Best radical political thought books according to redditors

We found 141 Reddit comments discussing the best radical political thought books. We ranked the 28 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top Reddit comments about Radical Political Thought:

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/kinkykusco · 68 pointsr/bestof

If you want to invest a few dollars, there is an excellent collection of Osama Bin Ladens writings called Messages to the World - The Statements of Osama Bin Laden. The translations are apparantly excellent (I never went beyond first year Arabic), and a highly regarded scholar of religion, Bruce Lawrence, provides contextual information throughout.

No promises you won't end up on a watch list :-)

I studied Modern Middle Eastern history in College and have a shelf full of books that probably have put me on a list.

u/thats_not_a_feeling · 61 pointsr/books

Allow me to pitch a related book with a somewhat different angle on the..topic:

How Nonviolence Protects the State, By Peter Gelderloos

Despite the title it is the most rational discussion on "violence" that I have ever seen, going into great detail on how often the cries for pacifism within various politcal movements are at the very least hypocritical if not downright dangerous to the lives of many people.

(Gelderloos was heavily involved in the movement attempting to shut down the School Of The Americas, a training facility for south american "allies" that specialized in torture)

It goes into great detail on some of the political whitewashing in the last few centuries, in particular regarding MLK and Gandhi.

Its a well sourced booklet and ive yet to read a coherent rebuttal of the claims Gelderloos makes(oh have I looked)

edit:

here it is, for FREE:-D yay anarcho-something!

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-how-nonviolence-protects-the-state

u/James-t-rustles · 61 pointsr/news

This "professor" also wrote a book expounding the virtues of Venezuelan socialism. I wonder how much debt in student loans have gone to support this nutbar.

Edit: found the book on Amazon, the reviews are hilarious: https://www.amazon.com/Building-Commune-Radical-Democracy-Venezuela/dp/1784782238

u/Williamfoster63 · 44 pointsr/OutOfTheLoop

He wrote a whole book (or, well, a collection of essays and other stuff chronicling his lifelong anarchy support): http://www.amazon.com/Chomsky-Anarchism-Noam/dp/1904859208

He's one of the most well known anarchist thinkers.

u/minttea2 · 39 pointsr/The_Donald

His commie books are taking a hit on Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/Building-Commune-Radical-Democracy-Venezuela/dp/1784782238

"In Venezuela, poor barrio residents arose in a mass rebellion against neoliberalism, ushering in a government that institutionalized the communes already forming organically. In Building the Commune, George Ciccariello-Maher travels through these radical experiments, speaking to a broad range of community members, workers, students and government officials. Assessing the projects’ successes and failures, Building the Commune provides lessons and inspiration for the radical movements of today."

u/techwabbit · 27 pointsr/AskThe_Donald

> No Go Zones: How Sharia Law Is Coming to a Neighborhood Near You Hardcover – August 14, 2017

>
[Author: Soon There’ll Be No-Go Zones in the US]
(https://clarionproject.org/author-soon-therell-be-no-go-zones-in-the-us/)

Hell, even the monthly CAIR publications, offer "shari'a compliant Home Loans" If they didn't have Shari'a courts setup, then why would they publish/advertise Shari'a compliant Home Loans?

u/gec_ · 25 pointsr/TheMotte

I do think you're romanticizing and overestimating the extent to which other countries have a coherent 'natural' ingrained ethnic/national identity by so rashly describing
> Nowhere else in the world is your identity conferred through bureaucracy

I mean, read a book like The Discovery of France that talks about the mapping of France and construction of the French national identity by the government. Up to WWI, the majority of the population wasn't even fluent in French, all the little villages had their own dialects. Spain still has smoldering independence movements and unique languages besides Spanish, from in Catalonia to the Basque region. Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson is another great book that talks more broadly about the beginnings of the concept of nationhood, tying it in Europe to the rise of the printing press which enabled a national language for the first time.

And you mention India, which probably wouldn't even be a unified country if it weren't for the conquest under the British empire and subsequent independence. India is culturally and ethnically divided in the extreme, up to and including their caste system.


Not to mention the great success and relative stability of very divided multi-ethnic societies in countries such as Switzerland or Singapore in the first world. Many of these peoples have a longer shared history than the ethnic groups in the United States do, but I don't see why that makes a huge difference in terms of the strength of identity. In either case, the memory of that shared history has to be constructed anew for each generation. Our shared history up to this point is more than enough to serve as a basis to construct national identity on; these days few Italians or Irish descendants of immigrants have any other primary identity than 'American'. Imagining a shared national community such that it is a primary identity isn't easy but the American government has played a large part with mandatory public schools and other measures. Bureaucracy is a large part of forging national identity, no doubt, your mistake is thinking that this is isolated to America.


So your description of America as

> not a serious country

on these grounds says more about your unique antagonism to it than anything else. If America is particularly notable on these grounds it is that as a relatively young nation compared to many of these older countries, our national identity ambiguities and contradictions stand out more. You're doing a negative version of American exceptionalism, which I think is just as incorrect.

u/bigjince · 19 pointsr/blog

You should check out this book: How Nonviolence Protects the State

it's a polarizing book, but an insightful and thought-provoking one at that.

u/Doublefrosty · 15 pointsr/syriancivilwar

Interesting book by Michael Flynn;

> The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies

Also recommended (and this one is free) if you want to understand how the other side thinks:

> Destiny disrupted: History of the world through Islamic eyes by Tamim Ansary

u/FePeak · 14 pointsr/KotakuInAction

Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left Hardcover – September 25, 2004

Recommend reading it. Note how it was written 2004, and David Horowitz also manages JihadWatch.

It's extremely enlightening.

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/BuildAutonomy · 11 pointsr/Anarchism

Pacifism as Pathology by Ward Churchill

How Non-Violence Protects the State by Peter Gelderloos - PDF

Deacons For Defense are one of several groups of armed black Americans during the civil rights movement.

Orgasms of History

from riot to insurrection more of the theoretical side than history

See also: general strikes and the riots that accompanied them. The history of the labor movement, which is full of strikes that became riots. The timeline of the civil rights movement, in that it was only after the riots began that meaningful civil rights legislation began to be adopted, and even MLK knew that the only reason they were giving him a seat at the table after calling him a communist etc... was because of the riots forcing them to deal with the non-violent moderates of the movement and make concessions.

u/danshil · 11 pointsr/CanadaPolitics

This is a bit of a personal conspiracy theory, but may be related to the degree that Russia interferes with Latvia:

I have Latvian friend who speaks glowingly of Latvian mythology and culture, and out of curiosity I browsed to the Latvian mythology Wikipedia page following a chat with her. I read through it, and was struck by how much it focused on the idea that Latvia's national myths are a very recent phenomena. Like, I'm somewhat familiar with the work of Benedict Anderson, but this was a Wikipedia page with a tone that was just out of keeping with what I usually come across.

I have the oddest suspicion that the page has been edited by pro-Russian agents.

u/emonationalist · 9 pointsr/RightwingLGBT

>
>
>Amazon does, however, continue to sell the following works:
>
>Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto — the manifesto of a movement that murdered more than 100 million people, specifically targeting an entire class of people — the bourgeoisie — for destruction; for sale in many editions from the richest capitalist in the world
>
>Leon Trotsky’s Terrorism and Communism — a defense of political terrorism
>
>Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf  — also available in many editions — which is apparently less threatening to the current world order than my book.
>
>The Unabomber’s Manifesto — which does seem to create a moral hazard. Want to get your book published? Start mailing out package bombs. Kill three people and injure 23 others, and your book might also be fit to stock at Amazon.com.
>
>Valerie Solanas’ S.C.U.M. Manifesto — S.C.U.M. being an acronym for Society to Cut Up Men. Solanas published her manifesto in 1967. In 1968, she attempted to murder Andy Warhol.
>
>The Anarchist’s Cookbook — corrected and updated to make it extra lethal
>
>Osama Bin Laden’s Messages to the World mastermind one of history’s greatest terrorist attacks, and you too might be fit to stock at Amazon.com
>
>Voice of Hezbollah: The Statements of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah — apparently there’s a whole library of books by Islamist terrorists for sale at Amazon.com
>
>Theodor Herzl, The Jewish State — the blueprint of the Zionist movement, which spawned the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine through terrorism, ethnic cleansing, and wars that continue to this day
>
>Black Nationalist Manifestos by such writers as Marcus Garvey and Elijah Muhammad
>
>Everybody Talks About the Weather . . . We Don’t: The Writings of Ulrike Meinhof
>
>Ernesto “Che” Guevara, Guerrilla Warfare
>
>Al-Qaida’s Doctrine for Insurgency: Abd al-Aziz al-Muqrin’s “a Practical Course for Guerrilla War”

​

u/noxylophone · 9 pointsr/politics
u/cristoper · 8 pointsr/Anarchism

Here's a list I'm working on:

----

Online introductions:

  • The Wikipedia entry for libertarian socialism actually gives a pretty good overview.

  • An Anarchist FAQ also has good material -- it is especially good at differentiating traditional anarchism from US-style libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. You will find many references to other works in the FAQ.

  • /r/anarchy101 is a good place to ask questions. Check the sidebar for a list of recommended reading material.

  • If you're ever looking for specific works online, always check The Anarchist Library. They've archived many (mostly shorter) works, and they're available in several formats (html, pdf, epub).

    Books:

  • The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin. It is old, a classic, but it provides examples rather than formal/philosophic arguments so it is still quite readable and relevant today. It will give you a good idea of where modern anarchist communists are coming from.

  • A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn. This book is not explicitly anarchist, but it presents an accessible and scholarly picture of the way anarchists tend to view and react to the world. As the title suggests, it will be most interesting to anyone interested in the history of the USA specifically.

  • A book like Paul Eltzbacher's The Great Anarchists: Ideas and Teachings of Seven Major Thinkers which provides an overview of the various founding philosophers is a good idea. This is another old one [1908], but one advantage of Eltzbacher is that unlike most authors of anarchist texts, he was not an anarchist himself and offers a very unbiased introduction.

  • I think Peter Gelderloos writes clear introductory material. I've not read his latest (The Failure of Nonviolence), but you can read Anarchy Works online.

  • It's a bit outside the main thrust of the anarchist tradition (which is often focused on class struggle), but one of my favorite books is Crispin Sartwell's Against the State: An Introduction to Anarchist Political Theory which provides counter arguments to several justifications for states, especially the various contract theories.

    Other reading guides:

  • Phoenix Class War Council's Recommended Reading

  • Libcom.org's reading guide
u/wamsachel · 8 pointsr/Anarchy101

haha, instead of asking us, read what he was to say on anarchism

u/Calactic · 8 pointsr/ukpolitics


>No one did this, except Muslims in those areas wanting others to not feel welcome, like the guys who went around in Tower Hamlets accosting drinkers.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-no-go-zones-muslim-sharia-law-third-poll-hope-not-hate-far-right-economic-inequality-a8588226.html

https://www.amazon.co.uk/No-Go-Zones-Sharia-Neighborhood/dp/1621576809

What

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/DiscreteChi · 7 pointsr/Destiny

I recently read Building the Commune: Radical Democracy in Venezuela because of content creators I discovered through Destiny.

All the helping each other they discuss sounds terrible. It is no way to base a society. I mean where's the exploitation!?

u/WaitingForGabbo · 6 pointsr/askphilosophy

Uberto Eco's Ur-Fascism is a popular piece on fascism if you haven't read it already.

With regard to nationalism, Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities is a major book on the subject and has often been translated into new languages because of the threat of rising nationalism there as was the case with it's Hebrew translation.

Others might be able to give some more suggestions.

u/p90xeto · 6 pointsr/worldnews

If you haven't seen it, then you haven't been looking at all. It's a ridiculously common thing they say along with videos of conservative correspondents going to those areas.

Here is a guy who specializes in ONLY this talking point it seems-

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

Books on it-

https://www.amazon.com/No-Go-Zones-Sharia-Neighborhood/dp/1621576809/

Right-wing news articles-

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/22/four-signs-your-neighborhood-is-turning-into-a-no-go-zone/

Again, by all means criticize them but be intellectually honest about it.

>We had a post in /r/Canada that got brigaded, a picture of a refugee and his host, a woman.

Because the voting didn't go the way you'd like it was "brigaded"? This is a weak argument.


>Want to bet on if the responses were limited to saying "certain neighbourhoods" and "similar things"?

The typical argument made about Europe being a "war zone" is either terrorist attacks or no-go neighborhoods. Of course if you expand the discussion to general issues with Islam or immigration otherwise you'll get other responses but those are by far their biggest talking points on Europe being under siege or whatever.

u/justinmchase · 6 pointsr/politics

He wrote a book called On Anarchism:
http://www.amazon.com/Chomsky-Anarchism-Noam/dp/1904859208

Which I read and can confirm: he's an anarchist. Not marxist collectivist statist at all.

u/pigcupid · 5 pointsr/todayilearned

There's really no question about it. He has been an anarchist his entire life.

But to your second point, I can remember a conservative teacher complaining to the class about teaching Chomskian grammar, because she found his politics offensive, but couldn't discard his linguistic work.

u/sq7896 · 5 pointsr/The_Donald

I actually know exactly where you can find Trump's plan, don't tell the fucking idiot media tho, wouldn't want to strain their brains doing any deep investigative journalism like this

https://www.amazon.com/Field-Fight-Global-Against-Radical/dp/1250106222/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1479089165&sr=8-1&keywords=gen+flynn+book

u/stuffmikesees · 4 pointsr/TrueReddit

>So where did nationalism come from? Most historians view nations as “imagined communities” and that many of their traditions were “invented”

Yeah, they're called that because of the book written in 1983 by Benedict Anderson called Imagined Communities, which coincidentally is where essentially all of the ideas outlined in this post come from without any form of citation.

The book is actually quite good. You all should just read that if you're interested.

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/mcantrell · 4 pointsr/KotakuInAction

I really wish someone other than Vox day would, effectively, re-write this book. His name has so much baggage that you can't just hand a copy out to normies.

​

Looking at his related books... (Holy shit, linking these are a nightmare due to Amazon's tracking buillshit in the URLs)

https://smile.amazon.com/So-Youve-Been-Publicly-Shamed-ebook/dp/B00L9B7IRC/

https://smile.amazon.com/How-Trump-SJWs-Alinskys-Radicals-ebook/dp/B01JFOM1LM/

https://smile.amazon.com/Social-Justice-Warrior-Handbook-Millennials-ebook/dp/B074N6968P/

https://smile.amazon.com/Bullies-Culture-Intimidation-Silences-Americans-ebook/dp/B008GULMDK/

https://smile.amazon.com/New-Church-Ladies-Extremely-Uptight-ebook/dp/B06VVHV1DX/

​

Nothing short and to the point, but some good stuff there for normies to read.

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.

Enjoy!

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”
Link:

https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486

u/Keerected_Recordz · 3 pointsr/The_Donald

LTG Flynn's book - I've just started and find it very readable and plainspoken truth of the challenges to destroying ISIS and radical islamic terror.

The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies

It comes highly recommended by the Intelligence community and Gov't Officials, for example:
****
"General Flynn's The Field of Fight is as good an introduction to the long war we are in as any I have read. It is also a sobering and indeed frightening indictment of the intellectual dishonesty which has blocked our leaders from winning this war." --Newt Gingrich

u/suekichi · 3 pointsr/chomsky

This interview is transcribed in the book Chomsky on Anarchism.

u/tomtomglove · 3 pointsr/AskTrumpSupporters

that's one way to understand nationalism. here's the most influential book ever written on nationalism: https://www.amazon.com/Imagined-Communities-Reflections-Origin-Nationalism/dp/1784786756

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

https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486

u/Seifuu · 3 pointsr/NeutralPolitics

By my appraisal, in the US, it's largely


a) Jingoism trussed up as international policy.


US Americans are, culturally, one of the most nationalist and patriotic people. Because it is cultural, many Americans are unaware of it and assume that citizens of other countries are just as nation-focused.


Something that's important to understand is that the jigsaw puzzle of sovereign nation-states is largely a modern invention. It was pushed by land-owners and empiricists to further the strength of existing "nations" (like the UK) and give them justification for colonial holdings/future cultural imperialism (like Japan).


So, this is generally where fear of "Globalists wanting one world government, etc etc" comes from. People have been conditioned to believe in a competitive, invidious world state that really only came about in the last couple centuries and that, I might add, runs counter to the idea of a nation-state (which is a unity of people based on economic, territorial pragmatism, regardless of cultural differences, etc.). "Suppression of traditional cultural identities" refers to things like gay marriage, the non-denominational holiday greetings, etc. which are all White Christian culture finally being forced to give up its top position (which is why many non-discriminatory modern nationalists call for "White America").


b) An inherent feature of modern economies being blamed on the scapegoat of globalism


Basic, academic consensus economic theory teaches us that it is better to participate in a global market - allowing certain countries to produce or trade goods for which they are better equipped (i.e. bananas coming from tropical regions).


However (and this is the same fear as the one of automation), in the US, those benefits go to private businesses and then the government is supposed to tax those businesses and distribute those taxes as benefits to the people (oversimplification, I'm sure). Since businesses at that scale seemingly exist solely for profit, their structure requires them to try to avoid taxes and maximize income. Large businesses will continue to pour resources into successfully finding/squeezing through tax loopholes (because they're basically in a spending race against the US government) and smaller businesses might see modest expansion tethered by increased taxation.


In Western economies, that's basically the existing plutocracy increasing its capital aka "the rich get richer". Which is a natural consequence of the US economy in which the more capital you have, the more capital you can get. It's as true domestically as it is internationally - wealth disparity in the US was worse in the early 20th century, when isolationism was popular.


Reading this comic might give you a clearer picture on the rationale behind US populism. You'll notice the fear of international influence (China), the lack of belief in international regulatory or diplomatic solutions to exploitative business practice (moving of labor/production), and the mindset that any benefit to the existing hegemony is taboo. Not to say that there weren't/aren't legitimate grievances with this specific trade agreement, but they're muddled by omen.


It's Manichean us vs them, the USA vs other countries, the poor vs the rich - which pretty much defines populism. You can only have a group by defining who is and isn't part of the group - and if you make it "common sense" to act in the "group's best interests", then everyone who acts against your group must be acting against your best interest (rather than acting in their own interests, or to prevent negative consequences of your group's actions). Never stopping to ask if your group is actually acting in its own best interest or if those interests were even rationally defined in the first place.


Of course, that's also how things like FDA and EPA regulation got implemented. I'm not sure exactly where the line is between "slaughterhouse sanitation policies reduce risk of disease" and "the Chinese are coming to take my land and the Muslims are coming to kill us all". I think it's to do with significant, measurable risk vs nebulous potentiality.

u/Rikvidr · 3 pointsr/The_Donald

If anyone reading hasn't read Flynn's book yet, go buy it.

https://www.amazon.com/Field-Fight-Global-Against-Radical/dp/1250106222

u/INTPClara · 2 pointsr/INTP

I read a lot. I was in elementary school in the 1970s and it was all the rage back then to train kids in gifted programs in speed-reading, which my school did. I was the fastest reader, in fact I got a talking-to for speeding up the machine because it was going too slowly for me. :| I still read very quickly.

Most of the books I read have to do with religion and spirituality, like The Weapon, Resistance, The Four Last Things. Right now I'm deep into St. Faustina's diary. It's extraordinary.

In fiction I love classic literature, novels and short stories. Jane Austen, J.D. Salinger, Nathaniel Hawthorne. I have a particular taste for 19th century French writers: Honoré de Balzac, Gustave Flaubert, Victor Hugo. They motivate me to improve my French.

In non-fiction, I read about dog training and health, business, human nutrition and health, history and politics. Anyone struggling with weight loss might want to check out Dr. Jason Fung's The Complete Guide to Fasting: Heal Your Body Through Intermittent, Alternate-Day, and Extended - good info there.

Currently on my to-buy list:

u/benny_mack · 2 pointsr/The_Donald

I heard if you buy online books you can bypass the background check.

Can anyone confirm? Want to buy This based book

But I don't want to end up on a list and on my way to the Pentagon basement.

u/IncipitTragoedia · 2 pointsr/philosophy

Great list! Regarding the question of violence, I would add How Nonviolence Protects the State and Pacifism as Pathology because your list seems a slightly one-sided.

u/KaliYugaz · 2 pointsr/TrueReddit

> About half of them fit perfectly within your philosophy.

"About half"? That's supposed to mean anything? All political movements are going to share some attributes, including liberal ones, simply by virtue of them being political movements intent on taking power. Don't be dumb.

>You literally deny history, the deaths of millions, the murder of cultures, my own FAMILY being brutally killed.

I'm actually a very careful student of history, who is interested in parsing out what the Nazis genuinely believed and what they just put out in their propaganda. Instead of listening to some ghoulish Social-Darwinist hack rant into a lecture hall for 2 hours about Nazism, how about looking into a genuine work of academic analysis like Paxton or Griffin? Both would tell you that the pillars of fascism are collectivist nationalism, ethnic purity, and an obsession with domination. Collectivism is the only fundamental thing it shares in common with socialist and progressive thought.

It's a shame that most Peterson fans are basically academic illiterates. His "reading list" is literally just a bunch of high school stuff.

>Frankly, this thread is really fascinating and I'm looking forward to discussing it.

No you aren't, you literally abandoned every single line of substantive argument you had with me, then proceeded to Godwin the thread when it became clear you were losing. Your beliefs simply cannot stand up to rational scrutiny, and you know it.

u/xray21215 · 2 pointsr/CringeAnarchy

Read "Rules for Radicals". Its the political playbook of the modern age.

u/Disaster_Area · 2 pointsr/politics

http://www.amazon.com/Chomsky-Anarchism-Noam/dp/1904859208

The link will take you to a book of his. The book is about his personal anarchist views.

u/CellophanePunk · 2 pointsr/worldnews

The masses in Venezuela ARE smack in the middle of a revolution, which is exactly why the "international community" and capitalist press (not to mention the national bourgeoisie) have been so ruthless with them.

It's a little bit outdated but this is the best book I know on Venezuela. Also recommend following the news at www.venezuelanalysis.com

u/saqwarrior · 2 pointsr/Anarchy101

I thought you were talking about this book, which I refer to as "my Bible."

u/AfD126 · 2 pointsr/FragtAFDWaehler

Erst mal auf eine Definition einigen http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/rechtsradikal die Synonyme anschauen.
Und dann ist es ein klares Nein. Wie gesagt: Sozialismus ist links. Buch dazu: https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

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.
https://www.michael-klonovsky.de/acta-diurna

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

u/Internet_Veteran · 2 pointsr/The_Donald


  • The Creature from Jekyll Island
  • Righteous Indignation
  • No Go Zones

    Thanks for these recommendations. No Go Zones sounds interesting due to the title alone, I'll be looking into that one. The Amazon reviews sound promising, as well. The others sound like they're worth reading too, I'll add them to my list. Thanks!
u/cfmat · 1 pointr/politics

https://www.amazon.com/Messages-World-Statements-Osama-Laden/dp/1844670457

Feel free to try to get it pulled, Amazon has been selling it for over a decade now.

u/MegaMindxXx · 1 pointr/PoliticalHumor

Nope

The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left https://www.amazon.com/dp/1621573486/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_q2HoDbJFG0T0V

u/chaotic_zx · 1 pointr/Conservative
u/atomicoption · 1 pointr/GaryJohnson

whoa whoa, let's make sure we're talking about the same thing. WTF are you talking about "interpretation of those books"? What books are you talking about?

Are you talking about The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau? That book was written to debunk the claimed "divine right" to power that medieval monarchs claimed to have. I didn't say reading that book disabused me of social contract theory because it didn't.

Try reading Against the State by Crispin Sartwell. Here's the author giving an introduction to the book and himself. I'm not an anarchist, but their philosophical arguments are sound.

u/screwdriver2 · 1 pointr/politics

Ironic, since Noam Chomsky apparently considers himself an anarchist, and wrote a book called, "Chomsky on Anarchism."

http://www.amazon.com/Chomsky-Anarchism-Noam/dp/1904859208/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1324305240&sr=8-1

u/TheOneSenator · 1 pointr/2012Elections

If you guys agree with this and want a little more insight into Al Qaeda and the Jihadist Resistance in general I encourage you to read " edited by Bruce Lawrence. It's amazingly enlightening. You can preview it here.

http://www.amazon.com/Messages-World-Statements-Osama-Laden/dp/1844670457

I had to read it for a class I took and it changed how I look at a lot of things. It's definitely worth the time.

u/gabbagool · 1 pointr/AskReddit
u/elkengine · 1 pointr/britposting

> You have the wrong definition of fascism. This is another huge problem. I’m not getting anything mixed up...see below.

You are incorrect. You're using a bad definition from a bad source. You couldn't even use the baseline definitions outlined on regular wikipedia, you had to go to the more obscure simplified wikipedia? Which is, well, simplified? Quite literally intended for kids, and people who are still learning English and so can't understand wikipedia proper yet? And quite often bad, due to being fringe enough that community quality control doesn't hold up. And on top of that, this article in particular can easily be found to have quite a bit of controversy on both the talk page and in the edits, including frequent and outright misleading edits. Simplified wikipedia is a bad source for anything (unlike standard english wikipedia, which is fairly good), and even more so when it comes to political topics.

If you look at, say, the standard wikipedia article on fascism, here's the corresponding initial paragraph (my bolding):

> Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before spreading to other European countries. Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.

The traits and ideologies typically placed on the left of the traditional left-right spectrum are inherently opposed to the traits of fascism; anti-nationalism and marxism most notably. Now, there's certainly been ideologies that use left-wing rhetoric without actually using left-wing ideology or theory; fascists are one of those groups, as are right-wing populists in general. They often use the hardships the working class faces as a means to show that the ruling classes don't care about the working class, but then they twist that by changing what the ruling classes actually mean.

Look at Donald Trump, as a very clear and modern example. He wielded the plight of the rural working poor, saying that "you're losing your jobs and your farms and the elite doesn't care about you". So far that is correct - but then comes the twist: The elite aren't the ruling classes, but, from Trump's propaganda machine, certain specific politicians and "liberals" (in that weird and vague US sense of the word). He uses that to propel himself into presidency, despite being part of that ruling class that doesn't care about the coal miners or farmers. The same tactic has been used by plenty of right-wing populists, from Hitler to UKIP.

For more indepth analyses of fascism, I recommend cultural theorist Umberto Eco's essay Ur-Fascism and even more so historian Roger Griffin's book The Nature of Fascism.

u/SnapshillBot · 1 pointr/Drama

Providing a Community Safe from TITrCJ's Sexual Advances Since October 2015.

Snapshots:

  1. This Post - archive.org, [megalodon.jp*](http://megalodon.jp/?url=https://www.amazon.com/Building-Commune-Radical-Democracy-Venezuela/dp/1784782238/ref=la_B00BMT5ULC_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1491033413&sr=1-2#customerReviews "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!"), [archive.is*](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FBuilding-Commune-Radical-Democracy-Venezuela%2Fdp%2F1784782238%2Fref%3Dla_B00BMT5ULC_1_2%3Fs%3Dbooks%26ie%3DUTF8%26qid%3D1491033413%26sr%3D1-2%23customerReviews "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!")

    ^(I am a bot.) ^([Info](/r/SnapshillBot) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=\/r\/SnapshillBot))
u/TlZONA · 1 pointr/uncensorednews

[continued]

As an individual who spent more than a decade in academia, I was privileged to witness this war against Valentine’s Day up close and personal. Feminist icons like Jane Fonda, meanwhile, help lead the assault on Valentine’s Day in society at large. As David Horowitz has documented, Fonda has led the campaign to transform this special day into “V-Day” (“Violence against Women Day”) — which is, when it all comes down to it, a day of hate, featuring a mass indictment of men.

So what exactly is transpiring here? What explains this hatred of Valentine’s Day by leftist feminists and Islamists? And how and why does it serve as the sacred bond that brings the Left and Islam together into its feast of hate?

The core issue at the foundation of this phenomenon is that Islam and the radical Left both revile the notion of private love, a non-tangible and divine entity that draws individuals to each other and, therefore, distracts them from submitting themselves to a secular deity.

The highest objective of both Islam and the radical Left is clear: to shatter the sacred intimacy that a man and a woman can share with one another, for such a bond is inaccessible to the order. History, therefore, demonstrates how Islam, like Communism, wages a ferocious war on any kind of private and unregulated love. In the case of Islam, the reality is epitomized in its monstrous structures of gender apartheid and the terror that keeps it in place. Indeed, female sexuality and freedom are demonized and, therefore, forced veiling, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, honor killings and other misogynist monstrosities become mandatory parts of the sadistic paradigm.

The puritanical nature of totalist systems (whether Fascist, Communist, or Islamist) is another manifestation of this phenomenon. In Stalinist Russia, sexual pleasure was portrayed as unsocialist and counter-revolutionary. More recent Communist societies have also waged war on sexuality — a war that Islam, as we know, wages with similar ferocity. These totalist structures cannot survive in environments filled with self-interested, pleasure-seeking individuals who prioritize devotion to other individual human beings over the collective and the state. Because the leftist believer viscerally hates the notion and reality of personal love and “the couple,” he champions the enforcement of totalitarian puritanism by the despotic regimes he worships.

The famous twentieth-century novels of dystopia, Yevgeny Zamyatin’s We, George Orwell’s 1984, and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, all powerfully depict totalitarian society’s assault on the realm of personal love in its violent attempt to dehumanize human beings and completely subject them to its rule. In Zamyatin’s We, the earliest of the three novels, the despotic regime keeps human beings in line by giving them license for regulated sexual promiscuity, while private love is illegal. The hero breaks the rules with a woman who seduces him — not only into forbidden love but also into a counterrevolutionary struggle. In the end, the totality forces the hero, like the rest of the world’s population, to undergo the Great Operation, which annihilates the part of the brain that gives life to passion and imagination, and therefore spawns the potential for love. In Orwell’s 1984, the main character ends up being tortured and broken at the Ministry of Truth for having engaged in the outlawed behavior of unregulated love. In Huxley’s Brave New World, promiscuity is encouraged — everyone has sex with everyone else under regime rules, but no one is allowed to make a deep and independent private connection.

Yet as these novels demonstrate, no tyranny’s attempt to turn human beings into obedient robots can fully succeed. There is always someone who has doubts, who is uncomfortable, and who questions the secular deity — even though it would be safer for him to conform like everyone else. The desire that therefore overcomes the instinct for self-preservation is erotic passion. And that is why love presents such a threat to the totalitarian order: it dares to serve itself. It is a force more powerful than the all-pervading fear that a totalitarian order needs to impose in order to survive. Leftist and Muslim social engineers, therefore, in their twisted and human-hating imaginations, believe that the road toward earthly redemption (under a classless society or Sharia) stands a chance only if private love and affection is purged from the human condition.

This is exactly why, forty years ago, as Peter Collier and David Horowitz demonstrate in Destructive Generation, the Weather Underground not only waged war against American society through violence and mayhem, but also waged war on private love within its own ranks. Bill Ayers, one of the leading terrorists in the group, argued in a speech defending the campaign:

> Any notion that people can have responsibility for one person, that they can have that ‘out’ — we have to destroy that notion in order to build a collective; we have to destroy all ‘outs,’ to destroy the notion that people can lean on one person and not be responsible to the entire collective.

Thus, the Weather Underground destroyed any signs of monogamy within its ranks and forced couples, some of whom had been together for years, to admit their “political error” and split apart. Like their icon Margaret Mead, they fought the notions of romantic love, jealousy, and other “oppressive” manifestations of one-on-one intimacy and commitment. This was followed by forced group sex and “national orgies,” whose main objective was to crush the spirit of individualism. This constituted an eerie replay of the sexual promiscuity that was encouraged (while private love was forbidden) in We, 1984, and Brave New World.

It becomes completely understandable, therefore, why leftist believers were so inspired by the tyrannies in the Soviet Union, Communist China, Communist North Vietnam and many other countries. As sociologist Paul Hollander has documented in his classic Political Pilgrims, fellow travelers were especially enthralled with the desexualized dress that the Maoist regime imposed on its citizens. This at once satisfied the leftist’s desire for enforced sameness and the imperative of erasing attractions between private citizens. As I have demonstrated in United in Hate, the Maoists’ unisex clothing finds its parallel in fundamentalist Islam’s mandate for shapeless coverings to be worn by both males and females. The collective “uniform” symbolizes submission to a higher entity and frustrates individual expression, mutual physical attraction, and private connection and affection. And so, once again, the Western leftist remains not only uncritical, but completely supportive of — and enthralled in — this form of totalitarian puritanism.

This is precisely why leftist feminists today do not condemn the forced veiling of women in the Islamic world; because they support everything that forced veiling engenders. It should be no surprise, therefore, that Naomi Wolf finds the hijab "sexy". And it should be no surprise that Oslo Professor of Anthropology, Dr. Unni Wikan, found a solution for the high incidence of Muslims raping Norwegian women: the rapists must not be punished, but Norwegian women must veil themselves.

Valentine’s Day is a “shameful day” for the Muslim world and for the radical Left. It is shameful because private love is considered obscene, since it threatens the highest of values: the need for a totalitarian order to attract the complete and undivided attention, allegiance and veneration of every citizen. Love serves as the most lethal threat to the tyrants seeking to build Sharia and a classless utopia on earth, and so these tyrants yearn for the annihilation of every ingredient in man that smacks of anything that it means to be human.

And so perhaps it is precisely on reflecting yesterday's Valentine’s Day that we are reminded of the hope that we can realistically have in our battle with the ugly and pernicious Unholy Alliance that seeks to destroy our civilization.

This day reminds us that we have a weapon, the most powerful arsenal on the face of the earth, in front of which despots and terrorists quiver and shake, and sprint from in horror into the shadows of darkness, desperately avoiding its piercing light.

That arsenal is love.

And no Maoist Red Guard or Saudi Islamo-Fascist cop ever stamped it out — no matter how much they beat and tortured their victims. And no al-Qaeda jihadist in Pakistan or Feminazi on any American campus will ever succeed in suffocating it, no matter how ferociously they lust to disinfect man of who and what he is.

Love will prevail.

Long Live Valentine’s Day.

u/867-5309NotJenny · 1 pointr/politics

> I'm familiar with this popular understanding of what nationalism is but I'm saying it doesn't really line up with scholarship on the ideology and it's history. Read Nationalism by Anthony D. Smith or Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson in order to get a basic introduction to the subject as they're usually among the standard college textbooks used in relevant courses. I've said this elsewhere in the thread but nationalism at it's most base level is a belief in the existence of nations, nation states and the concept of self-determination. A nation is an amorphous political concept that can be based on a large number of things from a perception of shared ethnicity to shared geography to shared history. The basis for the creation of a nation is known as national identity. Practically every country in the 21st century , professes a national identity and when a country does this it is known as a nation state (the wikipedia article for this concept is fairly narrow as it focuses on states that tie national identity to ethnicity and all but ignores civic nationalism and to some extent left wing nationalism )

None of this is about how the word is used in a socio-political sense though. And there is a very good argument that the popular view is the current correct view of the word's meaning.

> The United States is a nation state as...

I agree with most of your 2nd paragraph, but I would argue that for most people it's an expression of American Patriotism.

> Nationalism is further reinforced by national symbols ... ...Thus displaying any kind of flag associated with a nation (state or otherwise) is a display of nationalist sentiment.

Or patriotic sentiment.

> With that out of the way let's go back to the Olympics. I stated that the modern Olympic games themselves were founded upon nationalism and the belief that athletic competition offered a healthy outlet for duking out national rivalries as an alternative to conflict.

Agree.

> hat is why the Olympics themselves are an orgy of national symbolism from the Parade of Nations, the fact that athletes represent their nations at all instead of themselves, the playing of national anthems at medal ceremonies, etc. etc.

Agree

> With all that in mind rooting for your nation's athletes at the Olympics is an expression of nationalist sentiment.

Disagree. Most people who participate in and watch the Olympics are more than ready to acknowledge when their country isn't the best at something, and when other countries do well. That's Patriotism when they root for their team under those circumstances.

> Here's a couple of articles I was able to find on the subject after a two second Google search since I don't feel like digging up old academic articles. Hell, here's the perspective of a Communist (i.e. someone who actually rejects nationalism since they believe in the dismantling of all states and national identities).

All three are opinion pieces. The Vox one is actually talking about patriotism, but has fallen into the Nationalism/patriotism 'synonym trap'. Communist countries officially reject nationalism, but in practice are just as nationalistic as every other country.

> Nationalism in and of itself has absolutely nothing to do with blind loyalty to a particular government although chauvinistic nationalism does indeed manifest itself that way.

Not completely blind, but it does encourage unhealthy behaviors towards others. That behavior isn't implied in patriotism.

> In fact nationalism isn't contingent on the existence of a nation-state

Correct. Post WWI there was a lot of nationalism from ethnic and cultural groups that hadn't had their own country in centuries. However, gaining a country was their goal. A good example actually is post-colonial Africa.

> government and doesn't even necessarily advocate for one.

Actually, they always do eventually.

> Just look at the history of Black nationalism in the USA of which only a few strands (known as Black Separatism) advocated the creation of an African American state.

One would argue that the factions not advocating for separate statehood were actually patriots.

​

u/bg478 · 1 pointr/politics

I'm familiar with this popular understanding of what nationalism is but I'm saying it doesn't really line up with scholarship on the ideology and it's history. Read Nationalism by Anthony D. Smith or Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson in order to get a basic introduction to the subject as they're usually among the standard college textbooks used in relevant courses. I've said this elsewhere in the thread but nationalism at it's most base level is a belief in the existence of nations, nation states and the concept of self-determination. A nation is an amorphous political concept that can be based on a large number of things from a perception of shared ethnicity to shared geography to shared history. The basis for the creation of a nation is known as national identity. Practically every country in the 21st century , professes a national identity and when a country does this it is known as a nation state (the wikipedia article for this concept is fairly narrow as it focuses on states that tie national identity to ethnicity and all but ignores civic nationalism and to some extent left wing nationalism )

The United States is a nation state as, like most every other modern country, it has a national identity. The key however is in defining what American national identity is. Trump and many of his followers likely understand American national identity to be rooted in whiteness and Christianity while most other Americans understand American national identity as being rooted in a form of civic (not ethnic) nationalism which embodies a shared sense of republican (not the political party but the system of government) ideals and essential freedoms. This is bolstered by a shared national culture that manifests itself in things like Thanksgiving which is based on and celebrates a national myth and was established with the express purpose of fostering a common national culture. Celebrating Thanksgiving is literally participation in American national identity and therefore an expression of American nationalism.

Nationalism is further reinforced by national symbols for example flags and national anthems. The concept of every nation (not only nation-states but stateless nations like the Ainu as well) having a flag is something something that emerged concurrently with the notion of nationalism because the newly emerging nations needed symbols to tie their identities to. Thus displaying any kind of flag associated with a nation (state or otherwise) is a display of nationalist sentiment.

With that out of the way let's go back to the Olympics. I stated that the modern Olympic games themselves were founded upon nationalism and the belief that athletic competition offered a healthy outlet for duking out national rivalries as an alternative to conflict. That is why the Olympics themselves are an orgy of national symbolism from the Parade of Nations, the fact that athletes represent their nations at all instead of themselves, the playing of national anthems at medal ceremonies, etc. etc. With all that in mind rooting for your nation's athletes at the Olympics is an expression of nationalist sentiment. But don't take my word for it! Here's a couple of articles I was able to find on the subject after a two second Google search since I don't feel like digging up old academic articles. Hell, here's the perspective of a Communist (i.e. someone who actually rejects nationalism since they believe in the dismantling of all states and national identities).

Nationalism in and of itself has absolutely nothing to do with blind loyalty to a particular government although chauvinistic nationalism does indeed manifest itself that way. In fact nationalism isn't contingent on the existence of a nation-state or government and doesn't even necessarily advocate for one. Just look at the history of Black nationalism in the USA of which only a few strands (known as Black Separatism) advocated the creation of an African American state.

As far as patriotism goes it's a tricky question but while not every display of patriotism is nationalism the vast majority are as they acknowledge the existence of or loyalty to a nation or nation-state and more often than not incorporate national symbols such as flags. Remember that a nation is not solely the government but the amorphous political body of individuals who share some common identity so when professing to "love a nation" someone could just as easily be talking about the people as opposed to the government.

u/Dormin111 · 1 pointr/China

This is such a stupid waste of time, but whatever, I'm having fun.

>Irrelevant since the Deep State runs the United States foreign policy cadre with no democratic input thus making US claims about "democracy" and "human rights" absolute bullshit.

This pretty much proves exactly the point I made about the failure of CCP-advocates to dissagregate societies. The two options aren't "universal societal support for a position" and "conspiratorial shadow government manipulating society." It's also possible that "the vast majority of Americans have never heard of Crimea and don't particularly care about it, so it's not a hotly debated issues in America." Now please tell me about the wide diversity of Chinese opinion on the Catalonian Indepencdence movement.

​

>Tibet independence is as irrelevant as Vermont independence and both have negligible search results.

I don't recall the American government sending the military into Vermont to conquer a land ruled by local Vermontans for thousands of years. Nor is there a Vermontan government in exile urging the restoration of its independent state. (And I don't even like Tibetan government.)

But just for the hell of it, I googled, "the case for Vermont Independence," and holy shit, it has its own wikipedia page and book and everything. Here ya go, some light reading -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vermont_Republic

https://www.amazon.com/Most-Likely-Secede-Independence-Reclaiming/dp/1603585028

Now please show me the Baidu results for any domestic Chinese independence movement. Any at all.

u/Tendrilpain · 1 pointr/news

well if your really interested but uh yeah that will definitely get you on a list.

It broadly breaks down like this. Bin laden believed non islamic influence was responsible for everything wrong with the world, that there was a global conspiracy against Islam. To fix this he wanted to drive out what he called the 'Crusader-Zionist-Hindu' conspiracy from Muslim controlled regions.

Once that was done these nations free from non Islamic influence and following the "true" teachings of Islam would establish a single unified caliphate which would herald the coming of one last holy war.

9/11 wasn't about starting the end times, Bin Laden believed the world was already in the end times hence the necessity to resurrect the Caliphate to fight against the romans.

u/gayotzi · 1 pointr/AskAnthropology

Not totally accurate, but if you’re looking for popular science/entertainment that’s somewhat anthropology related.... Kathy Reichs is a board certified forensic anthropologist and has written a lot of books. They (she) are what the TV show Bones was based on.

Stiff by Mary Roach is a good one

For nonfiction, and if you’re interested in things highly relevant politically now, these are some incredible works on immigration.

Becoming Legal
They Leave Their Kidneys in the Fields

I’m pretty sure this author is a sociologist, but still a great book. imagined communities

u/mnemosyne-0002 · 1 pointr/KotakuInAction

Archives for the links in comments:

u/GoBSAGo · 1 pointr/politics

[I wish it were nothing](The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left https://www.amazon.com/dp/1621573486/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_V1TNzbFDHQPZW)

u/Alt_Right_is_growing · 1 pointr/altright

For the unaware: www.amazon.com/Rules-Radicals-Pragmatic-Primer-Realistic-ebook/dp/B003T0G9GM

u/loverollercoaster · 1 pointr/worldnews

This appears to just be the official US Government translations of already public material.


You can buy an English translation of all the publicly released Bin Laden statements up to 2004 with good footnotes from any decent bookstore. It's called Messages to the World

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/RockeyeMK20 · 1 pointr/AskThe_Donald

If it's a ridiculous equivalence it should be super easy to refute it. But... it's a popular position.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N39W2DI/

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. https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486

u/intensely_human · 0 pointsr/news

How is that a "straw man"? For it to be a straw man fallacy, 123 would have to be involved in some kind of debate, which he is not. 123 has only made a simple statement, distorted slightly by sarcasm but still easily interpretable.

A straw man takes the form of "well you people think A, which is absurd because XYZ", when in fact nobody has been claiming A. That's a straw man.

Absolutely nothing about what 123 did is a straw man fallacy. Absolutely nothing about what 123 did is any type of fallacy. He called out Noam Chomsky, who is in fact an humanist, for not having spoken up on the situation.

> In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies. By and large, I am opposed to those policies. As is most of the population.

-- Noam Chomsky


> The intellectual tradition is one of servility to power and if I didn’t betray it I’d be ashamed of myself

-- Noam Chomsky


> Education must provide the opportunities for self-fulfillment; it can at best provide a rich and challenging environment for the individual to explore, in his own way.

-- Noam Chomsky

> The only justification for repressive institutions is material and cultural deficit. But such institutions, at certain stages of history, perpetuate and produce such a deficit, and even threaten human survival.

-- Noam Chomsky, ibid

u/mean_mr_mustard75 · 0 pointsr/politics

Is the desouza book popular?

Let's see:

https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1517606494&sr=8-1&keywords=the+big+lie+dinesh+dsouza

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/TheTowelBoy · 0 pointsr/CODZombies

No, sadly you remember wrong. Fascism is far-right on the political spectrum. Here's some material if you want to read up:

https://www.amazon.com/Nature-Fascism-Roger-Griffin/dp/0312071329

https://www.amazon.com/Fascism-Reader-Routledge-Readers-History/dp/0415243599

u/mikeygio · -1 pointsr/newjersey

>Four Trump Affiliates Spied On

>Thanks to the work of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Judiciary Committee, Americans already learned that the FBI had secured a wiretap on Carter Page, a former Trump campaign official. That wiretap, which was renewed three times, was already controversial because it was secured in part through using the secretly funded opposition research document created by the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee. The secret court that grants the wiretap was not told about Hillary Clinton or the DNC when the government applied for the wiretap or its renewals.

>Now we learn that it wasn’t just Page, but that the government was going after four campaign affiliates including the former campaign manager, the top foreign policy advisor, and a low-level advisor whose drunken claim supposedly launched the investigation into the campaign. The bureau says Trump’s top foreign policy advisor and future national security advisor — a published critic of Russia — was surveiled because he spoke at an event in Russia sponsored by Russia Today, a government-sponsored media outlet.

source

GP wasn’t the only target.

What’s scary is that Loretta Lynch signed the FISA warrants, warrants that were issued based on fake information in the Steele Dossier. Lynch, being the AG, is one degree away from the President of the United States. This is going all the way to the top.

u/Tehdo · -1 pointsr/geopolitics

Chomsky has written quite a few books perfect for people with your goals. His books are intentionally easy to read while providing tremendous depth. Here's a foothold for you:

http://www.amazon.com/Year-501-The-Conquest-Continues/dp/1608464075

u/BravoTangoFoxObama · -2 pointsr/politics

Trump's main surrogate on this point actually has a well-laid out plan for addressing ISIS:

The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies by Michael Flynn

https://www.amazon.com/Field-Fight-Global-Against-Radical/dp/1250106222

>"The Field of Fight is a book worth reading by anyone concerned about the future security of America. It is both an engaging personal memoir by a great American soldier and military intelligence officer, General Mike Flynn, and a strategic plan by General Flynn of how to win the global war against radical Islam and its big power supporters. The leaders of the next American administration would benefit from reading The Field of Fight. --Senator Joseph Lieberman"


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"

https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486

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:

https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486

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/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 ] (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1622452712) 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/MilesofBooby · -8 pointsr/AskTrumpSupporters

So does this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486

​

But we can sit here all day and sling links back and forth. What do YOU think?