If you're interested in the metaphysical aspects specifically, check out his book Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction.

u/GelasianDyarchy · 1 pointr/IAmA

You claimed that the double-slit experiment shows reality without a cause and that the behavior of the universe is statistical in nature.

I replied that this only proves that Aristotle and Aquinas were right that matter is potentiality and that material processes are necessarily indeterminate.

If you don't understand what I am talking about, you need to start looking into introductory texts in metaphysics and learning what they mean, rather than making bold claims about subjects that you admit to not understanding at all.

You might start here.

A simpler book.

u/Bounds · 1 pointr/Catholicism

>Also, where can I read more about Natural Law?

Edward Feser is very good at explaining it. Here's a blog post to get you started:

And if you want to read more, I'd recommend this book:

u/shackra · 1 pointr/Catholicism

/u/Hurrah_for_Karamazov, I'm still following the discussion, and I'm impressed, I'm already looking forward to buy this book to start somewhere on this topic of metaphysics.

Do not feel bad or hurt by the unnecessary and pointless mean things this folk writes in some paragraphs of his replies or get impressed by the things written to play the victim card, as you may know already, it only shows how much he needs Christ in his life (because, some happy person wouldn't use such resources in a discussion; obviously there is something wrong with the anger of this friend). This folk should be keep in our prayers.

Please do not give up! I'm learning a lot of things with this discussion!!

u/Dice08 · 1 pointr/Christianity

For 1-5, Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction by Edward Feser.

For 6 and anything else related to the basics of the Christian life, Christian history, or the church, I would suggest Introduction to Christianity by Pope Benedict the XVI (Joseph Ratzinger)

u/RunForWord · 1 pointr/Catholicism

Hey, sorry I never replied to this! Aquinas is who I read, primarily. And the philosophers in his tradition who come after him. I think he probably presents the strongest arguments, but to consider them for what they actually are, you have to have a basic understanding of Aristotelian metaphysics. You're probably not looking for this, but I would recommend these books, in this order:

The Last Superstition

Aquinas (A "Beginner's" [quotes mine; not all that beginner-ish imo] Guide)

Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction

The first one is a polemic, so beware. But it lays out a pretty decent modern cultural context for Scholastic metaphysics. That last one is especially good if you're interested in how science plays out in Thomism. The second one (and the bulk of the last one) though is kinda meaty technical stuff. But I think that series prepares you to understand the arguments of all different sorts of metaphysicians quite well.

It is a lot of work though. I won't deny that. It sort of pissed me off at first, but truth doesn't necessarily have to be easy to comprehend. Of course that's not to say that the difficulty of all this is meritorious or anything in itself.

u/MongolianCheese · 1 pointr/AsianMasculinity

Anyone read this book? This seems popular and probably written by a goblin. Honestly this is pseudo philosophy. Might as well just pick up "On Bullshit" to actually be a more critical thinker. This book smells like goblin piss.

>this book seems to have been written by an angry little boy that hates practically everyone simply because they don't hate everyone too. in his opinion, no one else should have an opinion unless you agree with him. if you want insight on what it must be like inside the twisted brain of a trump supporting xenophobic moron, this book is for you. if you listen to sarah palin and think she's not retarded, you'll love this book, but you may have to have your mom read it to you. if you're the sort of person that runs for president because god called you on the phone and told you to run, you'll appreciate this work. this book belongs on the shelf at the 700 club, your local kkk branch, and comes highly recommended by those westboro freaks.

Amazon reviews. Seems like the goblins had really came out FULL FORCE. Everybody we must mobilized or the battle of helms deep will come.

u/Ranarius_Webfoot · 1 pointr/owenbenjamin

They've been friends since Gamergate.

Milo also wrote the foreword for SJWs Always Lie in 2015:

Which was #1 Political Philosophy for a couple years off and on. Darn good book too.

u/dravornys · 1 pointr/JordanPeterson

Entryism. You can read about how they do this in this book. I'm not affiliated with the author.

u/GelfSara · 1 pointr/intj

In our defense, all SJWs are worthy of being cast into live volcanos--not just INFP SJWs. In fact--that's my newest crusade.

An INTJ-writ book, FWIW:

u/SaloL · 1 pointr/The_Donald

If you haven't yet, read SJWs Always Lie by Vox Day. He goes over their tactics and mentality and what you can do to protect yourself. Really short book, <$10 ebook, and entertaining read. Highly suggest it.

u/Man_or_Monster · 1 pointr/The_Donald

Start your blog back up and read SJWs Always Lie, the manual on how to deal with SJW attacks.

u/And_n · 1 pointr/The_Donald

I first heard the term "virtue signalling" on Vox Day's blog. I don't know if he originated it, but he did write a book about SJWs (and how to defeat them.)

u/Fur_hat_linux · 0 pointsr/europe

>Yes, buildings generally have to be in places. Saying that the made-up accusation against Canada, which is solely based on the fact that it is located in Canada, is in turn proven by that very location is a special kind of circular reasoning. What exactly is your Wikipedia link supposed to prove?

I am surprised you have trouble understanding that "a buildings location" can have a HUGE influence on what that building does. If the building of WADA is on Canadian soil, dont you think that the government of Canada would have a say on what goes on? And my accusation is not made up, given that I live in Canada and if you open the World News section of any major newspaper here in Canada it will be anti-Russian and even Trudeau has declared Russia as Canada's adversary. So to say that Canada would engage in dirty politics against Russia is not a long stretch.

>Then you're absolutely deluded. There are no propaganda sources directly run by the government in any Western country like there are in Russia. Before you embarrass yourself with "muh BBC", please look into the difference between publicly owned and funded vs literally run by the government.

Except all of the channels in America belong to people with influence in the Democratic Party. There is a good video on the topic, I will see if I csn find it later but for now read this:

Also, the media in Russia is private and is not government run.

>Ignoring that this is exactly the same kind of whataboutism you applied to doping, no, we have not discovered that. If anything the past year has seen some stellar investigate reporting in Western media. What are you talking about? Concrete examples with evidence, please.

Surely you remember the alleged Trump Russian collusion as was touted by the MSM, well that is fake news and was invented by the media.

Here are some more examples:

You are delusional if you think that publically owned media cannot be manipulated by the government. Noam Chomsky writes about how big of a problem it is in Manufactering Consent

>That does absolutely nothing to answer my question. Do you acknowledge that Russian athletes doped and that the Russian Olympic Committee orchestrated systematic doping? Yes or no?

I acknowledge that some Russian athletes may have doped, as they do anywhere. I remain unconvinced there was a systemic doping program. Convince me.

>Which you have yet to prove. And "every other country" is quite the assertion without any evidence.

I already provided evidence that Norway uses steroids in asthmatic nasal spray. You conveniently ignored it.

46% of athletes in skiing, not just russian have returned an abnormal blood test.

It is very common.

>No criminals should ever be punished because some criminals avoid getting captured?

No innocents should be blamed for someone planting fake 'evidence'. Thats why many of the medals 'stripped' of Russian athletes have been returned as there was no evidence of systemic Russuan doping. Seen in link above.

>Since you claim both of these things happen "often", I assume you can name multiple examples of each and have evidence for tampering for at least several of them?

Look above.

>In your link to some obscure right-wing conspiracy site, there is nothing but conjecture and assumptions.

They provide links to everything that is slightly controversial. In addition they make a claim that most of the medals were returned to Russia - that is true. My thumbs hurt from typing on the phone. Get off your lazy ass and go research itnyourself. Perhaps you will stop thinking that just because its a "known" resource its somehow reputable.

>Right wing

LOL. How does whether something is right wing invalidate it? Its the Lefties that always lie and fabricate stories.

u/yaku9 · 0 pointsr/unpopularopinion

Black Africans kept more slaves for themselves than were ever exported to the US.

Source: Thomas Sowell -

u/bookant · 0 pointsr/politics
u/DeathPony07 · 0 pointsr/pics

You don't understand sarcasm do you? Still waiting for you to tell what's incorrect in the video... You should read this book. Nazi literally means national socialist. Socialism is a leftist ideology and always has been.

u/mean_mr_mustard75 · 0 pointsr/politics

Is the desouza book popular?

Let's see:

Well, well, it's a best seller here on Amazon. Why wouldn't your library carry it?

Sorry your library may carry something you find politically objectionable. Maybe you should stop going, you might see a Glenn Beck book right next to the Al Franken book.

u/robbiedo · 0 pointsr/politics

Read the book "Listen Liberal" from noted conservative hell brand, Thomas Frank. There is lucid argument how the Democratic Party abandoned the "working class."

u/cyanuricmoon · 0 pointsr/Political_Revolution

>Obama had his cabinet picked by CitiGroup

Have to stop reading once you say something I know is bullshit. This is false.

If anyone wants a non-reddit, educated understanding of the topic at hand, please read "Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?". This is where Dems lost there way. And believe it or not, some of the blame is on the American people who fail to show up.

u/Gua_Bao · 0 pointsr/politics

I can't tell if this a bot response, or someone throwing their hands up in the air before even making an effort to have a discussion. If I'm not worth the time that's fine, but I do recommend that book. Here's a link. There are also plenty of interviews on Youtube where the author talks about details from the book. I promise it's all more worthwhile than talking to random dudes online for fake internet points.

u/OdilePrydwen · 0 pointsr/TheBlackList

The Gulag Archipelago - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

The Gulag Archipelago is Solzhenitsyn's masterwork, a vast canvas of camps, prisons, transit centres and secret police, of informers and spies and interrogators and also of heroism, a Stalinist anti-world at the heart of the Soviet Union where the key to survival lay not in hope but in despair.

Socialism of any type leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death.

- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Please don't forget, the Nazis were also Socialists, National Socialists. They were left, not right.

u/bewarethedinosaurs · 0 pointsr/worldpolitics

>Crack a book instead of clicking a Facebook link

No, you crack a book.

u/westlib · 0 pointsr/AskReddit

I second this.

Lakoff is a linguist. Don't think of an elephant should be required reading for every progressive.

u/kanuk877 · 0 pointsr/business

Yes and no.

If this advertising stuff was an isolated incident, then yeah you might call this article an overreaction.

But anti-male advertising is not an isolated incident.

Nathanson and Young have dedicated 1020 pages in two books (Spreading Misandry and Legalizing Misandry) listing and discussing misandry in our culture. Misandry is so pervasive in North America, most people don't even notice it.

But the anti-male advertising is so bad, people are noticing it. We only hear about it occasionally when someone bothers to ask around what people's sentiments are. Because getting upset when men are maligned... that's not PC.

How do you fight something like misandry? Part of the battle is calling people out when they cross the line. And you keep doing it until some semblance of balance is restored.

If you want to learn more about misandry, you can read the above mentioned books or Warren Farrell's "Women Can't Hear what Men Don't Say" or "The Myth of Male Power" are quite good. Farrell was a feminist and served on the board of the American National Organization for Women.

u/australianaustrian · -1 pointsr/SubredditDrama

This may surprise you but anarchists have arguments against standard social contract theory and believe it is invalid. The first 3 chapters of this book make a decent case against social contract theory (sorry I can't find the chapters online):

u/ctrlaltlama · -1 pointsr/europe

Black Rednecks and White Liberals Paperback – April 24, 2006
by Thomas Sowell
is a good book that goes into detail about the economic and cultural effects that create this sort of anti-government high crime areas. In it are an economic crime and education data that source it.

I think you can find a PDF version online somewhere if you don't want to buy it.

Edit: here is a Q&A where he covers some of the topics of the book if you just want to skip through it to the relevant section, to get a summary of the book.

here is a review that covers some of the content of the book if you want to look into the book before buying it.

u/Bouchnick · -1 pointsr/pics

> Also, why is it your assertion that a liberal mentality is a mental disorder? What makes it inherently wrong (in your opinion) to align one's views with a liberal agenda?

A good read would be this book, it gives a pretty good idea of why people call liberalism a "mental disorder".

From one of the reviews, I don't agree with everything said in this review (not all of it is even discussed in the book and some is blown out of proportion but whatever, I don't feel like writing a thousand word essay on the book, but some of the talking points of the book are in there to give you a rough idea:

> I won’t give the entire book away, but here are a few contemporary examples (some discussed in the book) as to why liberalism is a mental disorder:
> Feminists will say nothing about the mistreatment of women in Muslim majority countries (i.e., honor killings, female genital mutilation, stoning for adultery, forced marriages, divinely-sanctioned wife beatings, etc.) but will complain around the clock about President Trump’s “treatment of women.” How do you explain this? Liberalism is a mental disorder.
> The LGBT community will embrace Islam, hold rallies against “Islamophobia,” and invite millions of Muslim “refugees” to live in Western countries. The problem is that if these Muslims were to seize power in Western countries, they would murder the gays and lesbians and throw them down a well (homosexuality is forbidden in Islam). Why does the LGBT community unite with the Islamists who would destroy them? Liberalism is a mental disorder.
> The liberals, who are pro-women’s rights and pro-gay rights, support the “Palestinians,” who want to destroy the State of Israel, which is pro-women’s rights and pro-gay rights. Yet if the “Palestinians” were to invade Israel and drive the Jews into the sea, then women’s rights and gay rights would disappear from the Middle East. Why are the libs cheerleaders for Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Islamist groups? Liberalism is a mental disorder.
> The liberals in Britain allow the Islamists to hold rallies where they call for Sharia to replace English law, while banning critics of the Islamic jihad from entering Britain (e.g., Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Michael Savage, etc.). In other words, those who want to destroy Britain are given a free pass in Britain, while those who want to save Britain from future destruction are banned from entering the country. How do you explain this? Liberalism is a mental disorder.
> The liberals praise Yasser Arafat as a “freedom fighter” against the Israelis, even though, as Savage notes, “Arafat was a monster. This walking obscenity invented airline hijacking, hostage taking, school massacres, and suicide bombings. He kept the Palestinians in a prison of moral, spiritual, and economic poverty. He embezzled their money and, during his final years, skimmed more than $2 million a month to line his pockets.” (117). After Arafat’s death, the libs in the media eulogized him to the point that “you’d think this mass murderer was Abe Lincoln in a turban” or “George Washington reincarnate.” And Arafat’s “Hitleresque view of the Jews” was scrubbed from the media, too. Even Gerhard Schroeder, whom Savage calls “a socialist weasel,” said “it was not granted to Yasser Arafat to complete his life’s work” to which Savage replies, “What work? The annihilation of Israel?” Later on, Savage asks, “Why does the American media sit by silently, or worse, glorify this mass murderer? Because they hate the Judeo-Christian values upon which we as a nation were founded. Therefore, they vilify America and Israel and lionize vermin like Arafat.” (128) How do you explain this? Easy: Liberalism is a mental disorder.
> This is only scratching the surface. There are dozens of other examples one could give. Savage says regularly on his show that whenever you hear libs do or say something that baffles you to the core and for which no rational explanation is possible, then all you need to do to regain your sanity is to say “Liberalism is a mental disorder” and you’ll feel much better.

u/notacrackheadofficer · -1 pointsr/AmIFreeToGo

You contradict yourself, and seem to be in a trance where words mean different things. Antifa attacks people for filming, and for free speech.
You are deluded. All your debate points will be laughed at by me. Feel free to wall of text your nonsense that will be jeered at.
Anyone asking for anti hate speech regulations is asking to be told not to criticize the government or cops. That's how that works. ''I want the government to decide what speech is hate speech. WCGW?''
Fucking retarded. Read a history book.
''I hate bad cops'' is a sentence you want to be illegal. You want people sent to concentration camps for saying ''I hate the government''. That's how this works. You are literally asking Trump to regulate your speech. Holy disconnect Batman.
Fuck your desire for strict government regulations with violent ''or else'' punishments for those who say the ''wrong things''.

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:

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/TheFactedOne · -2 pointsr/nutrition

I don't know of any books, but there must be some out there. The book I read, that changed my life, and the way I look at studies today was this one:

It is called the "Vision of the Anointed". I can give you the synopsis if you want.

Basically, it comes down to, the plan is good, the people are to stupid to follow it. Ever get skin cancer? Blame it on yourself for not using sunscreen.


Are you to fat? Move more eat less, because it is your own fault that you are fat.

All of these things scream to me, the plan is good, the people are to stupid to follow it.

u/Krugmanite · -2 pointsr/law

Are you assuming that there haven't been large demographic shifts in the past 20-30 years where the American populace have sorted themselves along common areas of culture? Journalists and political science PhDs write books about this sort of thing (for example:

The people of the Northern Rocky Mountain states are substantively different from Californians, with different value sets, economic ideas, etc. How do you guarantee that decisions that affect those states aren't afflicted with a California flavor that is distasteful to those non-Californians?

u/BlackbeltSteve · -2 pointsr/houston

no, this is the cost of an American (Southern Scots Irish influenced) culture that embraces and celebrates violence.

"The paper tests the popular hypothesis that the high prevalence of homicide in the South of the United States originates from the settlement by herders from the fringes of Britain in the 18th century. I find that historical Scots‐Irish presence is associated with higher contemporary homicide, particularly by white offenders, and that a culture of violence was transmitted to subsequent generations—but only in the South and, more generally, where historical institutional quality was low. The interpretation is that the Scots‐Irish culture of honor prevailed and persisted as an adaptive behavior to weak institutions. As institutional quality converged between the South and North over the last 200 years, the influence of the culture of honor has been fading over time. The results are robust to controlling for state fixed effects and for a large number of historical and contemporary factors, as well as to relying on instrumental variables for historical settlements. The results are also specific to a particular type of homicide and background of settlers."

Read Thomas Sowell's White Liberals and Black Rednecks to understand how that culture has poisoned much of the southern underclasses, both black and white...

u/reddit_amnesia · -2 pointsr/The_Donald_CA

Please read:

"The big lie: exposing the Nazi roots of the American left by Dinesh D'Souza"

u/RPrevolution · -2 pointsr/news

For those curious about the root causes of government corruption and the solution, I recommend The Problem of Political Authority

u/ILOVEASIANCUNTS · -2 pointsr/owenbenjamin

645 reviews on a website people actually use to review books -

u/reiduh · -3 pointsr/Austin

Here's an update:
racist ahole developer electrician

And an upvote.

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.

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.


please leave America

u/sentientbeings · -3 pointsr/AskMen

Anarcho-capitalism. Read:

u/jahouse · -4 pointsr/Anarchism

For introductory purposes, it's best to read surveys of the literature and tradition, simply because there are many anarchist schools of thought and people often direct you to read books from the school to which they are sympathetic.

I recommend starting off with [Peter Kropotkin's 1909 essay for Encyclopedia Britannica on Anarchism] (

Next, I'd recommend [Men Against the State] (, a historical overview of the American Anarchist traditions, which were a kind of anarchist melting pot but admittedly skewed individualist (you could probably find a free pdf of this quickly).

These books should provide good introductions to various schools. After that, just pick up the books in whatever school suits your fancy and enjoy.

My biased recommendations are Wolff's In Defense of Anarchism and Huemer's The Problem of Political Authority. They are both works done by conteporary academic philosophers but written simply and without jargon.

edit: It would be wonderful if whoever downvoted my comment could explain why.

u/TheBerkeleyBear · -4 pointsr/IAmA

>an entire country wants to stay at war
I never said that; I was referring to the state of Israel, not the public of Israel. But thanks strawman-ing my argument, sardonically prove reductio ad absurdum, and then make fun of me. I appreciate it.

You didn't specify which point you wanted proof for, but I'll give you my favorites. Here's the evidence:
Byman-Do Targeted Killings Work?
Noam Chomsky-Sheer Criminal Aggression. with no Credible Pre-text
Noam Chomsky-Understanding Power

u/HereHaveADownVote3 · -4 pointsr/norge

Les og lær om nasjonalsosialisme, kommunisme, fascisme og sosialisme.
Denne glimrende boken er nå på 18 plass på Amazons bestseller-liste:

Boken er skrevet med tanke på den politiske situasjonen i USA, men den stemmer meget godt inn også på europeiske, for ikke å snakke om norske, forhold.

"Of course, everything [D'Souza] says here is accurate... But it's not going to sit well with people on the American left who, of course, are portraying themselves as the exact opposite of all of this." —RUSH LIMBAUGH

u/frozen_yogurt_killer · -4 pointsr/BlackPeopleTwitter

Go check out the book The Big Lie. American progressives loved the Nazis until they heard about the Holocaust.

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.

u/bass- · -6 pointsr/KotakuInAction

i checked and they are full of conservative people praising the book & there are no top reviews from liberals criticizing it.

[The Cost of Our Silence: Consequences of Christians Taking the Path of Least Resistance ] ( 4.8 stars

ERADICATE: Blotting Out God in America: Understanding, Combatting, and Overcoming the Anti-Christian Agenda 4.3 stars

Big Agenda: President Trump’s Plan to Save America 4.7 stars

The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left 4.6 stars

Rediscovering Americanism: And the Tyranny of Progressivism 4.7 stars

Understanding Trump - Newt Gingrich 4.8 stars

Dangerous - Milo Yiannopoulos 4.9 stars

most liberals have more work to do than write negative reviews for tripe that can be found on any facebook comment section. see, that is the difference ; most conservatives detest and loathe liberals while most liberals want to convince conservative to let progress happen.

but sitting and stewing in your echo chamber has made you believe that liberals are evil baddies

u/callesen58 · -6 pointsr/Denmark

Meget relevant bog til emnet:

Den definitive bog omkring SJWs, misandrister og lignende.

u/Lochleon · -7 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

This NYT piece explores that question pretty thoroughly, and includes a lot of outside links

This section is a decent summary:

>In other words, upscale voters were just as important to the Obama coalition as downscale voters. One consequence of the increased importance of the affluent to Democrats, according to Bonica and the three co-authors on the inequality paper, is that the Democratic Party has in many respects become the party of deregulated markets.

>“The Democratic Party pushed through the financial regulation of the 1930s, while the Democratic party of the 1990s undid much of this regulation in its embrace of unregulated financial capitalism,” the four authors write.

> They cite the crucial role of congressional Democrats in enacting the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, which eliminated past restrictions on interstate banking; the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999, which repealed the 1933 Glass–Steagall Act separating commercial banking from other financial services; and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which restricted government oversight of most over-the-counter derivative contracts, including credit default swaps — all of which played a role in the financial crisis of 2007-2009.

>The critique of the increased Democratic dependency on the rich by Bonica and his co-authors is modest in comparison to that of Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, political scientists at Princeton and Northwestern. In a 2014 essay, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens,” they analyze congressional voting patterns and conclude that

> >"The majority does not rule — at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose."

> >“These findings may be disappointing to those who look to the Democratic Party as the ally of the disadvantaged,” Gilens wrote in a 2012 essay published by the Boston Review:

It's going to be more slanted, but the Thomas Frank book Listen, Liberal charts the road the Democrats traveled from focusing on common welfare to catering to the needs of the upper-middle professional class.

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.

u/MilesofBooby · -8 pointsr/AskTrumpSupporters

So does this book:


But we can sit here all day and sling links back and forth. What do YOU think?

u/cruachanmor · -10 pointsr/Scotland
u/CURRENT_YEAR_2017 · -12 pointsr/vegas

This book explains the entire phenomena pretty well:

u/ReasonReader · -22 pointsr/IAmA

> This is really disingenuous.

Nope. It's entirely accurate. You're the one being disingenuous.

>it was a symptom of the white supremacism and hatred

You're a liar, but that's no surprise. SJWs always lie.